Parens Patriae and Dispositions in Juvenile Courts

This paper assesses the parens patriae orientation, which is often considered to beat the core of the operation of juvenile courts, and discovers that existing ideas concerning its role must be revised. In opposition to common theory it appears that parens patriae at best shares influence with a number of other orientations in juvenile courts, and may even no longer exist as a distinct, unified dimension. Further, neither parens patriae nor any of the other orientations bears a direct, simple relation to dispositions, although statistically significant correlations emerge when interaction effects are analyzed and when subsamples are developed. These results are explained in relation to previous studies, the possibility of social change, and the community context of juvenile courts. Parens Patriae and Dispositions in Juvenile Courts Parens patriae is both a set of suggestions for organizing juvenile courts and a statement of the ideology of these institutions. The organizational suggestions encourage informal, personal handling of cases and a . detailed examination of juvenile needs rather than the legal charge. They also favor dispositions based largely on the determined needs of the juvenile, and a resulting treatment that is designed to educate and change errant youth. The corresponding ideology is based on the premise that children are not capable of understanding or contr~lling their own actions and that the court,'like a parent, must decide what is in the best interest of juveniles who are alleged to be delinquent. It further insists that dispositions arising from the informal juvenile court, even if they involve commitment to an institution, promote treatment and cure and should not be considered as punishment. This entire parens patriae orientation is often said to be at the core of the operation of juvenile courts. On the one hand, it is said to dominate the organization o-f the institution as well asthe ideologiesof judges (Allen, 1964; Schultz, 1973). On the other hand, it is said to bear a large part of the blame for the allegedly harsh dispositions of juvenile courts, allowing judges who desire to punish youth to shield their decisions from the public by claiming that harsh dispositions are in the best interest of children, while influencing well-meaning judges to place a large proportion of children under the-custQdy of tha supposedly benign, helpful, treatment-oriented juvenile justice system (Platt, 1969). In sum, the concept is the starting point for numerous discussions of juvenile court practice and theory •