The Delinquent Child and the Home
Appendix 3: Abstract of Juvenile Court Laws by Grace Abbott
Sophonisba Breckinridge and Edith Abbott
Table of Contents | Next | Previous
Special and partial provisions for the better and more humane care of delinquent and dependent children were made from time to time by our state legislatures many years ago, but with the enactment of the Illinois Juvenile Court Laws in 1899 a new epoch was begun. This law, since modified and improved, has been the model for similar legislation in twenty-two other states-Alabama,[1] California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin-and in the District of Columbia. Under the common law a child of seven[2] was regarded as responsible for his acts and was treated as a criminal in the charge, the trial, and the disposition made of him after trial. Under the new theory the child offender is regarded not as a criminal but as a delinquent, "as misdirected and misguided and needing aid, encouragement, help and assistance";[3] he is kept entirely separate from the adult offender, and the probation system is used whenever practicable. These are the most important features of the new legislation which has been adopted in the states enumerated. A number of other states, of which New York, Maryland, and New Jersey are the most conspicuous examples, have engrafted on the old criminal laws some of the conspicuous features of the new legislation, leaving, however, the old system still unreformed in its fundamental principle. The resulting confusion is best illustrated in New York. Prior to 1909, the child offender was regarded as a criminal and after conviction was released on parole or was fined for his offense. The court before which the juvenile delinquent was tried was, however, a separate children's court. In 1909 the Legislature took one step in advance by declaring that a "child of more than 7 or less than 16 shall not be deemed guilty of any crime, but of juvenile delinquency only,"[4] but in spite of this declaration children may still be fined for delinquency and ordinary criminal procedure is followed in the trial.[5] These and the various differences between the legislation in those states which have adopted complete juvenile court laws can be brought out only by a detailed statement of the various parts of the laws.
(248)
1. THE COURT GIVEN JURISDICTION
In a few states a special court is created which is given jurisdiction over juvenile offenders alone.[6] Most states have found, however, that it presented fewer legal difficulties to give to some court already established this special jurisdiction. In California[7] Georgia,[8] Indiana,[9] Iowa,[10] Louisiana,[11] Minnesota,[12] Missouri,[13] Nebraska,[14] Oregon,[15] Utah,[16] and Wisconsin,[17] it has been given to the circuit or district court; in Illinois[18] New Jersey;[19] Ohio,[20] Tennessee,[21] and Texas[22] to the circuit or county court; in Alabama,[23] Colorado,[24] Kentucky,[25] Kansas,[26] Michigan,[27] and Washington[28] in the County Court. In these states it is unquestionably easier to secure an able man for judge of the Juvenile Court because of the dignity and prestige which go with those judgeships. When, as in California,[29] Connecticut,[30] Massachusetts,[31] Maryland,[32] New Hampshire,[33]
(249) New York,[34] Pennsylvania,[35] and Rhode Island [36] a police judge is made the judge of the Children's Court, the opposite effect is produced.
In the states which have the better and more complete type of laws especial provision is made that the police court and justices of the peace are not to have jurisdiction over those who come under the age fixed by the juvenile Court Act[37] In some of the states in which jurisdiction is lodged in the police, county, or circuit courts, the judges each, in turn, sit as judges of the juvenile Court, but in California,[38] Illinois,[39] Michigan,[40] Minnesota,[41] Missouri,[42] Nebraska,[43] Ohio,[44] Oregon,[45] Pennsylvania,[46] and Wisconsin,[47] one of the judges is chosen by his associates to act exclusively as judge of the juvenile Court during the judicial year. The judges of the juvenile Courts of Denver,[48] Detroit,[49] New Orleans[50] and Rochester[51] are elected; those of Boston[52] and Balti-
( 250) -more[53] are appointed by the Governor, of Washington, D. C.,[54] by the president and in Utah[55] by the juvenile Court Commission.
II. EXTENT OF JURISDICTION
A. AGE LIMITATION
In the great majority of states the jurisdiction of the juvenile Court extends to children of 16[56] or 17[57] years of age. But in Illinois[58] and Kentucky[59] the limitation is for boys 17 and girls 18, in Louisiana,[60] Nebraska,[61] and Oregon [62] 18 for both, and in Utah[63] 19 for both boys and girls.B. DEFINITION OF DELINQUENCY
In the earlier laws a "delinquent" child was defined as one (I) who had violated a state law or a city or village ordinance, or (I I) who was incorrigible. Laws of this
(251) type are still on the statute books in California,[64] Connecticut [65] District of Columbia,[66] Georgia,[67] Maryland,[68] Massachusetts,[69] New Jersey [70] New York,[71] Pennsylvania,[72] and Rhode Island.[73] Better laws make the definition much more inclusive so that the court will not be unable, because of any technical lack of jurisdiction, to place a child under the care of the court and its officers, if that seems to be for the best interest of the child. In addition to I and II already mentioned, as constituting delinquency, the law in Alabama,[74] Colorado,[75] Illinois,[76] Indiana,[77] Kentucky,[78] Louisiana,[79] Michigan,[80] Minnesota,[81] Missouri,[82] Nebraska,[83] Ohio,[84] Tennessee,[85 Texas,[86] Utah,[87] and Washington,[88] regards as a delinquent any child who (a) knowingly associates with thieves, vicious or immoral persons, (b) absents itself from home without the consent of its parent or guardian or without just cause, (c) is growing up in idleness or crime, (d) knowingly visits or enters a house of ill repute, (e) visits or patronizes gambling houses, saloons, or bucketshops, (f) wanders about the street at night or about railroad yards
(252) or tracks, (g) jumps on and off trains, (h) enters a car or engine without lawful authority, (i) uses vile, obscene or indecent language or is (j) immoral or indecent.
In Iowa,[89] Kansas,[90] New Hampshire[91] Oregon,[92] and Wisconsin,[93] the definitions are not quite so broad.
III. PROCEDURE
A. PETITION OR COMPLAINT
In the general procedure prescribed for the juvenile Courts the line of demarcation can easily be drawn between those states whose legislation consistently regards the youthful offender as a delinquent and those whose legislation regards him as a criminal but treats him somewhat differently from the adult criminal. In the former group, the first step is the filing of a "petition" by any reputable person which is based upon his information or belief that the child named in the petition is delinquent.[94] In the District of Columbia the suit is begun upon information filed by the Corporation Counsel.[95] In Alabama,[96] Colorado,[97] Massachusetts,[98] Missouri,[99] Texas,[100] Utah,[101] and Washington,[102] the old word "complaint" is used. Pennsylvania provides that the court
(253) may act when a petition is filed by a reputable person or when the justice of the Peace, the District Attorney or the judge of. the juvenile Court thinks the case in the interests of the child should not go to the Grand Jury.[103] Indiana makes complaint under oath necessary.[104] No provision is made for a special form of petition in states like Maryland, New York, and New Jersey, where action must, therefore, be begun by a complaint the same as when the offender is an adult.
B. SUMMONS OR WARRANT
The substitution of the petition for the complaint is not as general as the substitution of the summons, for the warrant. In a large number of states the law provides that after the filing of the petition or the complaint a "summons" shall be sent to the person having the custody or control of the child to appear with it in court. Notice to the parents, guardians or near relatives is also required in these states. Lest this, however, leave the court without authority to compel attendance, a provision is added that a warrant may issue when service by summons is ineffectual or likely to be and failure to obey the summons may be treated as contempt of court.[105] The only provision in the District of Columbia is that the juvenile Court shall have the same power to issue process for arrest, subpoena, etc. as other courts.[106] In Utah if the parent or guardian fails to appear after notice has been given, and defend his rights to the custody, control or guardianship of the child charged with delinquency, such rights go by default and the court disposes of the child as it finds, from the evidence, to be best.[107] Pennsylvania gives the judge authority "to make all necessary orders for compelling the production of such child and the attendance of parents."[108] Alabama
(254) provides that a warrant or capias may issue.[109] New York, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have no special provisions for this, so the method of arrest usual in criminal actions is followed.
C. TRIAL
State constitutions carefully provide for the trial of persons accused of crime, but these provisions do not apply to the juvenile Court procedure in those states in which the child is regarded not as a criminal but as a delinquent. In the case of the latter, the state, as parens patriae, is governed only by the consideration of what is for the best interests of the child, and courts would undoubtedly sustain any procedure which had this end in view.
It has been found best to make the trial quite informal so that an intimate, friendly relationship may be established at once between the judge and the child. To make this possible the laws provide in Indiana,[110] Iowa,[111] Kansas,[112] Kentucky,[113] Minnesota,[114] Missouri,[115] New Hampshire,[116] New Jersey,[117] Ohio,[118] Oregon,[119] Washington [120] and Wisconsin[121] that the court shall proceed to hear and dispose of the case in a "summary manner." In Utah the court is regarded as exercising equity jurisdiction and "may adopt any form of procedure which is deemed best suited to ascertain the truth in the particular case. The delinquent may be compelled to testify respecting his alleged delinquency and the court may hear evidence in the absence of the delinquent."[122]
In contrast with this law New Jersey[123] and New York[124] require that the regular criminal procedure so far as applicable shall be used. In Michigan the regular criminal procedure must be used when the child is charged with felony.[125] To deprive an adult of his liberty without a jury trial would be regarded as a violation of the "due process" clause in the United States Constitution. While this provision is not interpreted as guaranteeing a jury trial to a child, in an abundance of caution, provision is usually made, even in states in which the law makes it very clear that the child is regarded not as criminal but as delinquent, for a jury of six when demanded by the child or when
(255) the judge deems it advisable.[126] There is, however, another reason for such a provision. The parent is entitled to his child's earnings, so in the disposition which the court makes of a child the property rights of an adult may be affected.
D. APPEAL
The District of Columbia,[127] Indiana[128] Iowa,[129] Kansas,[130] Massachusetts, [131] Missouri,[132] New Hampshire,[133] Utah,[134] and Wisconsin,[135] make special provision for an appeal from the decision of the judge of the juvenile Court although it is not necessary where a general trial court is given jurisdiction over juvenile offenders.
IV. RECORDS AND REPORTS
A separate juvenile Record must be kept in Alabama,[136] California,[137] Colorado,[138] Illinois,[139] Indiana,[140] Iowa,[141] Kentucky,[142] Massachusetts,[143] Michigan,[144] Minnesota,[145] Mis-
(256) -souri,[146] Nebraska,[147] New York,[148] New Hampshire,[149] Ohio,[150] Oregon,[151] Tennessee,[152] Texas,[153] Utah, [154] Washington,[155] and Wisconsin.[156] For the courts of the District of Columbia,[157] Baltimore[158] and New York City [159] the statutes provide also for a separate clerk. A report of the cases which does not disclose the name or identity of the child or parent must be made in Kansas,[160] Kentucky,[161] Missouri,[162] and New York[163] to the Governor, in Utah,[164] to the juvenile Court Commission, in Colorado[165] to the State Board of Charities and Corrections and in Tennessee[166] to the County Court.
V. PLACE WHERE COURT IS HELD AND EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
While the ideal way is to have, as Chicago and Milwaukee have, a separate juvenile Court building, this can hardly be required by law as yet. A number of the states, however, make it necessary to hold juvenile Court in a separate room.[167] California, Oregon, and Washington provide that juvenile cases should be heard at a special session of the court and no one else on trial or awaiting trial shall be allowed to be present.[168] Maryland and Michigan laws provide that the trial must be held in some
(257) " proper" place in the Court House.[169] A few states provide that the trial shall not be public and all persons who are not necessary to it shall be excluded.[170] Although this is required by statute in only a few of the states, it is the policy of the judges in a good many places to exclude children and adults who have no interest in the case.
VI. DISPOSITION OF CHILD PENDING TRIAL
Under the old régime the child offender was subject to the rule which applies to adults, that if unable to give bond for his appearance he must go to jail to await his trial. This, because it brands the child as a criminal and places him under the influence of the hardened offender, is a most objectionable method. For these reasons the provision is made in a few of the states that anyone who knowingly incarcerates a child, who is under the age defined by law, in the county jail or police station is guilty of a misdemeanor[171] More often the law provides that any child under the age fixed by the juvenile Court law may be placed in the detention school or other suitable places provided by city or county authorities and that no child under twelve[172] fourteen[173] or in a few states sixteen or seventeen[174] years of age, shall be committed to jail and
(258) those over this age if confined in any institution where adult convicts are, must not be placed in the same buildings, yard, or inclosure with the adults.[175]
The Alabama law provides that in Mobile incarceration shall take place only when necessary and that the child shall have the same right as the adult to give bonds for his appearance at the trial.[176] In Georgia the county must, upon request of the judge, provide a proper detention room or house separate from the jail[177] In New Jersey an arrested child charged with any crime (except murder or manslaughter) or with being a disorderly person, or habitually vagrant or incorrigible, is committed to jail or the detention school or paroled to await trial at the discretion of the Judge.[178] The Maryland law provides that in the absence of other suitable place the child may be held at the police station pending trial as heretofore or in some juvenile institution or "other suitable prison, instead of the Baltimore City jail."[179] Minnesota, Oregon, and New Hampshire make provision only that until trial the child may be retained in the possession of the person having charge of the same or may be kept in some suitable place provided by the city or county.[180] In the great majority of cases the child who is awaiting trial may be allowed to remain in his home under the care of his parents or guardians, but in some cases conditions are such as to render this impossible. The child must then be held by the state, but under such conditions that his reformation shall begin at once if possible. For this reason the place of detention is made a "home" or "school" instead of a jail. In California,[181] Illinois,[182] Kansas,[183] Kentucky,[184] Michigan,[185]
(259) Minnesota,[186] Missouri[187] Nebraska,[188] New Jersey,[189] Ohio,[190] Oregon,[191] Pennsylvania,[192] Tennessee,[193] Utah,[194] and Washington,[195] the law requires or authorizes the county commissioners to establish such "schools," "homes," or " rooms" which shall not be connected with the jail, shall be in charge of a superintendent and matron "and shall combine as far as possible the function of home and school." The court may commit any child needing treatment to a hospital in Illinois[196] and Kentucky.[197]
VII. FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CHILD
In the disposition of the child after trial, most of the states authorize the court to continue the hearing from time to time, leaving the child, under the supervision of a probation officer, in it- home or in some suitable family or to commit it to some detention school or House of Reform or to any institution willing to receive it and having for its object the care of delinquent children.[1980 In Connecticut,[199] the District of Co-
(260) -lumbia,[200] Indiana,[201] and Massachusetts,[202] the law allows the court to fine or imprison the child for the original offense or for violating the conditions of its parole. In Georgia,[203] Maryland,[204] New Jersey,[205] and New York,[206] the adoption of the more modern as well as he more humane method of handling delinquent children is left to the judge by protiding that the sentence may be imposed or suspended and the child placed on probation or parole, while Illinois,[207] Massachusetts,[208] Ohio,[209] Oregon,[210] and Texas,[211] states which have adopted most advanced legislation, leave a loophole for a return to the old system by providing that the judge may order the child to be proceeded against and sentenced under the existing criminal laws of the state.[212]
VIII. PROBATION OFFICERS
A. APPOINTMENT
The laws of the various states providing for the appointment of probation officers are quite uniform. The chief officer is appointed by the court in all the states with the following exceptions-California[212] by the Probation Commission; Rhode Island[213] by the State Board of Charities; Utah,[214] by the Juvenile Court Commission; in Rochester, N. Y.[215] by the Committee of Public Safety; Illinois,[216] Missouri,[217] and
(261) Wisconsin[218] provide that the appointment of all probation officers must be made from an eligible list determined by competitive civil service examination; and in Michigan[219] the County Agent of the State Board of Charities and Corrections, who is appointed by the Governor, acts as Chief Probation Officer and subordinates are appointed by the court. Subordinate or deputy probation officers are appointed by the court in all the states except Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin, where the entire service is on a civil service basis,[220] and Rhode Island,[221] where they are appointed by the Chief Probation Officers.
B. NUMBER AND SALARY
The number and salary of the probation officers in the various states differ with the regard in which the whole juvenile Court movement is held by the state and with its wealth and population. Not all these differences are important, but some of them are rather significant.
In Michigan,[222] New York,[223] Pennsylvania,[224] Texas[225] and Tennessee [226] the probation officers are not paid, at least not from the public funds.
In California,[227] Idaho,[228] Indiana,[229] Kansas,[230] Missouri,[231] Nebraska,[232] Ohio,[233] and Washington[234] the maximum compensation is fixed by law.
In Kentucky the law provides that the fiscal court may levy a tax not to exceed one fourth of a cent on $too worth of property to meet the expense of the court and its officers.[235]
In Illinois[236] and Missouri[237] the number of officers is determined by the court the salary in the former being fixed by the County Board, in the latter by statute.
(262) In Colorado,[238] Massachusetts,[239] and Wisconsin[240] the number is fixed by the Court and the County Board; in Alabama[241] by law.
C. DUTIES
The duties of the probation officers, the law provides in almost all of the states having juvenile Court Laws, shall be (a) to investigate any child to be brought before the Court, (b) to be present in court to represent the interests of the child, (c) to furnish such information as the judge may require, and (d) to take charge of any child before and after trial.[242] Utah, with the longest list of duties, adds to those given above that the officers must make complaint before the court of any case of delinquency coming to their knowledge, serve notices, and file complaints against parents contributing to the dependency or delinquency of their children.[243] In Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, where the probation system antedates the juvenile Court, the placing of children on parole or probation comes under the regulations for offenders[244] generally.
Congress has allowed the judge to define the duties of probation officers in the District of Columbia.[245]
(263)
IX. CONSTRUCTION OF JUVENILE COURT LAWS
Those states which have the more complete juvenile Court laws add to the careful provisions for the trial and disposition of delinquent children which are made in order that they may be reformed and not punished, that the law shall be liberally construed for the protection of the child.[246]
X. ADULT RESPONSIBILITY FOR JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Of all laws calculated to prevent delinquency among children, those that punish by fine or imprisonment the parents or other persons who contribute to such delinquency are the most significant.[247]
(264) Colorado,[248] and Kentucky [249] provide that this proceeding against the parent or responsible adult shall be on the "verified petition of a reputable resident" and he shall be brought into court by a summons instead of by warrant as the other states provide. In most states when a person is convicted of causing or contributing to the delinquency of a child, the judgment may be suspended and the parent placed on probation to remove former conditions or causes, and upon his failing to do this, judgment may be entered.[250]
XI. RELATION OF COURT TO INSTITUTIONS IN WHICH CHILDREN ARE PLACED
After a child has been brought into court, and it has been found necessary or advisable by the court to place him in some institution, the states differ as to whether or not he then passes out of the control of the court. In the District of Columbia,[251]
(265) Kansas,[252] Kentucky,[253] Minnesota,[254] and Missouri,[255] the law specifically provides that he may be discharged by order of the court only. In Ohio [256] he may be discharged only by the authorities of the institution to which he has been committed and in Oregon [257] the court may change its orders only with the consent of the institution. The control or supervision of institutions or associations which receive children from the juvenile Court is exercised by the State Board of Charities in Colorado,[258] Illinois,[259] Indiana,[260] Louisiana,[261] Massachusetts,[262] Minnesota,[263] Missouri,[264] Nebraska[265] and Ohio.[266] In Kentucky,[267] Tennessee,[268] and Oregon,'[269] this supervision is in the hands of a board appointed by the juvenile Court. In Maryland, [270] probation officers are selected by the supreme bench to visit institutions and report on them to the court. In Idaho[271] they must be passed on by the Governor. In Texas[272] Colorado,[273] and Louisiana,[274] the court may require the institutions to make complete report as to the care, condition, and progress of the child. The Illinois law provides that the child may continue to be a ward of the Court after it has been placed in charge of any association or individual.[275] In Illinois,[276] Nebraska,[277] and Ohio,[278] agents of the juvenile reformatories must do probation work, reporting to the court conditions of the homes in which children have been placed. In Massachusetts,[279] Nebraska,[280] and Idaho[281] the school authorities are required to make reports, when requested by the judge, of children under the care of the court.
(266)
CONCLUSION
Juvenile Court legislation is still in the making. Yearly additions and modifications will make this abstract incomplete almost with its appearance.[282] To anyone who has studied the session laws of the past ten years it is evident that the tendency is to follow the leadership of Illinois and Colorado and enact legislation which consistently regards the child who has committed some offense as one who needs the especial guidance and protection of the state. Probably no juvenile court has done for this class of children in its community all that it is hoped will be possible, but public opinion is unanimous in its verdict that the theory which these courts are attempting to put into practice is a great advance over the common law doctrine and everything points to the ultimate abandonment of this older doctrine by all of the states.
Hull House, 1910.