▁appe aled , ▁and ▁the ▁App ell ate ▁Division ▁of ▁the ▁New ▁York ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁aff ir med ▁the ▁r uling ▁of ▁the ▁Family ▁Court . ▁Their ▁next ▁appeal ▁to ▁the ▁New ▁York ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁was ▁dismiss ed ▁as ▁lack ing ▁a ▁substantial ▁constitution al ▁question . ▁The ▁Santos k ys ▁appe aled ▁again , ▁and ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁granted ▁cert ior ari . ▁ ▁At ▁or al ▁argument , ▁Martin ▁G ug gen heim ▁argued ▁for ▁the ▁pet ition ers ▁that ▁the ▁bur den ▁of ▁proof ▁under ▁New ▁York ▁law ▁was ▁un const itution al , ▁stating ▁"[ T ] he ▁Constitution ▁requires ▁that ▁the ▁find er ▁of ▁fact ▁be ▁reason ably ▁convinced ▁that ▁the ▁result ▁of ▁permanent ▁destruction ▁of ▁the ▁family ▁is ▁appropriate ▁before ▁the ▁state ▁may ▁force ▁such ▁an ▁ir rev oc able ▁and ▁fundamental ▁dep riv ation ▁of ▁liberty ▁on ▁an ▁individual ." ▁Res pond ents ▁argued ▁that ▁raising ▁the ▁bur den ▁of ▁proof ▁would ▁not ▁have ▁affected ▁the ▁outcome ▁of ▁the ▁case , ▁and ▁that ▁" if ▁the ▁Court ▁should ▁raise ▁the ▁bur den , ▁it ▁would ▁fr ustr ate ▁a ▁specific ▁intent ▁of ▁the ▁legisl ature ." ▁ ▁Op in ion ▁of ▁the ▁Court ▁ ▁Writing ▁for ▁a ▁majority ▁of ▁the ▁Court , ▁Justice ▁Harry ▁Black mun ▁held ▁that ▁natural ▁parents ▁have ▁a ▁right ▁to ▁due ▁process ▁under ▁the ▁Four teenth ▁Am end ment , ▁and ▁that ▁the ▁bur den ▁of ▁proof ▁used ▁by ▁New ▁York ▁State ▁is ▁not ▁string