▁Court ▁held ▁that ▁" the ▁State ▁[ must ] ▁support ▁its ▁alleg ations ▁by ▁at ▁least ▁clear ▁and ▁convin cing ▁evidence ." ▁ ▁D issent ing ▁opinion ▁The ▁diss ent , ▁written ▁by ▁Justice ▁Re hn qu ist , ▁opposed ▁the ▁r uling ▁of ▁the ▁Court ▁on ▁two ▁main ▁points : ▁matters ▁of ▁family ▁law ▁should ▁be ▁left ▁to ▁the ▁states , ▁and ▁that ▁the ▁Court ' s ▁analysis ▁was ▁too ▁narrow . ▁While ▁the ▁diss ent ▁agreed ▁with ▁the ▁Court ' s ▁determ ination ▁that ▁parents ▁have ▁a ▁due ▁process ▁right , ▁they ▁disag re ed ▁in ▁the ▁application ▁of ▁Mat he ws ▁v . ▁E ld ridge . ▁Qu oting ▁that ▁case , ▁the ▁diss ent ▁clar ified ▁stating , ▁" subst ant ial ▁weight ▁must ▁be ▁given ▁to ▁the ▁good ▁faith ▁jud g ments ▁of ▁the ▁individuals ▁[ admin ister ing ▁a ▁program ] ▁... ▁that ▁the ▁procedures ▁they ▁have ▁provided ▁ass ure ▁fair ▁consideration ▁of ▁the ▁... ▁claims ▁of ▁individuals ." ▁The ▁diss ent ▁further ▁argued ▁that , ▁by ▁foc using ▁narrow ly ▁on ▁only ▁the ▁bur den ▁of ▁proof ▁in ▁the ▁stat ute , ▁the ▁majority ▁failed ▁to ▁take ▁into ▁account ▁the ▁fair ness ▁of ▁New ▁York ' s ▁scheme ▁as ▁a ▁whole . ▁ ▁Sub sequ ent ▁develop ments ▁By ▁the ▁early ▁ 1 9 9 0 s , ▁all ▁states ▁previously ▁using ▁the ▁" f air ▁pre ponder ance " ▁standard ▁had ▁adapted ▁to ▁using ▁the ▁" clear ▁and ▁convin cing " ▁standard ▁in ▁term ination