When deciding whether to terminate parental rights, some argue that a "clear and convincing" standard gives abused children too little protection. They would advocate a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. On the other hand, parent advocates argue that termination of parental rights is such a final determination that parents should be judged unfit only if the court can find them so "beyond a reasonable doubt." Which standard do you think best balances the needs of the children and the parents? Fully explain