word “outweigh” in the statutory definition of “substantial evidence” refers to the clear and convincing burden of proof, and not the preponderance of the evidence standard because, only by adopting this conclusion can the Law protect a person’s fundamental right to his or her reputation. If I were to conclude that the General Assembly intended for the word “outweigh,” as used in the Law, to refer to the lowest possible burden of proof, then I also would have to conclude that the General Assembly intended to deprive accused persons of a fundamental right without due process. As explained, I must presume that the legislature’s intent was otherwise because, quite simply, where fundamental rights are involved, the lowest burden of proof does not suffice to afford due process. Cf. Santosky (<HOLDING>). Thus, to the extent that DPW applied a lesser
holding that due process allows parental rights to be terminated only upon clear and convincing evidence of unfitness recognizing that the department is required to present clear and convincing evidence to support termination of a parents parental rights holding that the clear and convincing standard provides appropriate due process in cases involving parental rights holding that in a proceeding to terminate parental rights the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof violates the due process clause and that due process requires at least a clear and convincing evidence standard holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied