In general, the Burger Court has found both factual and legally premised bases for siding with the State's interest in both delinquency and education cases that outweighed the child's right to substantive due process. In deciding cases involving State conduct (such as the extent of hearing requirements), the Court relied on the neutrality, competence, and professionalism of the State in upholding its action. In many cases, the Court has held that even when due process applies, only minimal procedural protection is required. It has founded these decisions in the name of rehabilitation and/or parens patria, although it has never sanctioned punitiveness. Despite criteria set by the Burger Court for balancing the State's and the child's interests, the Court's assumption that the State is benevolent, despite a record to the contrary, suggests that the rights of children may not be upheld. 30 footnotes.