History Of Juvenile Courts

Juvenile Courts in the United States find their origins in English custom and law. As early as the 16th century, poor laws and chancery courts were meant to protect minors, either through allowing the government to take custody, or protect their property rights respectively. These actions were justified by the legal philosophy parens patriae, which holds that the government is the true guardian of the needy and infirm, including dependent children, which gives the government authority to act on behalf of a child. This philosophy was the original guiding principle that the juvenile system held at the turn of the 20th century, although the juvenile system began to shift back towards crime control and the adult system during the late 20th century.

Prior to 1899, there was no independent juvenile court system. Rather, organizations such as the Children’s Aid Society and the New York House of Refuge would care for wayward children. Delinquents were still tried in adult courts and treated in a very similar manner to adults. However, with the passage of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, an independent court was established to handle violations of criminal law by children under 16. The Act laid the framework to separate juveniles from adult offenders and help juveniles get adequate care and custody. This led to a mass movement by states, and by 1925, the vast majority of states had established juvenile courts.
During the time period of 1899-1950, the philosophy of parens patriae dominated the courts. However, the courts were not perfect. Modern scholars view them as tools for the upper classes to control and punish lower class youths for not conforming to societal norms. Thus, the juvenile courts perpetuated class conflict along with pursuing the best interests of the child as they saw fit. Legal doctrines were overlooked in the hope of creating a paternalistic environment.
Over the subsequent 10-20 years, experts began to realize the deficiencies in the system.

The rehabilitation model and parens patriae failed to prevent delinquency, and so the courts began to shift their methods to suit the times. The Supreme Court handed down a series of decisions in the 1960s and 1970s providing due process rights to juveniles. Some of the rights involved included right to counsel, a right to confront witnesses, and a notice of charges. Congress also took action during this time period, passing the JJDP Act in 1974. This law granted funding to juvenile justice programs, and enforced deinstitutionalization of status offenders and non-offenders, mandating that delinquents not be held with adult

offenders.
The next shift in the juvenile courts took place from 1980-2000.

With increased media coverage of violent juvenile behavior, legislators began to pass laws to toughen up on juvenile crime. Many laws made it easier to waive juveniles into adult courts, or even exclude juveniles who had committed serious crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction. Furthermore, the sentences to be handed out for offenders were lengthened and made much more severe. As a result, the juvenile courts began to resemble the adult courts. Yet, this movement’s influence began to fade, and by the turn of the century, another shift had occurred. In the current juvenile courts, a balanced approach is emphasized. While the court deals with chronic and dangerous offenders with a heavy hand, needy youth who need help to get back on track are still assisted under the parens patriae philosophy. Restorative justice has come to be the preferred method of today’s juvenile courts. In an overall sense, the modern juvenile court has taken on a paternalistic view similar to parens patriae towards youths who are in need of guidance, while punitively punishing offenders who do not respond to the helping hand extended to

them.