▁proceed ings . ▁New ▁York , ▁among ▁other ▁states , ▁did ▁not ▁apply ▁the ▁elev ated ▁bur den ▁of ▁proof ▁to ▁the ▁fact - find ing ▁phase ▁of ▁the ▁proceed ings , ▁but ▁rather ▁only ▁to ▁the ▁term ination ▁proceed ings . ▁The ▁Colorado ▁Supreme ▁Court , ▁conduct ing ▁its ▁own ▁Mat he ws ▁test , ▁found ▁that ▁such ▁a ▁bur den ▁need ▁not ▁be ▁applied ▁to ▁the ▁fact - find ing ▁portion ▁of ▁the ▁case . ▁In ▁the ▁ 1 9 9 0 s , ▁California , ▁a ▁state ▁that ▁had ▁previously ▁used ▁the ▁clear ▁and ▁convin cing ▁standard , ▁lower ed ▁its ▁bur den ▁in ▁term ination ▁proceed ings . ▁The ▁constitution ality ▁of ▁this ▁scheme ▁was ▁challeng ed ▁and ▁brought ▁before ▁the ▁California ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁in ▁ 1 9 9 3 . ▁The ▁court ▁specifically ▁rejected ▁Santos ky , ▁cit ing ▁substantial ▁differences ▁between ▁California ' s ▁procedures ▁and ▁New ▁York ' s ▁in ▁Santos ky , ▁and ▁u ph eld ▁the ▁constitution ality ▁of ▁the ▁stat ute . ▁ ▁Seven ▁years ▁after ▁the ▁Santos ky ▁decision , ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁held ▁in ▁Price ▁Water house ▁v . ▁Hop kins ▁that ▁Santos ky ' s ▁higher ▁bur den ▁of ▁proof ▁is ▁an ▁exception ▁to ▁the ▁" con vent ional ▁rules ▁of ▁civil ▁lit ig ation ▁[...] ▁that ▁parties ▁to ▁civil ▁lit ig ation ▁need ▁only ▁prove ▁their ▁case ▁by ▁a ▁pre ponder ance ▁of ▁the ▁evidence ." ▁The ▁Court ▁later ▁extended ▁Santos ky ''' s ▁finding ▁of ▁government