View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

$ .'Ä ü

H o.9 9

U . S. D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R
JA M E S J . D A V IS . Secretary


Monograph prepared for the Children’s Bureau




Bureau Publication N o. 9 9


3 6

«2- * *7

Digitized Ufor
* *3 ^ ^
& 9 9Bank
" of St. Louis
Federal Reserve

O w in g

t o l im it e d a p p r o p r ia t io n s f o r p r in t in g

MENTS, G o v e r n m e n t P

r in t in g

a s h in g t o n ,

D . C.


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

O f f ic e

$ 9 9


Letter o f transmittal
:________________ j ___ _____________ _______ _jjjt . f "___ I
Forew ord_________________________________________ >_^_____ ¡¿L_______________ _




Fundamental principles__________________________________________
Constitutionality of statutes_____________________ ______ ______________ _______
Organization o f the court_________ ______ ________________ ,i________ ___________ 12-14
The court given jurisdiction____________________________________
The ju d g e----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
The probation officers___ 1_______________ ,____ ________ ____________________
Jurisdiction over m inors_______1______________ ______ ____ _ _ ______ ___________ 14-19
Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction___________ :__________________ __ ^
Jurisdiction as to age___________ i _______________ ____ ___16
Jurisdiction as to classes of cases______________ ._____ __________ ]______
Jurisdiction over adults____________ _____________ ____________________________
Legal effect o f proceedings_______j _____________ _____________________________ 25-28
Review by appellate courts_____________________
Use of evidence in other trials___________________________________________
Effect of proceedings upon status o f child_________________ !____________
The future o f the court__._______________________ ______________________________
Addendum— The Moreland c a se _____________________ ._________________________
Appendix------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- :________31.37
Table of cases_________________________________________ ____________________
In d e x -------------------------------- -----------------------e.------------------_______ _________________

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis





e p a r t m e n t of



C h i l d r e n ’s B


Washington, November 22,1921.
S i r : Herewith I transmit a report on The Legal Aspect o f the
Juvenile Court, by Bernard Flexner and Reuben Oppenheimer, the
third o f a series o f juvenile-court monographs which will supplement
the bureau’s studies o f the courts.
Mr. Flexner is a distinguished lawyer who has brought net only
legal skill but also great interest in the care o f children to his years
o f study o f the juvenile-court movement. Juvenile Courts and
Probation, o f which he is a joint author, is the standard reference on
that subject.
In this monograph the authors have assembled and analyzed the
decisions rendered on legal questions raised in connection with the
courts up to August 1, 1921, in a way which it is believed will prove
o f real value to the interested public as well as to professional workers
in this field.
It will be observed that throughout the monograph comments‘are
made on the policy o f the juvenile court. In order that the mono­
graph might have the greatest practical value the authors found it
essential, in the examination o f authorities, that consideration be
given to questions of policy.
Respectfully submitted.
G race A
H on. Jam es J. D



a v is ,

Secretary of Labor.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


The principles underlying juvenile-court legislation are not new.
While in some instances these principles have been greatly extended,
their source is the common law, the juvenile court being a growth in,
rather than a departure from, legal theory.
The conception that the State owes a duty o f protection to chil­
dren that it does not owe to adults was established b.y the old courts
o f equity. From the earliest times children have been regarded as
the wards o f chancery. The crown was parens patriae and exercised
its prerogative to aid unfortunate minors through the great seal.1
Generally the chancellor acted only when a property right was in­
volved, but this element went only to the exercise o f jurisdiction, not
to the jurisdiction itself, as Lord Eldon declared when he took away
the children o f the Duke o f Wellesley because o f his profligate con­
duct.2 It was not unusual for the chancellor to concern himself with
the religious education o f a child; Shelley was deprived o f the
custody o f his children because he declared himself to be an atheist.3
In this country the State has taken the place o f the crown, the equity
power has been delegated to a specialized court, and this court has
been given the means o f exercising jurisdiction whenever the interest
o f the State demands that the court shall intervene to save the child.
Notwithstanding the early recognition by common-law courts that
minors occupied- a favored position in the law, the duties o f parents
to their children were enforced by the common law only to a limited
extent. The duty o f maintenance was perhaps the most generally
recognized; a father who neglected to provide for his child and so
brought him to the point of starvation was held liable to criminal
prosecution,4 and a wife deserted by her husband could charge him
with the support o f their children as well as herself.5 The duty o f
protection found its chief recognition in the rule that there was no
legal liability when an assault was committed by a parent to safe­
guard _his child’s person. Education, despite the occasional inter1 In re Spence (2 Phillips’ Ch. Rep., 2 4 7 ).
2 Wellesley v. W ellesley (2 Russ., 1 ; 2 Bligh N. S., 1 2 4 ).
3 Shelley v. Westbrooke (Jac. 2 6 6 ).
4 Friend’s case (Russell and Ryan, 2 0 ) .
6 Bazeley v. Forder (I/. R. 3 Q. B ., 5 5 9 ).
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis




ference o f the chancellor in cases where the religious upbringing of
children was involved, was a moral rather than a legal duty. A.
father was entitled to the earnings o f his children, and this right,
with'the right to his children’s custody, was enforced far more fre­
quently than the corresponding obligations.
The distinction between children and adults was sharply drawn in
criminal cases. Children under 7, at common law, were held in­
capable o f committing a crime. By extending the age limit to 16 or
18 years, juvenile-court legislation, as in the enforcement o f the
duties o f parents and o f the State, has merely widened the applica­
tion of the common-law rule. But in doing so it has, in effect, built a
new structure upon the old foundations.
Probation— one o f the most important procedural features o f the
juvenile court, under which a child, instead o f being committed to an
institution, is kept under the surveillance of the court until it is safe
to release him—is an evolution of the common-law method of condi­
tionally suspending a sentence. Sir Walter Raleigh was executed
under a sentence pronounced against him 15 years before, after hav­
ing been put at the head o f a fleet and an army in the interim. Early
American courts knew the device as “ binding to good behavior.” 6
In juvenile-court procedure the harsh connotation has been removed
but the root idea is the same.
While many o f the methods used by juvenile courts, and the con­
ception o f having a distinct court devoted to the interests o f one
class, were unknown in the common law, nothing was more familiar
to those who practiced before common-law judges than the idea that
a certain class of offenders were to be tried by different standards and
before different tribunals. “ Benefit o f clergy ” was the refuge o f the
most powerful class in the community; the juvenile court is the refuge
of the most helpless.
The basic conceptions which distinguish juvenile courts from other
courts can be briefly summarized. Children are to be dealt with sepa­
rately from adults. Their cases are to be heard at a different time
and, preferably, in a different place; they are to be detained in sepa­
rate buildings, and, if institutional guidance is necessary, they are to
be committed to institutions for children. Through its probation o f­
ficers the court can keep in constant touch with the children who have
appeared before it. Taking children from their parents is, when pos­
sible, to be avoided; on the other hand, parental obligations are to bll
enforced. The procedure of the court must be as informal as pos6 Estes v. State (2 Humphreys (Term .), 4 96'; Commonwealth v. Duane, 1 Binney (P a.)
98, note).
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



sible. Its purpose is not to punish but to save. It is to deal with
^.children not as criminals but as persons in whose guidance and welfare the State is peculiarly interested. Save in the cases o f adults,
its jurisdiction is equitable, not criminal, in nature;
The first point o f attack upon juvenile-court statutes was that
children were being deprived o f due process o f law. The constitu­
tionality o f a carefully drawn statute is probably no longer open to
serious question in any jurisdiction, even though the act provides
none o f the safeguards designed to protect the accused in a criminal
prosecution. That proceedings in the juvenile courts are not crimi­
nal in nature is held by the overwhelming weight o f authority.7
In one or two States this principle is still not recognized,8 but
the rarity o f such decisions shows how generally the purpose o f the
juvenile court has been established. I f juvenile-court laws are not
o f a criminal nature it follows that they are not unconstitutional be­
cause of the informality o f the procedure, followed under them9 or
because they deprive children o f the right to trial by ju r y 10 or the
M ill v. Brown (31 Utah, 473 ; 88 Pac., 6 09) ; In re Sharp (1 5 Idaho, 120 ; 96 Pac.,
563) ; Lindsay v. Lindsay (2 5 7 111., 3 2 8 ; 100 N. E., 8 9 2 ) ; E x parte A h Peen (51 Cal.,
280) ; Reyiiolds v. Howe (51 Conn., 4 7 2 ) ; Pugh v. Bowden (54 F la., 3 0 2 ; 45 So., 499) ;
Jarrard v. State (116 Ind., 9 8 ; 17 N. E., 912) ; Marlowe v. Commonwealth (142 K y.,
1 0 6 ; 133 S. W ., 1137) ; State v. Ragan (125 La., 1 2 1 ; 51 So., 89) ; Farnham v. Pierce
(141 M ass., 2 0 3 ; 6 N. E „ 830) ; Roth v. House of Refuge (31 M d„ 329) ; House o f Refuge
v. Ryan (3 7 Ohio St., 197) ; State v. Dunn (5 3 Ore., 3 0 4 ; 99 Pac., 2 7 8 ; 100 Pac., 258) ;
Commonwealth v. Fisher (213 Pa. St., 4 8 ; 62 A tl., 198) ; Milwaukee Industrial School v.
Milwaukee County (4 0 W is., 328) ; E x parte K ing (141 Ark., 2 1 3 ; 217 S. W . 465) •
Childress v. State (133 Tenn., 1 2 1 ; 179 S. W ., 643) ; State v. Burnett (179 N. C., 735 ;
102 S. E , 711) ; State v. Bryant (94 Nebr., 7 5 4 ; 144 N. W ., 804) ; In re Hosford (107
Kan., 1 1 5 ; 190 Pac., 765) ; E x parte Januszewski (196 Fed., 123) ; U. S. v. Briggs (266
Fed., 434) ; Ex parte Chartrand (1 0 7 W ash., 5 6 0 ; 182 Pac., 610. See 3 L. R. A. (N . S.)
564, n o te; 18 L. R. A . (N. S.) 886, n o te ; and 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 908, note. In some of
these cases, the act declared that the proceedings were not to be deemed criminal, but, as
the court said in. Marlowe v. Commonwealth, supra,, “ if they were in fact such, the
declaration to the contrary could not have the effect o f changing their nature.” Some of
the early statutes contained provisions inconsistent with the real aim o f juvenile-court
legislation. In Robison v. W ayne Circuit Judges (151 Mich., 3 1 5 ; 115' N. W ., 6 8 2 ),
for example, the act authorized the court to impose a fine upon delinquent children, and
the act was properly held unconstitutional because it provided for a jury of 6 instead of
12. There have been some instances when a court, in its eagerness to uphold juvenilecourt legislation, has gone too far. In the case o f Leonard v. Licker (2 3 Ohio Cir. Ct.,
4 4 2 ), a boy had been committed by the juvenile court to the State reformatory, in which
adult criminals were also confined, without a trial by jury. He petitioned for a w rit of
habeas corpus, but his application w as denied on the ground that, although the reform­
atory was a prison for adults, it was only a place of reformation for children.
8 Ex parte Pruitt (82 Tex. Cr. Rep., 3 9 4 ; 2 00 S. W .„ 392) ; State v. Tincher (258 Mo.,
1 ; 166 S. W ., 1 0 2 8 ). In the latter case the act included in its scope cases which the
State constitution expressly stated were felonies or misdemeanors.
In re Ferrier (103 111., 367) ; W ilkinson v. Children’s Guardians (158 Ind., 1 ; 62 N. E.,
81) , Ex parte Ah Peen, supra; In re Sharp, supra; Ex parte Januszewski, supra;
U. S. v. Briggs, supra.
Commonwealth v. Fisher, su p ra ; Lindsay v. Lindsay, su p ra; Pugh v. Bowden, supra ■
Marlowe v. Commonwealth, su p ra; Ex parte King, su p ra ; Childress v. State, su p ra ; In re
Sharp, supra; In re Brodie (3 3 Cal. App., 7 5 1 ; 166 Pac.,, 6 0 5 ).

79995°—22--- 2
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



right of appeal ; 11 nor are the laws unconstitutional as imposing un­
equal penalties12 or as depriving children o f the equal protection o f
the laws,13 or as infringing their right not to be tried except upon
presentment or indictment.14
It is clear that to bind parents, or those persons having legal cus­
tody o f children, the statutes must give them notice of the proceed­
ings and the right to be heard.15 But, as Chief Justice Gibson
pointed out, the right of parental control is not inalienable.16 Sub­
ject to the above restrictions,- it is well settled that it is not a denial
o f due process to deprive parents o f the custody o f their children
when the welfare o f their children is at stake.17
Closely associated with juvenile-court laws, although jurisdiction
is not always given to the juvenile court, are statutes making it a
misdemeanor to cause or to contribute to the delinquency or depend­
ency o f a child. Carefully drawn laws o f this kind have been uni­
formly upheld.18
Juvenile-court acts have often been attacked on grounds related
to their draftsmanship rather than to their subject matter. Whether
or not an act embraces more than one subject19 is a matter of inter­
preting provisions o f the State constitution which, however narrowly
they may be construed, can not defeat skillfully framed juvenilecourt legislation. But when a State constitution prohibits the for­
mation o f a new court without a constitutional amendment, the effec­
tiveness o f juvenile-court proceedings in the State may largely de­
pend upon whether the provision is construed strictly20 or liber11 Marlowe v. Commonwealth, supra; Commonwealth v. Yungblut (159 K y., 8 7 ; 186
S. W ., 808) ; People v. Piccolo (275 111., 4 5 3 ; 114 N. E.,. 145) ; In re Sharp, supra.
12 People v. 111. State Reformatory (148 111., 413 ; 36 N. E., 76) ; State v. Phillips (73
Minn., 7 7 ; 75 N. W ., 1029) ; Ex parte Liddell (9 3 Cal., 6 3 3 ; 2 9 Pac., 251) ; In re Sharp,
13 Commonwealth v. Fisher, supra; Robison v. W ayne Circuit Judges, sup ra; Moore v.
State v. Cagle (111 S. C., 548 ; 96 § . E .,
W illiam s (19 Cal. App., 6 0 0 ; 127 Pac., 509)
2 9 1 ).
14 Childress v. State, supra.
In re Sharp,, supra.
15 Ex parte Becknell (119 Cal., 4 9 6 ; 51 Pac., 692)
i«E x parte Crouse (4 W harton (P a .), 9 ).
17 Egoff v. Board of Children’ s Guardians (170 Ind., 2 3 8 ; 84 N. E., 151) ; In re Sharp,
supra; State v. Burnett, supra; M ill v. Brown, su p ra; Ex parte Gutierrez (Cal. App.)
(188 Pac., 1 0 0 4 ).
18 Commonwealth v. Yungblut, su p ra ; People v. de Leon (35 Cal. App., 4 6 7 ; 170 Pac.,
173) ; People v. Calkins (291 111., 3 1 7 ; 126 N. E ., 200) ; State v. Clark (146 L a., 4 2 1 ;
83 So., 6 9 6 ). But see People v. Budd (24 Cal. App., 1 7 6 ; 140 Pac., 714),, where it was
h eld .th at the act was unconstitutional because it provided these cases were to be tried
in the court which tried other misdemeanors under a different procedure.
19 In the following cases it was held that the act was not defective in this p articular:
Commonwealth v. Fisher, su p ra ; In re Maginnis (162 Cal., 2 0 0 ; 121 Pac., 723) ; Robison
v. W ayne Circuit Judges, su p ra; In re Powell (6 Okl. Cr. Rep., 4 9 5 ; 120 Pac., 1022) ;
State v. Clark, supra. In the following cases the act was held unconstitutional: People le»
Friederich (Colo.) (185 Pac., 657) ; Lynn v. Bullock (189 K y., 6 0 4 ; 225 S. W ., 7 3 3 ).
20 Hunt v. W ayne Circuit Judges (142 Mich., 9 3 ; 105 N. W ., 5 3 1 ).
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



ally.21 When the question is whether a juvenile-court act is uncon­
stitutional as local or special, courts are disposed to recognize the
fact that different conditions in cities and rural communities call for
different treatment and tend to rely upon the general presumption
that the legislature has made a reasonable classification.22 But when
the provision o f a State constitution that taxes are to be uniform is
involved it has been held that a disproportionate share o f the burden
can not be placed upon the cities, on the ground that the care o f
delinquent and neglected children is the concern o f the State and not
o f the municipality.28
Decisions are comparatively few regarding the constitutionality
o f those provisions o f the acts which deal with the relation between
the juvenile court and the probation officers. Not only have provi­
sions giving juvenile courts power to appoint probation officers been
held constitutional,24 but it has been held that an act giving a board
o f county commissioners the power o f appointment is unconstitu­
tional, because it interferes with judicial functions.25
A most important recent decision in which the constitutionality
o f a juvenile-court law is considered is the New Jersey case o f Kozler
v. N. Y . Telephone Co.,26 in which was upheld the constitutionality
o f an act providing that the conviction o f juvenile delinquents should
not be admissible in other proceedings, except during probation or
during two years after discharge. Justice Swayze, who delivered the
opinion o f the court, said:
Clearly the legislature, in creating a new tribunal like the court for the trial
o f juvenile offenders, may prescribe what record it shall keep, or whether it
shall keep any record at all. * * * W e see no reason why the legislature
may not enact that it is against public policy to hold over a young person in
terrorem, perhaps for life, a conviction for some youthful transgression.

No doubt exists as to the constitutional power o f a legislature to
exclude certain kinds o f proof in the determination o f an issue o f
fact, when there is a reasonable justification for the exclusion— as
when it makes communications between doctors and patients privi21 State v. Bryant, su p ra; Marlowe v. Commonwealth, su p ra; Lindsay v. Lindsay, su p ra;
Board o f County Commissioners v. Savage (6 3 Fla., 3 3 7 ; 58 So., 8 3 5 ).
See M ill v.
Brown, supra (power to create a new court). In. the following cases it was held that the
proper court was given jurisdiction over children’s c a se s: State v, Isenhuth (34 S. D .,
2 1 8 ; 148 N. W ., 9 ) ; E x parte Grimes (Tex. Civ. A pp.) (216 S. W ., 2 51) ; In re Gassaway
(7 0 Kan., 6 9 5 ; 79 Pac., 1 1 3 ).
22 In re Sing (13 Cal. App., 7 3 6 ; 110 Pac., 693) ; Ex parte Loving (178 Mo., 1 9 4 ; 77
S. W ., 508) ; M ill v. Brown, supra. But see Lynn v. Bullock, supra.
23 Campbell County v. City of Newport (174 K y., 7 1 2 ; 193 S. W .„ 1 ).
24 Nicholl v. Koster (157 Cal., 4 1 6 ; 1 08 Pac., 302) ; State v. Monongalia County Ct. (82
m . Va., 5 6 4 ; 96 S. E ., 9 6 6 ). See People v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. (273 111., 110, 112 ; N. E.,
”2 7 8 ), where it was held that the salaries of juvenile probation officers could not be pro­
vided for by a tax levied to pay the salaries of county officers.
26 W itter v. Cook County Commissioners (256 111., 6 1 6 ; 100 N. E ., 1 4 8 ).
26 (N . J. L .) , 108 A tl., 375.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



leged. Moreover, a statute such as the New Jersey one is in the
nature of a statute of limitations, prohibiting, after a certain period,proof of a judgment instead o f proof of a debt. But even apart
from this feature, a State has the right to grant amnesty to those
who offend against its laws, and to determine what the conditions
and privileges o f such an amnesty are to be.

In about a dozen States special juvenile courts are created for the
larger cities or counties.27 There are also, in response to a movement
which is slowly but steadily gaining, a few courts o f domestic rela­
tions in which the problems of children are considered in conjunction
with the problems of the family. Often, where there is not enough
work to justify the formation of a separate court, the juvenile judge
can satisfactorily hear children’s cases as part o f another court.
In most o f the States jurisdiction over children’s cases has been
vested in courts already existing. Such courts, when hearing chil­
dren’s cases, are generally called juvenile courts or children s courts.
In territories not thickly populated the county or district courts are
given jurisdiction. In more crowded areas jurisdiction is generally
given to courts which carry on certain branches o f the general judi­
cial work only, and so, to some extent, are already specialized.
In 10 or 12 States juvenile-court cases are heard by police judges or
justices o f the peace. Effective work can rarely be done under such
circumstances. The training of police judges and magistrates does
not. as a rule, equip them to deal with children’s cases, and, in any
event, juvenile-court work should be carried on by a court o f record.
Provisions such as these are a survival o f the idea that children’s
cases can be treated merely as breaches o f peace.
A few States disregard the purpose o f the juvenile-court movement
so far as to give jurisdiction over children’s cases to criminal courts.
Under many laws a single judge is designated to hear children’s
cases. Other statutes provide for the selection, by the judges to
whom jurisdiction is given, o f one of their number to hear all juve­
nile cases. Under thesejaws there is, in effect, a separate court.
Wherever several judges are directed or permitted to choose one
o f their number to hear children’s cases it is highly important that
zi For a summary of the recent statutes dealing with juvenile courts see “ A Summary
of Juvenile-Court Legislation in the United States,” Children’s Bureau, Publication No. 70
W ashington, 1920.
28 B ut it has been held that, if jurisdiction over juvenile cases is given by statute to
county courts, it is error in an appeal to say the appeal is from a juvenile court. In re
Johnson (W i& )

(181 N. W ., 7 4 1 ).
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



he be allowed to sit for a long period o f time. In some States a rotat­
ing system, whereby one judge after another hears juvenile cases, is
still in effect. Such a system does not permit the specialization which
is necessary to the best juvenile work. The objection to this method
o f assignment is met in certain States by making the period o f service
o f each judge one or two years.

The qualifications o f the judge who hears juvenile cases have more
to do with the success or failure o f the work than any other single
element. It is desirable that he be a lawyer, with a lawyer’s realiza­
tion of the rights of the individual; he should be in deep sympathy
with the principles underlying juvenile-court laws, should have the
ability to put himself in the child’s place, and, most important o f all,
his personality should be such as to win the confidence o f the child.
Where the judge hearing juvenile cases has other duties it is impor­
tant that he be allowed sufficient time from his other work to keep in
touch with the administrative side o f the juvenile work and with the
work o f the probation officers. Unless the statute provides that the
judge is to hear juvenile cases only, how much, time the designated
-judge is to give to such cases is a matter for the court’s own decision.
The methods o f selection and the prescribed qualifications o f those
judges who are to sit in the juvenile court vary greatly. In some
States the juvenile-court judges are appointed by the governor; in
others by the mayor or city council; in some States they are elected
by popular vote. In certain States any resident is eligible; in others
the candidate must be a lawyer, and certain statutes prescribe qualifi­
cations which look to the fitness o f the judge for the delicate work he
will have to perform.
A few States make provision for the appointment by tne judge of
referees. These referees hear cases sent to them by the judge and
make disposition o f them subject to the court’s approval. Referees
are particularly useful in the court’s work with girls, and a few
statutes specifically provide for the appointment o f a woman to hear
girls’ cases.

Probation is a judicial guardianship, an intimate, personal rela­
tion which deals with all the factors o f a child’s life. This work is so
important that it has been found necessary to have special officers
g iv in g their whole time to it.
In the great majority o f jurisdictions probation officers are ap­
pointed by the court. Even though the statute makes no provision
for a merit system the appointing agency can, and often does, formu-
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



late rules as to eligibility. In several States the appointment must be
approved by some State board or committee.29
The advisability of having women probation officers to handle girls’
cases particularly is clearly recognized, and in most courts women
have been appointed. Were it not for a decision that, under a State
constitution which provided that only electors were eligible for office,
a woman was ineligible to serve as probation officer,30 the right o f the
court in any State to have women assistants would seem to be beyond
question. A t common law a woman could be appointed keeper of
a prison,31 or governess o f a workhouse.32 Under modern constitu­
tions the right o f women to be clerks o f court has been sustained,33
and it has been expressly held by West Virginia that women can be
probation officers.34 In States where the right to hold office is given
to all electors the nineteenth amendment has. made the question an
academic one. In States which do not have such a provision it is
to be hoped that, if the question arises, the West Virginia decision
will be followed.

In almost every State the juvenile court is faced with problems
concerning its relation with other courts in the judicial system, both
criminal and civil. A carefully drawn statute can do much to obviate
these difficulties, but a great deal depends upon whether the courts o f
last resort really understand the purpose of the juvenile laws.
Some statutes provide in unmistakably clear language that the
juvenile court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses com­
mitted by^hildren under a certain age. Under such a statute even
failure o f the child to raise the question o f age during his trial in
the criminal court is not enough to sustain a conviction.35 But one
court refused to grant a writ o f habeas corpus where the statute pro­
vided a case should be certified to the juvenile court upon proof that
the accused was under 18, and a justice of the peace refused to hear
testimony upon the question o f age.36
29 In the case of Buffington v. State (52 Okl., 1 0 5 ; 152 Pac., 8 5 3 ), it was held that
mandamus lay to compel a board of county commissioners to pass upon the eligibility of a
probation officer appointed by the court, and that the only question the board could decide
was whether the appointee was a discreet person and of good character.
80 Reed v. Hammond (18 Cal. App., 4 4 2 ; 123 Pac., 3 4 6 ).
31 Rex v. Lady Braughton (3 Keb., 3 2 ).
32 Anon. (3 Salk,, 2 ) .
33 Warwick v. State 25 Ohio St., 21) ; Gilliland v. W h ittle (33 Okl., 7 0 8 ; 127 Pac., 6 9 8 ) ;
See notes on the eligibility of women for public office in 24 Harv. L. Rev. 139, and 33
Harv. L. Rev. 2 9 5 .'
34 State v. Monongalia ’County Court, supra.
SBM attingly v. Commonwealth (171 K y., 2 2 2 ; 188 S. W ., 3 7 0 ) ; State v. Griffin
(7 Tenn. Civ. App., 2 3 0 ).


la re Northon (35 Cal. App., 369; 169 Pac., 1051).
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



Sometimes the statute provides that when children under a cer­
ta in age come before a criminal court the proceedings are to be sus­
pended until the juvenile court decides whether or not the case is one
in which it should take jurisdiction. Under such statutes it follows
that children can be tried in the criminal court when the juvenile
judge declines to hear the case.37
In some States the statute provides that in a criminal prosecution
the accused may file an affidavit that he is under.a certain age, and
the proceedings must then be suspended until the question of age has
been determined. Under such acts decisions have been rendered
that a failure to bring up the question o f age in the criminal pro­
ceedings validates a conviction.38 This has been held even where
the statute expressly provided that no children under the age limit
could be prosecuted for crime until the matter had been submitted to
the juvenile court.39 These cases consider the juvenile-court laws
as though they were designed only to give the accused the advantage
o f another technicality; the interest o f the State, in not having chil­
dren tried as criminals, is entirely disregarded.
A Texas court has held that a conviction by a criminal court is
to be sustained if the boy was over the age limit at the time he was
tried, even though he was under it when he committed the offense.40
And the same court has gone a step further. A boy was indicted
and convicted before he was 17; this conviction was reversed because
the juvenile court was held to have had jurisdiction. The criminal
court waited until the boy passed the age limit and then tried him
again—and this time the conviction was sustained.41
In refreshing contrast to such decisions is a Tennessee case in
which a boy, when convicted in criminal proceedings, was under the
age limit but had passed it by the time the conviction came up for
review. The court held that the juvenile court, in the eyes o f the
law, had vicarious jurisdiction over the boy while he was being
erroneously tried as a criminal, and in the same judgment in which
the conviction was reversed the boy was given to the custody o f the
juvenile court.42
The criminal court is not the only court with whose jurisdiction
that o f the juvenile court conflicts. It has been held that the institu­
tion o f divorce proceedings does not oust the juvenile court o f juris­
diction over a child whose custody the litigants in the divorce suit
37 People v. W olff (Cal.) (190 Pac., 2 2 ; 192 Pac., 3 3 ).
Slade v. State (85 Tex. Cr. Rep., 3 5 8 ; 212 S. W ., 6 6 1 ) ; People v. Oxnam, (170 Cal.,
f i l l ; 149 Pac., 1 6 5 ).
39 People v. Oxnam, supra.
40 Stracner v. State (8 6 Tex. Cr. Rep., 89 ; 215 S. W ., 3 0 5 ).
"M c L a r e n v. State (85 Tex. Cr. Rep., 3 1 ; 209 S. W ., 6 6 9 ).
42 Sams v. State (133 Tenn., 1 8 8 ; 180 S. W ., 1 7 3 ).
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



are disputing,43 and that the juvenile court can take jurisdiction over
a child even though divorce proceedings have already been insti­
tuted.44 As the California court said, “ The mere fact that a litiga­
tion is pending between the parents, and that an order regarding the
custody o f the children has been made therein, does not take away
the power of the State, nor prevent the exercise of that power under
the juvenile-court law.” Cases such as these, however, point to the
desirability of having all matters affecting the family heard in a
single court.
A juvenile court which has taken jurisdiction over a child can not
be deprived o f jurisdiction by another juvenile court, even though
the latter has all the parties concerned before it.45 It has been held
that when a juvenile court has committed a child to an institution,
a writ o f prohibition lies to prevent another court o f no greater
powers from considering a petition o f the parent to have the child
restored.46 But a juvenile-court law does not o f itself deprive courts
o f equity o f jurisdiction over a case in which rival claimants are con­
testing the custody of a child, when the juvenile court has taken no
action in the matter.47

In approximately one-third of the States the jurisdiction o f the
juvenile court extends to children under 16 years o f age; in onethird, to children under IT ; and in the remaining third, to children
under 18 and above. The tendency of the more recent statutes is to
make the age limit higher. In California the court has exclusive
jurisdiction to 18 and concurrent jurisdiction to 21. In most States
the age limit is the same for boys and girls, but in a few a distinction
is made.
Decisions that the juvenile court has not jurisdiction over children
brought into the criminal court after they have reached the age limit,
although the offense was committed before,48 point to the need o f
expressly providing in the statutes that the juvenile court is to have
exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving offenses committed by
children when under a certain age, as well as exclusive jurisdiction
over the persons o f all children under that age.
43 Brana v. Brana (139 La., 3 0 6 ; 71 So., 519) ; Children’s Home v. Fetter (90 Ohio St.,
1 1 0 ; 106 N. E ., 7 6 1 ).
44 Dupes v > Superior Court (176 Cal., 4 4 0 ; 168 Pac., 888) ; Spade v. State (4 4 Ind. App.,
5 2 9 ; 89 N. E ., 604) ; In re Hosford, supra; State v. McCloskey (136 La., 7 3 9 ; 67 So.,
8 1 3 ). Contra, Cleveland Orphan Protestant Asylum v. Soule (5 Ohio App., 6 7 ). See note
appended to In re Hosford, supra (11 A . L. R., 1 4 7 ), on the conflict of jurisdiction undei)
juvenile-court legislation.
45 Ex parte Bowers (78 Ore., 390'; 153 Pac., 4 1 2 ).
46 Children’s Home v. Kelley (3 2 S. D., 5 2 6 ; 143 N. W ., 9 5 3 ).
47 McDaniel v. Youngblood (A la .) (7 7 So., 6 7 4 ).
48 See notes 4 0 and 41, supra.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



An interesting question arises when a girl under the age limit is
married. The statutes generally apply in terms to minor children,
and there are often other statutes in the jurisdiction providing that
females married to persons o f full age shall be taken to be o f full
age. Despite such a provision it has been held that a juvenile court
has jurisdiction over a girl who was married when under age, when
her marriage was afterwards annulled,49 and the commitment o f a
married woman who was under the age limit has been upheld.50 On
the other hand, it has been held that a female minor, if married, can
not be a delinquent child.51 In many cases a married girl who is
under the age limit is as much in need o f the care o f the juvenile
court as an unmarried one, and, as a matter of practice, is dealt with
as a juvenile in many jurisdictions.
Juvenile-court laws in a number o f States provide that once juris­
diction is obtained it may continue after the age limit has been
reached. Under such statutes no extension o f the original order of
commitment, when the child reaches the age limit, is necessary.52
These statutes generally provide that jurisdiction, once obtained,
may continue until 21, and it has been held that such a provision is
to be taken literally and does not necessitate the release o f a girl de­
N linquent when she reaches the age o f majority.53 Iowa has gone
further, holding that jurisdiction does not terminate even though the
girl has reached the age o f majority and has married.54

Before the enactment o f juvenile-court legislation, the courts dealt«.
only with dependent children, with children who were charged with
specific offenses, and with children whose custody rival claimants
sought. The cases over which juvenile courts have custody are far
more inclusive.
Children’s cases coming before the juvenile courts are, broadly
speaking, o f two kinds—those in which children are charged with
being delinquent and those in which they are charged with being
neglected or dependent. Children charged with being delinquent are
supposed to come before the court because they have, in some way,
actively offended; children charged with being neglected or de­
pendent come before the court because their welfare is jeopardized
by improper surroundings.
*®In re Lundy (82 W ash., 148 ; 143 Pac., 8 8 5 ).
60 Stoker v. Gowans (45 Utah, 5 5 6 ; 147 Pac., 9 1 1 ).
“ State v. Gates (Oreg.) (1 9 3 Pac., 197)
State v. Eisen (53 Oreg., 297 ; 99 Pac., 2 8 2 ).
,82 Commonwealth v. Murray (26 Pa. D isk, 4 8 9 ).
88 In re Gilder (98 Wash.,, 5 1 4 ; 167 Pac., 1 0 9 3 ).
M McPherson v. Day (1 6 2 Iowa, 2 5 1 ; 144 N. W ., 4 ) .

79995° — 22—

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis




Under some statutes a juvenile court must relinquish jurisdiction in
cases o f serious offenses committed by children, and have the children
tried in the criminal court. In other States relinquishment o f juris­
diction in such cases is left to the judge’s discretion. In a few States
the juvenile-court judge can relinquish jurisdiction to the criminal
court, even in other cases, if reformation seems impossible.
Cases o f delinquency include those cases in which the child breaks
some law. When the case is to be heard by the juvenile court it is pro­
vided usually that, whatever the offense, the finding of the court can
only be that the offender is a delinquent child. Within this term the
statute generally includes certain acts which are not punishable in
adults, and which may not have been misdemeanors if committed by
minors before the juvenile-court law was passed. Some statutes in­
clude within the term o f juvenile delinquency any act or deportment
which may endanger the child’s health or welfare.
^ Confusion often arises in the application o f the terms “ juvenile
delinquency” and “ juvenile dependency,” and some States classify
a condition as delinquency which other States consider dependency.
Juvenile-court statutes generally define dependency and neglect in
the broadest o f terms, so as to include all children who are destitute
or homeless or abandoned, or in surroundings dangerous to morals,
health, or general welfare.
Jurisdiction over neglected children, as has been seen, was exer­
cised by courts o f chancery; jurisdiction over dependent children
can be traced to the common-law rule which made it an offense to be
a vagrant55 and to the old English statutes which gave to magis­
trates and justices o f the peace the power to commit to institutions
persons who were a charge upon or a danger to the community. But
' in indictments for vagrancy and in commitments o f paupers the law
operated only to protect the public, whereas jurisdiction over de­
pendent children is given primarily on behalf o f the children affected.
Statutes such as these intrust to the juvenile courts large powers,
powers compared to which, as Dean Pound has said, “ the powers o f
the court o f Star Chamber were a bagatelle.” But juvenile-court
judges in general have recognized that there must be definite limita­
tions to their interference with family life; it is necessary that the
jurisdiction given the courts be broad, but it is equally clear that
there be recognized certain rules as to the way in which this juris­
diction should be exercised. In the words of the Illinois court, a
juvenile-court law “ should not be held to extend to cases where there
is merely a difference of opinion as to the best course to pursue in
rearing a child.” 56 Nor, as was said by a California court o f ap58 Regina v. Branworth (6 Mod., 2 4 0 ).
88 Lindsay v. Lindsay, supra.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis





peals, does the juvenile-court law contemplate the taking o f children
from their parents “ merely because, in the estimation o f probation
officers and courts, the children can be better provided for and more
wisely trained as wards o f the State.” 57
Broadly considered, jurisdiction taken by juvenile courts over
neglected and dependent children in practice is being confined to
three types o f cases—those which call for the assistance o f courts in
enforcing parental responsibility, those in which the children are
public burdens, and those in which the unfitness o f the children’s
surroundings makes it reasonably certain that if they are not re­
moved they will become delinquent. It is only the third type o f case
which represents a departure from common-law doctrines. The first
two types are merely extensions o f old rules; but the common law
did not concern itself with tendencies. This new power which
modern legislation has given to juvenile courts must be exercised
with the utmost caution. No parent should ever be deprived by the
courts o f the custody o f his children merely because o f his poverty.
There is a social interest in the'preservation o f family ties as well as
in the physical welfare o f children.
Some States give jurisdiction to the juvenile court in cases under an
aid-to-mothers’ law. The wisdom o f such a provision depends upon
local conditions. As a general principle those in closest touch with
juvenile-court work agree that the court should not be burdened
with purely administrative functions.
A few States give the court jurisdiction over feeble-minded chil­
dren and over cases o f adoption. Such statutes evidence a growing
tendency to broaden the court’s jurisdiction so as to include all chil­
dren in need o f protection.
Acts or omissions o f adults in regard to children come under legal
cognizance in three classes o f cases—first, those in which an adult is
accused o f a crime against a minor; second, those in which the adult
has failed to fulfill a duty toward a minor; and third, those in which
the adult is accused o f ’causing, or tending to cause, juvenile de­
linquency or dependency.
A few statutes give juvenile courts jurisdiction over such offenses
o f adults as rape, statutory rape, and unnatural crimes committed

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


t h e

leg al

asp e ct


t h e

j u v e n il e

c o u r t


upon minors. Where the statute is ambiguous courts take that con­
struction which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the criminal court.58
Where the offense is o f a more minor nature, however, the juvenile
court often has jurisdiction under the provision o f the statute relat­
ing to adults who contribute to juvenile delinquency or dependency.
In about 10 States the juvenile court is given jurisdiction over
cases o f desertion and nonsupport. As neglect o f parental duties
and juvenile delinquency are often but two aspects o f the same prob­
lem, the juvenile court would seem better adapted to handle these
cases than courts o f equity or law. In exercising this jurisdiction,
however, care must be taken not to impose undue hardships upon
parents; a father owes the duty o f support only where the family is
domiciled.59 But the duty exists, and a breach of it is punishable,
whether or not its fulfillment is formally demanded.60 In a number
o f States the obligation o f support is extended to the father o f ille­
gitimate children.61
Over 40 States have enacted legislation making adults criminally
liable for causing or tending to cause juvenile delinquency or de­
pendency. Jurisdiction over these cases usually is given to the juve­
nile court. Such jurisdiction should be exclusive. The objection
to bringing children before courts other than the juvenile court in-,
eludes these cases as well as cases in which only children are in­
volved; moreover, cases of contributing to delinquency usually
involve problems which will sooner or later come before the juvenile
court in any event.
Often the statute groups former sporadic efforts of the legislature
to prevent juvenile waywardness by punishing certain specific acts
on the part of adults, such as enticing minors into saloons or houses
o f prostitution and violating child-labor laws; but in general the
enumeration of specific acts in the statute is illustrative rather than
definitive.62 Clearly this jurisdiction, whether given to criminal or
to juvenile courts, is criminal in nature.**3 ' '
The offense o f causing juvenile delinquency is not grounded upon
the breach o f an obligation arising out o f status, but can arise when­
ever an adult knowingly acts in a manner contrary to a child’s wel­
fare. Nevertheless the Illinois court has held that under a statute
88 Colias v. People (6 0 Colo., 2 3 0 ; 153 Pac., 224) ; In re Songer (65 Colo., 4 6 0 ; 177
Pac., 141) ; People v. Camp (C al.) (183 Pac., 8 4 5 ).
69 State v. Smith. (145 La., 9 1 3 ; 83 So., 1 8 9 ).
«»State v. Clark, supra.
ei But in the case of M oss v. U. S. (29 App. D. C., 1 8 8 ), the court held that the father
of an illegitimate child could/not be prosecuted for failure to support the child, although
the statute, in terms, apparently covered the case. See “ Illegitimacy as a Child-W elfare
Problem, Part I ,” Children’s Bureau, Publication No. 66, W ashington, 1920.
62But see Longsine v. State (Nebr.) (181 N. W ., 1 7 5 ).
83 Mayhew v. State (Indv) (128 N. E ., 599) ; Pease v. State (Ind. App.) (129 N. E .,
337) ; People v. Budd, su p ra ; Longsine v. State, supra.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



which expressly includes any person who contributes to juvenile de­
linquency, only those who stand in loco parentis to the child can be
prosecuted.64 Fortunately these decisions do not seem to have in­
fluenced the construction o f statutes o f other jurisdictions.
One o f the most important questions in this class o f cases is whether
or not it is essential to the jurisdiction of the court to allege and prove
that the offense with which the adult is charged actually resulted in
delinquency. As the purpose of these statutes is to prevent delin­
quency as much as to punish those who cause it the answer to the
question should be clear. But the authorities are divided.85 The
more recent statutes endeavor to obviate the difficulty by providing
that tending to cause delinquency is an offense in itself. O f course,
the acts complained o f must have had some effect upon the child i f
the conviction is to be sustained.66 But it is enough if the acts caused
the continuation o f delinquency.67
A recent decision is to the effect that in order that the defendant
may “ knowingly ” encourage a girl to delinquency he must have been
aware o f her age.68 It would seem, however, on principle, and on
analogy to cases o f statutory rape and abduction, that to come within
the statute it is only necessary that the defendant intended to do the
^ acts o f which he is accused. That punishment is withheld in cases
over the age limit is due to the discretion o f the legislature, not to the
absence o f the elements o f the offense.
The jurisdiction exercised by juvenile courts is in general an appli­
cation o f common-law principles, but the way in which the jurisdic­
tion is exercised is new. The methods o f the court in dealing with
children who come before it are for the most part unknown to
common-law or to chancery procedure.69
In most States jurisdiction in juvenile court proceedings is obtained
by means o f a petition filed by any reputable person upon information
and belief, and a summons or warrant served upon the child and his
parent or guardian.
M People v. Melville (265 111., 1 7 6 ; 106 N. E ., 622) ; People v. Lee (266 111., 1 4 8 ; 107
N. E., 1 1 2 ).
66 T hat actual delinquency o f child'need not be charged : State v. Drury (25 Idaho,. 787 ;
139 Pac., 1129) ; People v. de Leon, su p ra; State v. Dunn, supra ; Rex v. Ducker (1 6 Ont.
W eekly Notes, 2 1 2 ). Contra, State v. W illiam s (7 3 W ash., 678 ; 132 Pac., 415) ; People v.
Mason (181 111. App., 718) ; People v. Pierro (1 7 Cal. App., 741 ; 121 Pac., 6 8 9 ). Even
under an unfortunately worded statute it is not necessary to prove that the child was
delinquent before the acts w ith which the accused is charged. State v. Adam s (95 W ash.,
1 8 9 ; 163 Pac., 4 0 3 ).
68 People v. Hall (183 N. Y ., 46) ; Rex v. Davis (4 0 Ont. L., 3 5 2 ).
87People v. W ilhite (Cal. App.) (193 Pac.,, 1 5 1 ).
88 Gottlieb v. Commonwealth (V a .) (101 S. E., 8 7 2 ).
“ People v. Piccolo, su p ra; Ogden v. State (162 W is., 5 0 0 ; 156 N. W ., 476) ; State v.
Bockman (139 Tenn., 422 ; 201 S. W ., 741) ; State v. Hoffman (12 Ohio App., 3 4 1 ).

79995°—22----- i
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



The filing of the petition70 and the service o f the summons upon
the person having custody o f the child 71 have both been held essential
to jurisdiction. Nor, it has been held, can lack of summons upon the
parent be waived by appearance o f the child at the hearing.72
As the procedure in children’s cases in the great majority o f States
is not criminal in nature the petition need not have the particularity
o f an indictment.73 A different rule, o f course, prevails in those
jurisdictions where children are still regarded as criminals.74 In
jurisdictions where it is provided that, when a child is brought into
a criminal court and upon proof o f his age the case is to be trans­
ferred to a juvenile court, the proceedings in the latter court can not
be heard under the indictment.75
Almost without exception the statutes provide for notice to the
parents o f the proceedings. When such notice is not given, and the
parent does not appear at the hearing, it is sometimes held that the
provision as to notice is mandatory and that the proceedings are
void.76 On the other hand some courts take the view that while a
parent who did not have notice is not bound by a decree depriving
him o f custody, that part o f the decree which declares the child de­
linquent or dependent is valid.77 Appearance o f the parent at the
hearing or waiver o f notice will give the court jurisdiction even^
though notice was not given.78 But it has been held that a waiver o f
notice may be revoked, even after the proceedings.79
Whether or not notice to those having custody o f the children is
held essential to jurisdiction over the children, courts agree that the
parents can always have their day in court to determine if they have
been improperly deprived o f custody.80 This right is not confined
to parents, but belongs to anyone entitled to custody.81
70 Weber v. Doust (81 W ash., 6 6 8 ; 143 Pac., 148) ; Cullins v. W illiam s (156 K y., 5 7 ;
1 60 S. W ., 7 3 3 ).
71Karrib v. Bailey (Mich.) (1 8 0 N. W ., 386) ; Weber v. Doust, supra.
72 Karrib v. Bailey, supra.
73 Ex parte Gutierrez, supra.
74 Guerrero v. State (87 Tex. Cr. Rep., 2 6 0 ; 220 S. W ., 1095) ; State v. Asher (St. Louis
Court of Appeals) (216 S. W ., 1 0 1 3 ).
75 Commonwealth v. Franks (164 K y., 2 3 9 ; 175 S. W ., 3 4 9 ) ; Ex parte Ramseur (81
Tex. Cr. Rep., 4 1 3 ; 195 S. W ., 8 6 4 ).
76 W eber v. Doust, supra; Ex parte M allory (122 Va., 2 9 8 ; 94 S. E ., 782) ; Ex parte
Cain (8 6 Tex. Cr. Rep., 5 0 9 ; 217 S. W ., 386) ; Ex parte Satterthwaite (5 2 M ont., 5 5 0 ;
160 Pac., 3 4 6 ).
77 People v. N. T . Nursery and Child’s Hospital (2 3 0 N. Y ., 1 1 9 ; 129 N. E ., 341) ;
Jensen v. Hinckley (U tah) (1 8 5 Pac., 716) ; Henn v. Children’ s Agency (123 C. C. A .,
2 1 6 ; 204 Fed., 766) ; Bleier v. Crouse (13 Ohio App., 6 9 ).
78 In re Turner (94 K an., 1 1 5 ; 145 Pac., 8 7 1 ). See Juvenile Court v. State (139 Tenn.,
5 4 9 ; 201 S. W ., 771) ; E x parte Satterthwaite, su p ra ; Jensen v. Hinckley, su p ra; K ing v.
Sears (1 7 7 Iowa, 1 6 3 ; 158 N. W ., 5 1 3 ).
78 Karrib v. Bailey, supra.
80 People v. N. Y. Nursery and Child’s H ospital, su p ra; Bleier v. Crouse, su p ra; Ex
parte Becknell, su p ra ; In re Sharp, su p ra ; Jensen v. Hinckley, su p ra ; Smith v. Reid
(7 Sask. L. Rep., 1 4 3 ).
81 In re Pilkington (1 5 British Columbia Rep., 4 5 6 ).
The mother of an illegitimate
child is entitled to notice. In re Remski (160 N. Y. S., 7 1 5 ).
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



When children are brought into the custody o f the juvenile court
under a large majority o f the statutes they are segregated from
adult offenders while in detention or are allowed to remain at home.
Before the cases are heard the statutes in the main provide that a
preliminary investigation is to be made by the probation officer.
This investigation should cover not only the particular subject mat­
ter o f the proceeding but the whole background o f the case—the family
history, the condition o f the child’s home, his personal history, in­
cluding his habits and general conduct, his school history, and his
working history if he has been employed.82 A few States provide
also for a mental and physical examination.
It has been found necessary in the hearing o f children’s cases to
do away with technicalities o f procedure. Generally the statutes
provide that the hearings are to be informal in nature and conducted
under such rules as the court may prescribe. While the nature o f
the proceedings is entirely unadapted to trial by jury, the statutes
o f a number o f States provide that the child or parent may demand
a jury trial. In many States the public may be excluded from the
court room, and in some States the statute requires that the hearing
be in private. The judge generally has the power to hear the testi­
m on y o f children without putting them under oath. In this, as in
other distinctive features o f the proceedings, it is the constant aim
o f the court to avoid any form which may give children the idea of
a prosecution, to win their confidence, and to convince them that the
court is endeavoring to be their friend.
The judge and the probation officer act not as judge and prosecutm g officer but as friends o f the children. Counsel are rarely neces­
sary; when they do appear it is generally in the interest o f the
Juvenile-court laws often provide that the proceedings are to be
held in a separate room in the courthouse or in chambers. In the
larger cities a separate building is occasionally furnished.
While the procedure o f the court is informal it is generally given
the means properly to exercise its functions. Either by express provi­
sion o f the act or by virtue o f its place in the judicial system,83 a
juvenile court has the power to punish for contempt. Being in some
respects at least a court o f equity, an injunction is among its arsenal
o f remedies.84
There are, in substance, three ways in which a juvenile judge may
dispose o f a case. He may discharge the child, place him on proba­
tion, or transfer his custody to an individual guardian or to an in­
82 See “ The Practical Value o f the Scientific Study o f Juvenile Delinquents,” by W illiam
Healy, M . D ., Children’s Bureau Publication No. 96.
83 Juvenire Court v. Hughlett (44 App. D. C., 59 ) ; U. S. v. Latim er (4 4 App. D. C., 8 1 ).
84 Cull ins v . W illiam s, supra.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



As a condition to discharge, restitution or reparation may be de­
creed. Money penalties, however, are opposed to the whole theory o f the juvenile-court movement.
The conditional suspension o f a sentence is not a relinquishment o f
jurisdiction.85 Nor is the jurisdiction of a juvenile court over a de­
linquent child terminated merely because the commitment o f the child
to an institution is held void for lack o f notice.86
Probation, the most important part o f the court’s work, presents
few legal problems. The child is placed in the home o f a guardian,
or is allowed to remain in his own home, under the supervision o f the
probation officer. He is often required to report either to the judge
or a probation officer, at intervals, until he is finally discharged.
After a child has been committed to an institution, in proceedings
in which the rights o f those entitled to custody were safeguarded, the
parents must show cause if they wish the children to be restored to
them,87 but if the court finds that conditions have changed, and the
parents have become fit to take charge o f the children, the claim o f the
institution should not be allowed to stand in the way.88 Even though
children have been declared legally abandoned, their parents may
afterwards be appointed guardians over them.89
While juvenile courts rarely intend to cut themselves off from tak­
ing further action in regard to children by committing them to insti­
tutions, there are several cases to the effect that once a child has been
committed to an institution the jurisdiction o f the court is ended.90
In some instances these decisions are put upon the ground that the
term in which the court-entered judgment has elapsed,91 while in
others they are attributable to constitutional or statutory provision
in regard to the institutions, adopted prior to the juvenile-court
movement. But in order to deal with children’s cases satisfactorily
it is the opinion o f the writers that the juvenile court, must have the
power to keep in constant touch with the children who have come
before it and to use State and local institutions as instrumentalities
toward this end. It may become advisable to remove a child from
an institution to which he has been committed and place him on pro88 Stoker v. Gowans, supra.
86Greenman v. Dixon (M ich.) (180 N. W ., 4 8 7 ).
87 In re Driscoll (1 7 Ont. W eekly Notes,, 1 4 4 ).
88Farnham v. Pierce, supra; In re Knowack (158 N. Y ., 4 8 2 ; 53 N. E., 6 7 6 ). Contra,
Whalen v. Olmstead (61 Conn., 263 ; 2 3 A tl., 9 6 4 ).
89 M atter of Guardianship of Michels (1 7 0 Cal., 3 3 9 ; 149 Pac., 587) .
80 In re Johnson (3 6 Cal. App., 3 1 9 ; 171 Pac., 1074) ; McClain v. Superior Court o f
Chelan County (112 W ash., 2 6 0 ; 191 Pac., 8 5 2 ) ; Board of Children’ s Guardians v.
Juvenile Court (4 3 App. D. C., 599) ; Board of Control o f State Home v. Mulertz (-60
Colo., 4 6 8 ; 154 Pac., 7 42) ; contra, State v. North Dakota Children’s Home Society (Iifl
re K ol) (1 0 N. D „ 4 9 3 ; 88 N. W ., 2 73) ; M cFall v. Simmons (12 S. D „ 5 6 2 ; 81 N. W .,
898) ; In re Knowack, supra,
91 Board of Children’ s Guardians v. Juvenile Court, su p ra ; Board of Control o f State
Home v. Mulertz, supra.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



bation or transfer him to another home. Statutes and cases, which,
in effect, give to an institution the power which should belong to the
juvenile court make it difficult for the court to do its work in an
efficient manner.
I f it is necessary in order to protect the child the court can enjoin
a parent from interfering with it.92 A parent, moreover, can not
force an institution to which his child has been committed to disclose
where the child is,93 unless, in the discretion o f the juvenile court,
such disclosures seems advisable.94
While the procedure in children’s cases can be entirely informal,
when adults are before the juvenile court for contributing to delin­
quency, they must be given the safeguards usual in criminal cases.95
Statutes in a few States provide specifically fo r cooperation
between the court and other social agencies in the community. There
is, on the other hand, in the absence o f statutory provisions, a grow­
ing tendency on the part o f the court to establish a real basis o f
cooperation with all agencies connected with the welfare o f the child.
Such agencies, engaged in child cases, have no authority over proba­
tion officers.96

Over half the States make statutory provision for appeals from
decisions o f the juvenile court. Where no such provision exists the
tendency o f the authorities is to hold that no appeal lies, generally
on the ground that the procedure is purely statutory and that the
right to an appeal is therefore not to be implied.97
When a parent is improperly deprived o f the custody o f his chil­
dren a writ o f habeas corpus will lie.98 But it has been held that the
writ will not lie if the petitioner could have sought relief in the juve­
nile court and has not done so.99 Nor does the writ lie if the peti­
tioner had his day in court and there is a remedy in appeal.1 It has
been held that the decree o f a lower court which treats an application
for a writ o f habeas corpus as a motion for a change in custody will
not be disturbed.2
82 Cullins v. W illiam s, supra.
83 Du main and W ife v. Gwynne (92 M ass., 270) ; In re Hosford, supra.
84 In re Children’s Protective A ct (14 Alberta L. Rep., 4 6 ) .
96 See cases in note 63.
" I n re Juvenile Court (1 7 Pa. D ist., 2 0 7 ).
87Commonwealth v. Yungblut, supra; In re Broughton (192 Mich.,. 4 1 8 ; 158 N. W .,
8 8 4 ) ; State v. Bockman, su p ra; State v. Hoffman, supra. Contra, E x parte Brooks (85
Tex. Cr. Rep., 2 5 2 ; 211 S. W ., 5 9 2 ).
"P e o p le v. N. Y. Nursery and Child’s Hospital, su p ra ; Jensen v. Hinckley, su p ra; Ex
parte Becknell, supra. Even though the commitment was valid a father can sue out the
writ on the ground that he has become fit to have the child’s custody, when the statute
gives him no other remedy. Farnham v. Pierce, supra.
88 McDonald v. Short (Ind.) (125 N. E.,, 4 5 1 ) ; Bleier v. Crouse, supra.
1 Stoker v. Gowans, supra.
a State v. Mackintosh (98 W ash., 4 3 8 ; 167 Pac., 1 0 9 0 ).
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



Appeal does not lie when the statute allows a writ o f error to be
taken;8 conversely, a writ o f error does not lie when the judgment
can be appealed.4 When an appeal lies application must be made
during the term at which the order was passed, even though, in crimi­
nal cases, a different rule may prevail.5
In hearing an appeal the court may affirm that part o f the order
which declares the child delinquent or dependent and reverse that
part which commits the child to an institution.6
Manifestly it is not the function o f appellate courts, in hearing
these appeals, to consider the case de novo, and it can be said o f the
cases as a whole that the reviewing courts give due weight to the find­
ings o f the juvenile judge. It is, however, the function o f the courts
to see that parents are not deprived o f the custody o f their children
merely because a juvenile judge believes a change o f custody might
offer the child greater advantages.7
When a defect in the proceedings o f the juvenile court is purely
formal, such as the insufficiency o f the petition, the judgment of the
court will cure it.8 It has been held that, on appeal, notice to the
parents or waiver o f notice will be presumed,9 and even that the
unfitness o f the parent is to be presumed from an order depriving
him o f custody.10 On the other hand, it has been held that th^>
record o f the juvenile court must show the essentials o f jurisdiction,
that the presumption as to jurisdiction which is invoked in support
o f judgments at common law and in chancery does not apply; that
it is not enough to show that evidence was offered of the jurisdictional
facts in the proceedings, i f the record does not set this forth.11

Many o f the juvenile-court laws provide that a disposition o f a
child in the proceedings, or any evidence given in the course o f the
proceedings, shall not be admissible against the child for any pur­
pose whatsoever except in subsequent proceedings under the act.
Under such a statute it has been held that in an action to recover a
reward for information leading to the conviction o f a person guilty
o f stealing from a telephone company, evidence that a boy was ad­
judged delinquent by the juvenile court was inadmissible.12
* People v. Piccolo, supra.
4 Ogden, v. State, supra.
B State v. Calhoun (St. Louis Court o f Appeals) (211 S. W ., 1 0 9 ).
«Bedford v. Anderson (U tah) (1 9 0 Pac., 7 7 5 ).
See also the cases in note 77, supra.
7 See notes 56 and 57, supra.
8 Ex parte Hunter (Cal. App.) (188 Pac., 6 3 ).
» K in g v. Sears, supra; Gordon v. State (Tex. Cr. Rep.) (228 S. W ., 1 0 9 5 ).
10 M atter of Cannon (27* Cal. App., 5 4 9 ; 150 Pac., 7 9 4 ). W hen a child is tried in a
criminal court jurisdiction w ill not be presumed. W aters v. Commonwealth (171 Kyv,
4 5 7 ; 188 S. W ., 4 9 0 ).
11 Kelsey v. Carroll (2 2 W yo., 8 5 ; 138 Pac., 8 6 7 ).
12 Kozler v. N. Y. Telephone Co., supra.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


25 i

In a number o f States the juvenile court is required to keep records
-o f the cases which come before it. Some o f these States forbid
public inspection o f the records except by special order o f the court.
Such records, apart from their statistical value, are o f use to the
court in its own work, although if a boy has been discharged he
can not afterwards be committed to an institution solely upon past
The case o f Lindsey y. People,14 which deals with the question o f
privileged communications, has an important bearing upon the
methodology o f the court and the relations o f trust that it is neces­
sary to establish between judge .and child in order to assure a wise
andlmg o f the case. In that case, before proceedings had been
instituted against him, a boy came to Judge Lindsey, o f the Denver
Juvenile Court, and, upon assurance that the judge could not be
made to testify against him, confided certain facts bearing upon the
hilling o f his father. Proceedings were subsequently instituted
against him as a delinquent child and were pending when the bov’s
mother was brought toteial for killing her husband. The boy was
cal ed as a witness, and after he had testified, Judge Lindsey was
called upon to disclose what the boy had told him. The boy consented to a disclosure, but the judge refused to divulge his^ confidence
he judge was thereupon fined for contempt and to this judgment
brought a writ o f error. A Colorado statute provided that a child
committing the offense for which the boy had been brought before
the juvenile court « shall be deemed ” a delinquent. Another statute
provided that a public officer should not be examined as to communi­
cations made m official confidence i f the public interests, in the judffment o f the court, would suffer by the disclosure. A third statute
provided that a judge could not act as attorney. The judgment o f
contempt was affirmed, three justices dissenting.15

ftr^ hen ,a ,C^.lld is committed to the guardianship o f an individual
or an institution, the proceeding is not equivalent to an adoption, but
is only a police measure o f the State, affecting the incidents, not the
existence o f the legal status between parent and child.
This distinction is brought out by the case o f Henn v. Children’s
In that case, a mother domiciled in Montana had sent her
daughter to California for a visit. The child was committed to an
institution by a juvenile court without notice to the mother and the
mother prayed a writ o f habeas corpus. The writ was denied the
^ u i t court o f appeals affirming the judgment. I f the proceedings
18 State v. Zirbel (W is.) (1 7 7 N. W
u (Colo.) 181 Pac., 531.


«S u p rL rltiCiSmS ° f thiS CaS6 866 29 Yale L - J > 3 56’ and 33 Harv. L. Rev., 88.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis







j u v e n il e


had been in the nature o f adoption by the State or by the institu­
tion the juvenile court would clearly have been without junsdiction.
The guardian has no rights over the property of the child, but he
has certain rights over his person. While it would seem obvious
that one o f the incidents o f custody, even though it be only temporary
custody, is the right to determine where the child shall reside, it
has been held that children committed to the guardianship o f persons
who lived in a certain district were not residents o f that district
under a statute which provided that only residents were admissible
to the district school.17 The decision in an Ontario case m which it
was held that a child committed to an institution m a certain town
was a resident o f that town, so as to make it liable for the child s
support while in a public hospital,18 is more reasonable.
The legal questions likely to arise under the statutes establishing
juvenile courts will not, in all probability, be difficult o f solution.
The real problem ahead is to find a solution.for the practical diffi­
culty o f extending the court to rural communities and to secure a
uniform level o f efficiency in the work o f the court19 . .
There is a growing movement to consolidate the function ox the
juvenile court and the functions of criminal and equity courts m
dealing with problems between husband and wife and parent and
child in order to give jurisdiction over all cases o f this nature to a
court of domestic relations.20 This commendable effort is directed
against both the inadequacy o f piecemeal justice and the procedural
difficulties created by multiplicity o f courts.
It is occasionally questioned if juvenile-court work, whether car­
ried on by a separate tribunal or as part o f the work of a domestic
relations court, can ever be properly conducted by a judicial organ.
But those persons who would give to administrative bodies the sole
right to deal with children overlook the fact that in one way or
another children are directly or indirectly affected by the determina­
tion o f legal rights and legal obligations, on which only a judicial
body can properly pass. The recognition that these cases must be
dealt with separately, that the administration o f justice is as much a
matter o f procedure as of rules, and that justice can not be adminis­
tered to children in the way that it is to adults, represents an advance
in legal thought of which the juvenile court, conducted as a separate
unit or as part of a domestic relations court, is the only possible
_ ___________ _
« B la c k v. Graham (238 Pa., 3 8 1 ; 86 A tl., 2 6 6 ).
18 Toronto Free Hospital v. Town of Barrie (39 Ont. L ., 6 3 ).
in the Annual
19 See “ Studies of Children’s Courts by the U. S. Children’s Bureau,
Report of the National Probation Association for 1920.
S See “ Justice and the Poor,” by Reginald Heber Smith, Charles Scribner s Sons, New


Y °^kSee9‘‘ P a S n g t f t h e Juvenile Court,” by Herbert M . Baker, in The Survey, Feb. 12,
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

In the case o f United States v. Moreland, decided by the Supreme
Court on April IT, 1922, it was held that the District o f Columbia
statute dealing with contributors to delinquency was void, so far as
it provided that an offender could be proceeded against by informa­
tion and sentenced to imprisonment in the District workhouse, for
not more than a year, at hard labor. The decision was placed upon
the ground that the statute violated the fifth amendment o f the Con­
stitution of the United States, which provides that no person shall
be held to answer for “ a capital or otherwise infamous crime except
upon presentment or indictment o f a grand jury. Hard labor in
the District workhouse for failure to support minor children, a
majority o f the Supreme Court held, inflicted an infamous punish­
ment. A vigorous dissent was delivered by Justice Brandeis, in
which Chief Justice Taft and Justice Holmes concurred. The dis­
senting opinion shows that confinement for a short period at hard
labor in a workhouse or a house o f correction was not regarded as
an infamous punishment at the time of the adoption of the Consti­
tution, and distinguishes the cases cited in the majority opinion,
'in that those cases deal with sentences to institutions which served
as State prisons or penitentiaries as well as houses o f correction.
Certainly commitment of adults who do not support their children
is to-day regarded more as a remedial act calculated to enforce an
obligation than as the punishment for a heinous offense. The
decision affects only the District o f Columbia statute, as the fifth
amendment o f the Constitution does not apply to the States.1 In
many States there is no constitutional provision similar to that con­
tained in the Federal Constitution on this matter, and offenses such
as the one in the Moreland case can under the State statute be pro­
ceeded against upon information. Even in States which have a con­
stitutional provision which resembles the fifth amendment the More­
land case will not necessarily be followed.2 It is to be hoped that
the decision will not further increase the practical difficulty, already
felt by most juvenile courts, o f reaching those who contribute to
juvenile delinquency.
1 Barron, v. M ayor and City Council o f Baltim ore (7 Peters 243, 8 L e d . 6 7 2 ).
2 In the case, of K ing v. Florida (17 Fla. 183) it was held, under a provision o f the
Florida constitution similar to the Federal fifth amendment, that the keeping of a bawdy
house was not an infamous crime, and could be proceeded against by information, al­
though the offense was punishable by imprisonment in the county jails for a period not
exceeding a year. A t the time o f this decision those sentenced to the county ja ils could
be forced to perform hard labor. Laws o f Florida, 1877, c. 2096 and c. 2093.
In the case of Jones v. Robbins (7 4 Mass. 329, a t pages 348, 349) Chief Justice Shaw
gave it as his opinion that a sentence to hard labor in the workhouse or house o f cor­
rection was not considered as infamous punishment in colonial times, nor was it to be
considered a s such under the Massachusetts constitution.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


Adams, State v________ _______________________________________________________ r
Ah Peen, E x parte________________ __________________________________ ____


Anderson, Bedford v ______ ____________________________________________________
Anon_______________._____________________________________________ }_________ __


Asher, State v_________ ____________________ r__________ ________________ ;________
Bailey, Karrib v______________________________________________ _______ ____ _____
Bazeley v. Forder______________________________________ ________ ______________



Becknell, E x parte___________ ______________________________________________ 10 22 25
Bedford v. Anderson___________________________________
Black v. Graham_______________ \____________________________ ___________
Bleier v. Crouse___________________________________ _______________ , __________ 22 25
Board o f Children’s Guardians, Egoff v___ *.__________ ______________ _______
Board o f Children’s Guardians v. Juvenile Court__________________________
Board o f County Commissioners v. Savage_____________________________
Board o f Control o f StateHome v. Mulertz______________________
Bockman, State v________________ ________________________________ '_____ _______ 21 25
Bowden, Pugh v________
feowers, E x parte_______________1____ ___________________________ ______________
Brana v. Brana_______ ________________________________________________________
Brana, Brana v__________ ________________________ t_____________________ ____ __
Branworth, Regina v________________ ______________________________
Briggs, U. S. v________________ t________________________________________________
Brodie, In re____________________________________________ _____________ *
Brooks, E x parte________ ^_____________________________________________________
Broughton, In re___________________________________
Brown, Mill v_____ ;__________________________ ___ _________ _____________
g i q h ig
Bryant, State v _________________________________________________ _______________ ’ g’ n
Budd, People v_____________________________________________ ___________________ 10 20
Buffington v. State__________________________________________________ __________
Bullock, Lynn v _______________________________________________________________ 10 n
Burnett, State v _____________________________________________________________ _
g ig
Cagle, State v_________________________________________ _________________________
Cain, Ex parte_______I ____ _______ I _________________________________________ __
Calhoun, State v______________________________________________________ ____ _____
Calkins, People v ___________________________________ _________ _________________
Campbell County v. City o f Newport_____ ___________________ _______________
Camp, People v________________________________________ _____________________ _
Cannon, Matter o f_____________________________________ _______________ __ ____
Carroll, Kelsey v _________________ ____________________________________________
Chartrand, E x parte_________________ _______________________ ____________ ____


^HfChildren’s Agency, Henn v ___________________________________________________ 22 27
Children’s Guardians, Wilkinson v ___________________________________________
Children’s Home v. Fetter__________ __________________________________________
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



Children’s Home v. Kelley-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Children’s Protective Act, In re— ,------------- - - ----------------------------------------------Childress v. State-----------------------------ii/L — t il---------------------------------------------City of Newport, Campbell County ------------------------------------------------------------Clark, State v ---------— ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------Cleveland Orphan Protestant Asylum v. Soule---------- — .-------------------------------

16 „


10 20


Colias v. People--------------------------------------------- ----------- —*ß—
Commonwealth v. Duane---------- ---------------------------------------— :---------------------------■
Commonwealth v. Fisher-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ 9? 49
Commonwealth v. Franks-------- — -------------------------------------------------------------------Commonwealth, Gottlieb --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commonwealth, Marlowe v ------------ — --------------------------------------------------------9 ,1 0 ,1 1

Commonwealth, Mattingly v-------------------------------------Commonwealth v. Murray------------------------------------44
Commonwealth, W aters --------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 ft 9*1
Commonwealth v. Yungblut------------------------- --------------------------- -----------------------Cook County Commissioners, W itter ----------------------------------------------------------- 44
Crouse, E x parte— ------------------------------ -— -------------------------------------------- 4
Crouse, Bleier v -------------------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------- ^— 22,2
Cullins v. W illiam s------------------------------ ■--------------------------------------------- --------22, 23’2
Davis, Rex v-------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------1------ ~- _ t
Day, McPherson v -----------------------------— — ----------------b ----------------------------------de Leon, People v--------------------------------------------- ------------ -------------- ----------------49, 4
Dixon, Greenman v ---------------------------------------— --------------------------------------- ------Doust, Weber ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24
Driscoll, In r e -------------------------- ------------- ■— -----------------------------------------Drury, State ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------- ;--------------------Duane, Commonwealth v_ ------------------------------------- --------------- -------------------------Ducker, Rex ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------Dumain and W ife v. Gwynne------------------------------------------------ -


Dunn, State v-------------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Dupes v. Superior Court-------- ------------------------------------------------- --------------------"
EgofE v. Board o f Children’s Guardians------------------------------------------------------ Eisen, State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Estes v. State;------------- --------------------------------------— ------- Farnham v. Pierce-------------- ------------------------------------------------ -Ferrier, In re--------------------------------------------------------------------------Fetter, Children’s Home
-------------------------------------------------- —
Fisher, Commonwealth -----------------------------------------------------------Forder, Bazeley -----------------------------------------------------------------------Franks, Commonwealth V—------------------------- ----------------------- —
Freudenberg, State v ----------------------- ----------------------------------------Friederich, People -------------------------------------------------------- —
Friend’s Case--------------------- ------------------------------ # — -------Gassaway, In re-----------------------------— --------------------------------------Gates, State v ------------------------------------ ------- -------- -------------------- “
Gilder, In re-------------------------------- ----------------------f*--------------------- *
Gilliland v. W h ittle--------------- ------- -------------------------------------------Gordon v. State------------------------- -----------------------------------------------Gottlieb v. Commonwealth---------------------------------— ------------------Gowans, Stoker ------------------------------------------ *---------------------------Graham, Black ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------Greenman v. Dixon------------------------------------•---------------------
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

’ 1fi



Griffin, State v _______________________________________
i Grim es, E x parte_______________________ __________ ___
Guerrero v. Sta te________ ______ _________
Gutierrez, E x parte_________________________________






i :' ii


---- 1__'10, 22
_______ 22,27
______ 21,25
____ 9,16,25
__ _
_____ 22,25
—_ 2 3
-i _ _ _
— —_
_____ 22,26
A— _ 11,26
— 9,'ll, 18
— 9,11,18
____ 10,11


G utierrez, People v _____ ____________________________


Gw ynne, D u m ain and W if e v _______________________
H a ll, People v _________________________________________
H am m on d , R eed n— ________________________ ;________
H enn v. Children’s A gen cy________________ ,__________
H inck ley, Jensen v __________________________________
H offm an , State v _______ _________________________ ___
H osford , In r e _________________ ______________________
H ou se o f R efu ge, R oth v ________________________ _
H ouse o f R efu ge v. R y a n ___________________________
H ow e, R eynolds v __________________________________ _
H u gh lett, Juvenile Court v ________________________ _
H u n t v. W a y n e C ircuit Judges____________________
H unter, E x parte_____________________________________
111. State R eform atory, People v ______ ____ _____ _
Isenhuth, State v ________ _____ _ i l _________ * ______ i
Januszew ski, E x parte______________________________
J arrard v. Sta te __'_2__________________________________
Jensen v. H in c k le y ____________ ______________________
Johnson, In re (C a l. A p p .) ________________________
Johnson, In re ( W i s .) _______________________________
Juvenile Court, In re________________________
Juvenile Court, B oard o f Children’s G uardians v.
Juvenile Court v. H u g h le tt___________ ______ _____
Juvenile Court v. Sta te_______________________ ! _ ____
Juvenile Court, Sta te v ____________________________
K a rrib v. B a ile y _________ ___________________ ___________
K elley , C hildren’s H om e v ______________________ _
K elsey v. C arroll____________ .;_ _ _ ___ _____________
K in g, E x parte__________|_____________________ ________
K in g v. S e a r s ________ ______________ _____________ ___ __
K now ack, In r e _______ gj____________ ___________ _
K ol, In re____________ ___ _______________________________
K oster, N icholl v _____________.____________
K o zler v. N . Y . Telephone Co________________________
L a d y B raughton, R e x v ______________________________
L atim er, U . S. v ________________________________
Lee, People v ________ ____________________ _____________
Leonard v. L ic k e r _______________ __ ____ ______
Licker, Leonard v _______ ;______________________________
L iddell, E x parte____ ^______ __________________ ijB______
L indsay v. L in d sa y ______ _____________________________
L in d say, L in dsay v _________________________________ j p
L indsey v. People____ __________________________________
Longsine v. S ta te _________ .___________
Loving, E x p a r t e _______________ ___^__ i _____ \
____ _
Lundy, In r e ____________ _________________ ____________ _
Lynn v. B u llo c k ________________ _______________________
M cCloskey, Sta te v _______,___:___________ ___________ _
M cD an iel v. Y o u n g b lo o d ________ ____ „_____
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis






M cD on ald v. Short---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M c F a ll v. Sim m ons — _ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


M cC lain v. Superior Court o f C helan C ounty— ------- --------------------------------------M cL a ren v. S ta te------------------------------------------------------------------

1 5 ,1 6

M cPherson v. D a y -------------------------------------------------- _ — ----------------------- -------------------


State v ------------------------------------------------------- _L— --------------- ._ ------------


M ackintosh,

M aginnis, In re,-------------------------------------- ----------------------- — ----------------------------J___ 10
M allo ry, E x parte----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


M arlow e v. Com m onw ealth-------------------------------------------- ------- ----------- : _________9 ,1 0 ,1 1
M ason , People v ________________________________________________________ ._ __________


M a tter o f Cannon___________________________


M a tter o f G uardianship o f M ich els___________________________________________ sj__


M attin gly v. C om m onw ealth-----------------------------------------------------------------------------M ayh ew v. S ta te---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------M ead, In re-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M elville, People v — _____________________________________________________________ .__
M ichels, M a tte r o f G uardianship o f_____________________________________________

• 20

M ill v. B row n ______________________________________________________ _ _________9 ,1 0 ,1 1 ,1 9
M ilw aukee County, M ilw aukee In du strial School v _______________ _ __________


M ilw au k ee In d u stria l School v. M ilw au k ee C ou n ty__________________________


M onon galia County Court, State v ---------------------------------------1____________________ 1 1 ,1 4
M oore v. W illia m s ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _


M oss v. U . S _____________________________________________________ _________— — ____ 1


M ulertz, B oard o f Control o f Sta te H o m e v ____________________________________
M urray, Com m onw ealth v _______________ __ ___________— ¿6L--------------- — —


N . Y . N u rsery and C hild’s H osp ital, People v ___________________________________2 2 ,2 5
N . Y . Telephone Co., K o zler v ___________________ ________ _____1 1 ,2 6
N icholl v. K o ste r_______________________1---------------------------------- .----------- --------- _ _ _ _ _
N orth D a k o ta C hildren’s H om e Society, State v ---------- — _ _______ __________ _
N orthon, I n re----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------1,--------14
Ogden v. S ta te--------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _ 2 1 ,2 6
O lm stead, W h a le n v ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ --------24
O rr v. Sta te---------------------------------------- ------------------ -----------------------------------------------l | l l
O xnam , People v -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------------15
Pease v. State________________________________________ — --------- ------------------------- 20
People v. B u d d -------------------------------------------------- -------- J---------- --------------------------- ^— 1 0 ,2 0
People v. C alkin s-------------------------- ----------------------------- — ------------------ -------------------10
People v. C am p_________________________ ________________ _______________________20
People !?. C., B . & Q. R . R . C o-------------------------------- —
— ----------------- — #&, 1 1
People, Colias v -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. de L eon-------------------- ------------r, — ----------; _ _ _ ------------ M -------------1 0 ,2 0
People v. F riederich _________________________________________________ --------------------People v. G utierrez--------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------


People v. H a ll---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- --— _ —
People v. 111. State R eform ato ry ---------------------------:---------------------------£■------- - - - - i
People v. L ee_________________________________ ___________ — ---------------------------------21
People, Lindsey v ----------------------------------------27
People v. M a son _------------—
People v. M e lv ille__________________________________________
People v. N . Y . N u rsery and C hild’s H o sp ita l— ---------------------------------------------- 2 2 ,2 5
People v. O xn am _______________________________________________________
People v. Piccolo_______________ ___________ _— — ,------------------- ----------- -------------- 1 0 ,2 1 ,2 6
People v. P ierro___________ ____________ ,---------- u------ ----------------------------------------------2i
People v. W ilh ite — ------- ---------------- . -------------------------------------------- --------- ----------------• 21
People v. W o lff________________________________________
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis



Phillips, State v ________________________________________._______________________
Piccolo, People v _______________________________________________________________ __

2i 26

Pierce, F arn h am v ___________________________ ________________1 ___________________ y’


Pierro, People v ____________________ ____________________________________ __________

’2 1

Pilkington, In re_________ :_______________________________________________________ _
Pow ell, in re_______________ !________________________________________________________


P ruitt, E x parte_______ __________________________________ l_________________________
Pugh v. B ow den____________________________________________________________________




R agan , Sta te v _______________________________________________________


R am seur, E x parte_______________________________________


Reed v. H am m on d _______________________________________________________________


R egina v. B ran w orth __ _______________________________________________ ________ ___


R eid, S m ith v ____________________________________ ____ _______________ ______________


R em sk i, in re._______________________________ ________________ _______________ ______


Iiex v. D a v is _______________________________________________


R ex v. D u ck er______________________


R ex v. L a d y B rau ghton ____________________________________ ____ •___________________


R eynolds v. H o w e___ _ _____________________
Robison v. W a y n e C ircuit Judges____________________________ _______ _____________
R oth v. H ou se o f R efu ge_________

9 10

R yan, H ou se o f R efu ge v _________


S, In re-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sam s v. S t a t e _______________________________________________________________________


Satterth w aite, E x parte_____________________


Savage, B oard o f County C om m issioners v _____________________________________


Sears, K in g v -------------------------------------------------------------- ______________ ________________ 2 2 ,2 6
Sharp, In re----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 ,1 0 , 22
Shelley v. W estbrooke_______ ___________________________________________________ ___
Short, M cD on ald v ___________


Sim m ons, M cF a ll v ______ ____________________________________________________________
Sing, In re_.__________________________________________ ___ ;___________________________


Skowron, In re______________________________________________________________


Slade v. Sta te________________________________________________________________________


Sm ith v. R eid _______________________________;______________________________________ j


Sm ith, S tate v _______________________ __________ ___________ ____________ ____________


Songer, In re_______________________ i________________________________________________


Soule, Cleveland Orphan Protestant A sy lu m t?_________________ ________________ _
Spade v. S tate________________________________________________________________________


Spence, In re___________________________ l____________________________________________


Sta te v. A d a m s_________________________ ___________________________ ________________


State v. A sh e r____ :__________________________ ____ __________________________________


State v. B ock m an___________________________________________________________________21 25
State v. B ry a n t______________________________________________________________________ 9 n
State, Buffington v __________________________________________________________________


State v. B u rn ett________________________________ ____________________________________
State v. C a g le ______ ___________________________________________________ ___ _ ___ _

9 19

State v. Calhoun_____________________ jjj__________________________ ____________________
State, Childress v ___ _____________________________________________________ ___________


9 19

State- v. C la rk __________________________________________ ______ •____ ________________ 1 9 2 0
Sta te v. D ru ry _________________________________ _____________________________________
S ta te v. D u n n _______ ______________ ___________________ ______________________________
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis






Sta te v. B isen ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------


State, E stes v ------------- -—*-i.-------------------------------- — --------------------------— ----------------State v. Freudenberg-------------------------------------------- --------------------------- --------- -------------


S tate v. G ates---------------------------------------- - - - --------- —---------------— ---------- — - — —


Stat6, Gordon v ----------------- ----------------------------------------------—

t ----------------------------------


State v. Griffin-----------------------,------------------------------------------ ------------------------------— —


State, Guerrero v ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- —


Sta te v. H offm a n ---------------------------- 1---------—

-------------------------------- —

--------------- 2 1 ,2 5

Sta te v. Isenh u th------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~ — State, Jarrard V— ---------------- ------- -----------------------------------:— ------------------------------—
S tate v. Juvenile C ourt---------------------- ------- ----------------------- --—




State, Juvenile Court v --------------- --------------------------- --------------- _ _ -J.-----------------------


State, Longsine v -------- — |---------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------ U------------State v. M cC loskey_.------------------------------- — — 1 - -------------C---------------------------- —


State, M cL aren v ------- :--------- ---------l------------------- — — -------------------------------------------- 1 5 ,1 6
State v. M ackintosh— ,------------------------------------------ — -—

------- — —


State, M ayh ew v ---------------------------------------------- -------------------- —-------- r - — .— --------


S ta te v. M onongalia County C ou rt---------------------:-----------------------— —------- — - — 1 1 ,1 4
State v. N orth D ak ota C hildren’ s H om e Society------ .—

-------- --— -------


State, Ogden v ------------------------------------------------------------------- ' - — --------------------------- _ 2 1 ,2 6
State, O rr v _ _ _ _ ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ 1---------- -


State, P ease v _________________________ _________ i-------------------------- ------------------------


Sta te v. P h illip s------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- — — ----------------


Sta te v. R a ga n --------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------- ------ ----------


State, Sam s v ------- -----------------------------------------l-------------------------------- ----------- --------- 4b


State, Slade v -------------------------------------------- ;---------------------------- - 1 - — .------ — .— _ _


State v. S m ith -------------------------------------- — ----------------------- -------------------------------------


State, Spade V— --------------->— ---------------------------------------- r --------- --— ,---------- -----------


State, Stracner v ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------— ------- 1 5 ,1 6
State v. T in ch er--------- ------------------------------------- --------------- ------- ------------------------------- --


State, W a rw ic k v ----------------- --------- --------------- — ---------------------------- --------------------------


State v. W illia m s ________________ ------------- — _ _ _ i --------- ------------------------------ —


State v. Z irbel----- ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______
Stoker v. G ow an s_________ i— --------- -------i - — — — ----------------------------------- Z,
Stracner v. State---------------------------------- ! -------------—
Superior Court, D upes v ------------------------ ■--------- --—


1 7 ,2 4 ,2 5

--------------- — --------- _______ 1 5 ,1 6
------------------- ^ _____ ___ 16

Superior C ourt o f Chelan County, M cL a in v ______ - ¿ i _______________ ________


Tincher, State v --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Toronto F ree H osp ita l v. T o w n o f B a rrie ___ — _______________________________


T ow n o f B arrie, Toronto F re e H o sp ita l V - ____________ _____________ —



Turner, In re-------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------- -


U . S. v. B rig g s---------- ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ----------- -------


U . S. v. L a tim er---------------------------------------------------- --------------- _______________________


U . S., M oss v _______________________________________________________ — ___ ____ ______


W a r w ic k v. State--------- ------------------------- — ------- a------------- ___________________ ____


W a te r s v. Commonwealth-^____________________________i _________________________ _


W a y n e C ircu it Judges, H u n t v --------------------------------------------------------______ _______


W a y n e C ircu it Judges, R obison v ------------------------------ ----------^----------------- — ______ 9 ,1 0
W e b e r v. D ou st_____________________________________ ____________________________ *___


W e lle sley v. W e lle s le y -------------------------------------------------- — --------------------------------- --


W e lle sley , W e lle sle y v ----------------- --------- — !----- v-----------------------------------------------------


W estbrooke, Shelley v ------------------------- ------- ----------- ------------------------------- — — --------


W h a le n v. O lm stead-----------------------------1------------- -------------- *----------------------------------

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


W h ittle, G illilan d v ______________________
W ilh ite , People v ________________________
W ilk in son v. Children’s G u ardian s____
W illia m s, C ullins v ______________________
W illia m s, M oore v _______________________


22, 23,25


W illia m s, S ta te v _____________________
W itte r v. Cook County Com m issioners.
W o lff, People v __ I______________ -_________


Youngblood, M cD an iel v ________________
Yungblut, Com m onw ealth v ____________
Zirbel, State v _______________________
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis




— 10,25

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

I N D E X

Adjudication in juvenile court inadmissible
as evidence, 11—12.
Adoption, commitment not equivalent to,
2 7 -2 8 .
Adults, acts of, 19.
causing juvenile delinquency or de­
pendency, 10, 19, 20.
crimes of, against minor, 19.
failure to fulfill duty toward minor, 19.
omissiops of, 19.,
procedure in cases o f, 25.
See also Delinquency, Dependency,
Jurisdiction of juvenile court,
Age, failure to raise question of, during
trial, 14, 15.
jurisdiction as to, 1 6 -1 7 .
knowledge of, by defendant in con­
tributing cases, 21.
Age limit, continuance of jurisdiction after

K . 17*

Agencies, cooperation w ith court, 25.
Aid-to-mothers laws, 19.
Appeal, action of court in hearing, 26.
function o f court in hearing, 26.
notice, whether presumed on, 26.
provision for, 2 5 , 26.
right of children to', 10.
right to, not implied, 25.
time of application for, 26.
unfitness of parent, whether presumed
on, 26.

Basic conceptions of juvenile court, 8 -9 .
“ Benefit o f clergy,” comparison w ith juve­
nile court, 8.
Binding to good behavior a t common law, 8.
Causing delinquency or dependency an of­
fense, 10, 19, 20.
Children, as wards of chancery, 7.
delinquent and dependent, concern of
State, 11.
earnings of, at common law, 8.
not to be taken from parents, unless
necessary, 8.
right of, to appeal, 10.
right of, to trial by jury, 9.
separation of, from adults, 23.
status of, in juvenile-court proce­
dure, 9.
See also Delinquency, Delinquent chil­
dren, Dependency, Dependent
Classification of legislature, presumptively
reasonable, l i .

Commitment, adoption not equivalent to,
2 7 -2 8 .
legal effect of, 2 7 -2 8 .
of married woman upheld, 17.
to institution as ending jurisdiction of
court, 2 4 -2 5 .
Conditional suspension of sentence, rela­
tion to probation, 8.
Confusion between terms, delinquency and
dependency, 18.
Construction of State constitution as to
formation o f new court, 10—11.
Contempt, power of court to punish for, 23.
Continuance o f delinquency sufficient to
support conviction in contrib­
uting cases, 21.
Conviction in juvenile court inadmissible
as evidence, 1 1 -1 2 , 26, 27.
Cooperation between court and other agen­
cies, 25.
Courts, multiplicity of, 28.
Crime, children under 7 years incapable of
.committing, 8.
Criminal court, conflict of jurisdiction of
juvenile court with, 14, 15, 16,
jurisdiction over children sometimes
given to, 12.
jurisdiction over contributing cases, 20.
relinquishment o f jurisdiction to, 18.
Criminal law, distinction between children
and adults, 8.
Custody, incidents of, 28.
notice required before parents can be
deprived of, 22.
right of parent to, at common law, 8.
transfer of, as method of disposing of
case, 23.


an offense,


causing continuation of, enough to
support conviction, 21.
judgment of, held inadmissible against
child, 26.
proof of, required, in contributing
cases, 21.
scope o f term, 18.
tending to cause, an offense, 20, 21.
Delinquency and dependency, confusion be­
tween, 18.
Delinquent children, at common law, 17.
concern o f State, 11.
Dependency,, causing, an offense, 10, 19, 20.
scope of term, 18.
tending to cause, an offense, 20.

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


20 .



Dependent children, at common law, 17, 18.
concern of State, 11,
jurisdiction of juvenile court over,
when taken, 19.
Desertion and nonsupport of children, 20.
Discharge, conditions of, 24.
Distinction between children and adults in
criminal law, 8.
Divorce proceedings, relation to juvenilecourt proceedings, 15, 16.
Domestic relations courts, advantages of,
12, 16.
tendency toward, 28.
Due process of law, juvenile court as de­
privation of, 9—10.
Earnings of children, father entitled to, at
common law, 8.
Education, common-law duty o f parents to
children, 7 -8 .
Efficiency, problem of securing uniform
level of, in courts, 28.
Equal protection of laws, juvenile court as
deprivation of, 10.
Equity, jurisdiction of, in regard to chil­
dren, 7.
Error, writ of, when lies, 26.
Evidence, adjudication in juvenile court
inadmissible as, 11—12, 26, 27.
use of, in other trials, 26.
Examination of children, 23.
Feeble-minded children, jurisdiction over, 19.
Guardians, commitment to, as determining
residence, 28.
parents appointed as, 24.
rights of, 27, 28.
transfer o f custody to, 23.
Habeas1 corpus, w rit of, when lies, 25.
Illegitimate children, duty of support ex­
tended to father of, 20.
Indictment, dissimilarity of petition to, 22.
Injunction against parent, 25.
Institution, can not be forced to disclose
whereabouts of child, 25.
claim of, as against claim of parent,
commitment to, as determining resi­
dence, 28.
commitment to, whether ends juris­
diction of court, 24, 25.
rights over children, 27, 28.
Investigation o f cases, 23.

desirability of specialization of,
1 2 -1 3 .
method of selection of, 12—13.
position of, as friend of children, 23.
work, 13.
should be allowed sufficient time for
juvenile-court work, 13.
Judges, rotation of, inadvisable, 13.
Judgment, cures formal defect of proce­
dure, 26.
Jurisdiction, as to dependents and delin­
quents at common law, 17.
o f court of equity, whether property
right necessary to, 7.
of criminal court, See Criminal court.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Jurisdiction, of juvenile court, appearance
of parent w ill give, 22.
as to age, 1 6 -1 7 .
broadening, 19‘.
commitment, invalidation of, does
not terminate, 24.
conflict w ith jurisdiction of crim­
inal court, 14, 15, 16, 17.
continuance of, after age lim it, 17.
divorce proceedings not ouster,
1 5 -1 6 .
equitable, not criminal, 9.
exclusive, 14, 16.
desirability of, as to offenses
committed by children under certain age, 16.
exercise of, 18, 19.
inter se, 16.
marriage as ouster, 17.
not exclusive as to equity proceed­
ings, 16. N
obtained generally by petition, 21,

22 .
over cases concerning—
contributing to delinquency
or dependency, 20.
delinquent children, 17, 18,
dependent and neglected chil­
dren, 17, 18, 19.
desertion and nonsupport, 20 ^
feeble-minded children, 19. r :
mothers’ aid, 19.
rape, 19—20.
relinquishment of, 18.
summons or w arrant necessary to,

suspension' of sentence not relin­
quishment of, 24.
waiver of notice w ill give, -22.
whether attaches in contributing
cases when delinquency
proved, 21.
whether ended by commitment to
institution, 2 4 -2 5 .
Jury trial, right of children to, 9.
sometimes allowed, 23.
Justices of peace hearing children’s cases,

Juvenile court, basic conceptions of, 8 -9 .
comparison w ith “ Benefit o f clergy,” 8.
consolidation o f functions of,, with
with family problems, 28.
necessary for, 1 0 -1 1 .
criticism of, 28.
designation of, 12.
in large cities, 12.
jurisdiction of. See Jurisdiction,
large powers intrusted to, 18.
power to appoint probation officers, 11.
power to punish for contempt. 23.
privacy of hearing, 23.
procedure, equitable, not criminal, 9,
must be informal, 8.
See also Procedure.



IN D E X .
Juvenile court, records, 27.
uniform efficiency, problem o.f secur­
ing, 28.
Work of, whether should be given to
administrative bodies, 28.
Juvenile-court legislation,, draftsmanship
of, 10.
source of, 7'.
w ith reference to taxes, 11.

Penalties, unequal, juvenile-court laws as
imposing, 10.
Person, right of guardian over, 28.
Petition, dissimilarity to indictment, 22.
insufficiency of, cured by judgment, 26.
necessary for obtaining jurisdiction,

tion of children, 24.

Rotation o f judges inadvisable, 13.
Rural communities, problem, of juvenilecourt work in, 28.
Separate court to hear children’s cases,

21 , 22 .

Physical examinations sometimes provided,
Police judges hearing children’s cases, 12.
“ K now in gly,” construction of term in con­
Poverty of parent, not ground for taking
tributing cases, 21.
away child, 19.
Law s, equal protection of, 10.
Privacy of hearing, 23.
Local, juvenile-court legislation as, 11.
Probation, as method o f disposing of case,
Loco parentis, decisions confining statutes
to those who stand in, 2 0 -2 1 .
definition of, 13.
Maintenance, common-law duty of parents
nature of, 24.
to children, 7, 20.
source of, 8.
Marriage as ouster of jurisdiction of juve­
Probation officers, appointment of, 1 3 -1 4 .
nile court, 17.
court kept in touch with children
Mental examinations sometimes provided,
through, 8.
investigation by, 23.
Mothers’ aid laws, 19.
position of, as friends of children,
Municipality, responsibility f o r ' children,
23, 24.
11, 28.
voluntary agencies have no control
• over, 25.
Neglected children at common law, 18.
women as, 14.
Neglected children.
See Dependency, De­
Procedure, difficulties increased. by multi­
pendent children.
plicity of courts, 28.
Nonsupport and desertion o f children, 20.
equitable, not criminal, 9.
Notice, failure to give, whether invalidates ,
form al defect cured by judgment, 26.
whole, decree, 22, 26.
in cases o f adults, 25.
necessary to bind parents, 10.
informality of, not unconstitutional, 19,
provision as to, mandatory, 22.
newness of, 21.
to parents generally provided, 22.
privacy o f hearing, 23.
waiver of, held to be revocable, 22.
technicalities abandoned, 23.
whether presumed on appeal, 26.
Proceedings, effect upon status o f chil­
Oath, generally not necessary for chil­
dren, 2 7 -2 8 .
dren, 23.
inadmissible in other cases, 26.
Property, rights of guardian over, 28.
Parents, appointment as guardians after
Property right, necessity of, for jurisdic­
abandonment o f children, 24.
tion of chancellor, 7.
children not to be taken from, unless
Protection o f children, commor.-law duty—
necessary, 8.
of parents, 7—8.
claim of, as against institution, 24.
o f State,. 7 -8 .
deprivation of custody of children not
Public, exclusion from court room, 23.
to be arbitrary, 26.
duties of, to children at common law,
R ape, jurisdiction over cases of, 19—20.
7 -8 .
Reasonable classifications by legislature
presumed, 11.
duty o f support, 20.
Records, juvenile-court, 27.
entitled to w rit of habeas corpus
Referees, 13.
when improperly deprived o f
Relinquishment o f jurisdiction, 18.
custody, 25.
Reparation as condition to discharge, 24.
injunction against, 25.
Residence, right of guardian to determine,
notice necessary to bind, 10.
notice to, generally provided, 22.
Restitution as condition to discharge, 24.
poverty of, not ground for taking
Restoration, parents must show cause for,
away children, 19.
proceedings required of, for restora­
right o f control not inalienable, 10.
right of, in regard to children at com­
mon law, 8.
right to be heard, 10.
unfitness, whether presumed on ap­

peal, 26,
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

8 , 12 .
Separation of children and adults, 8.
Special, juvenile-court legislation as,




State, interest of, in children, 7, 11.
Status, commitment not equivalent to
adoption, 27—28.
effect of proceedings w ith respect to,
2 7 -2 8 .
Subject, singleness of, in juvenile-court
legislation, ID.
Summons, lack of, upon parent can not
be waived -by appearance of
child, 22.
Summons or warrant, necessary to juris­
diction, 21, 22.
Support, duty of, where owed, 20.
Suspension of sentence, not relinquish­
ment of jurisdiction, 24.
relation to probation, 8.

Technicalities out of place in juvenilecourt procedure, 23.
Tending to cause delinquency an offense,,

Trial by jury, right of children to, 9.
sometimes allowed, 23.
Unequal penalties, juvenile-court laws as
imposing, 10.
Uniform taxes, juvenile-court legislation
and, 11.
W a iv e r of notice, 22.
W ards of chancery, children as, 7.
W arrant or summons, necessary to juris­
diction, 21, 22.
Women as probation officers, 14.
W r it o f error, when lies, 26.
W rit of habeas corpus, when lies, 25.

T axes, juvenile-court legislation with refer­
ence to, 11.

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis