The Juvenile Court Process

2012 ◽  
pp. 203-242
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
pp. 203-241
Author(s):  
John T. Whitehead ◽  
Steven P. Lab
Keyword(s):  

2022 ◽  
pp. 195-228
Author(s):  
John T. Whitehead ◽  
Steven P. Lab
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
pp. 287-319
Author(s):  
Peter C. Kratcoski ◽  
Lucille Dunn Kratcoski ◽  
Peter Christopher Kratcoski
Keyword(s):  

1965 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-174
Author(s):  
Margaret K. Rosenheim ◽  
Daniel L. Skoler

The coming increase in attorney representation of children in juvenile court cases requires careful analysis of the lawyer's role at each major stage of the juvenile court process. Intake and detention are preliminary stages of considerable importance, in volving determinations as to which cases shall be referred for formal disposition and which cases require secure custody of the child pending hearing. Lawyers can play both traditional and special "defense counsel" roles in these stages.


1973 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 599-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Mnookin

Under existing law, judges have wide discretionary authority to remove "neglected"children from their natural parents and place them in state-controlled foster care. The children are for the most part from poor families. The author describes the process by which the state can coercively remove children from their parents, and he analyzes the best interests of the child test, the legal standard courts usually employ to decide whether a neglected child should be removed from parental custody. He suggests that this standard requires predictions that cannot be made on a case by case basis and necessarily gives individual judges too much discretion to impose their own values in deciding what is best for a child. While critical of the procedural informality of the current juvenile court process, he believes additional procedural safeguards for children and their parents are in themselves unlikely to remedy the situation. He goes on to propose a new standard to limit removal to cases where there is an immediate and substantial danger to the child's health and where there are no reasonable means of protecting the child at home. In addition, a standard is proposed to ensure that prompt steps are taken to provide children who must be removed with a stable environment.


1966 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lenore R. Kupperstein ◽  
Ralph M. Susman
Keyword(s):  

1976 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 456-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard Abadinsky

Despite its failure to live up to its high aspirations and goals, the juvenile court continues to retain jurisdiction over status offenses. Retention of this jurisdiction is predicated on the "need" for the court's coercive power. The juvenile court process stigmatizes children, and the treatment it provides is both costly and ineffective. The court should reduce the number and narrow the categories of young persons now subject to its coercion, at the same time that it intensifies research efforts. Alternatives to the juvenile court that are utilized in Scandinavia and some other countries should be used in the United States for status offenders.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document