CHILDREN'S COURTS or JUVENILE COURTS, a special system of tribunals for dealing with juvenile offenders, which has found its widest development in the United States. The earliest trace of such institutions is however contained in a Swiss ordinance of the year 1862. In 1869 Massachusetts adopted the same principle when a plan was introduced of hearing charges against children separately and apart from the ordinary business of the lesser tribunals. The system of "probation," by which children were handed over to the kindly care and guardianship of an appointed officer and thus escaped legal repression, was created about the same time in Boston (Mass.) and produced excellent results. The probation officer is present at the judge's side when he decides a case, and is given charge of the offender, whom he takes by the hand either at his parent's residence or at school, and continually supervises, having power if necessary to bring him again before the judge. The example of Massachusetts in due course influenced other countries, and especially the British colony of South Australia, where a State children's department was cre ated at Adelaide in 1895, and three years later a juvenile court was opened there for the trial of persons under 18 and was con ducted with great success, though the system of probation officers was not introduced.
The movement when once fully appreciated went ahead very rapidly and most civilized countries throughout the world have now adopted it. France, Germany, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Aus tria, Hungary, Sweden and Switzerland have all established these courts. In Paris the splendid work of M. Henri Rollet secured the foundation of such a court in 1912, while the Berlin children's court, established in 1923, is a particularly well worked and effi cient one. Italy, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Bulgaria and Esthonia are making arrangements not yet completed. Norway, Denmark and Finland deal with children's cases under a special code, while the Soviet Government of Russia entrusts the whole matter to the education authorities. In India, Madras secured a Children Act under which the powers conferred were to be exer cised "only by a juvenile court." Bengal followed in 1922, and the Indian Government are now striving zealously to establish the principle throughout India. Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand all have children's courts in good working order, and in Melbourne, Sydney, Cape Town and Johannesburg they are particularly flourishing. Japan introduced a very interesting system for dealing with offenders under the age of 18 in juvenile courts in the year 1922, Brazil in 1923 and the Argentine in 1924. Amsterdam has tried the new experiment of instituting a police service especially for children, many of its members being women. The republic of Colombia insists that all juvenile offenders shall be examined by a medical man who is present in court as an assessor.
In England the Home Office recommended London police mag istrates to keep children's cases separate from those of adults the same practice or something analogous obtained in many county boroughs, such as Bath, Birmingham, Bristol, Bolton, Bradford, Hull, Manchester, Walsall, Halifax and others, and the Children Act, 1908, definitely established children's courts. This act enacted that courts of summary jurisdiction when hearing charges, etc., against children or young persons should, unless the child or young person is charged jointly with an adult, sit in a different building or room from that in which the ordinary sittings of the court are held, or on different days or at different times. Further more, provision must be made for preventing persons apparently under the age of 16 years whilst being conveyed to or from court, or whilst waiting before or after their attendance in court, from as sociating with adults, unless such adults are charged jointly with them. The act prohibits any persons other than members and officers of the court, the parties to the case, their solicitors, counsel and other persons directly concerned in the case, from being present in a juvenile court, except by leave of the court. Bona-fide press representatives are also excepted. The main object of the whole system is to keep the child, the embryonic offender who has probably erred from ignorance or the pressure of circumstances or misfortune, altogether free from the taint or contagion that attaches to criminal proceedings. The moral atmosphere of a legal tribunal is injurious to the youthful mind, and children who appear before a bench, whether as accused or as witness, gain a contemptuous familiarity with legal processes.
The most beneficial action of the children's court comes from its association with the system of personal guardianship and close supervision exercised by the probation officers, official and volun tary. Where the intervention of the newly constituted tribunal can not only save the child from evil association when first arrested, but can rescue him without condemnation and com mittal to prison, its functions may be relied upon to diminish crime by cutting it off at the source. Much depends upon the quality and temperament of the presiding authority. Where a judge with special aptitude can be appointed, firm, sympathetic, tactful and able to gain the confidence of those brought before him, he may do great good by dealing with each individual and not merely with his offence, realizing that the court does not exist to condemn but to strengthen and give a fresh chance. Where the children's court is only a branch of the existing juris diction worked by the regular magistrate or judge fulfilling his ordinary functions and not specially chosen, the beneficial results are not so noticeable. The Juvenile Courts (Metropolis) Act, 1920, has given legislative authority to this principle by enacting that the home secretary in selecting as presidents of such courts certain metropolitan magistrates "shall have regard to their pre vious experience and their special qualifications for dealing with cases of juvenile offenders." In view of the fact that about 50% of regular criminals begin a life of crime when under 21 years of age, the importance of the juvenile courts can hardly be exaggerated. Rightly, sympatheti cally and firmly dealt with whilst still young, the vast majority of these potential criminals would become good citizens of the State. Bad surroundings, evil companions, undesirable parents, mental and physical deficiencies and various psychological causes are responsible for most juvenile delinquency. The responsibility for discovering, removing or eliminating these causes rests with the children's courts, and too much care, time and effort cannot be expended in the carrying out of this work. The younger the offender, the greater is the need for efficient diagnosis of the under lying causes of his wrongdoing. That the Home Office is fully alive to this necessity is shown by the very careful report of the juvenile offenders committee published in 1927. Valuable as pro bation has proved itself to be in the adult courts, it is of even greater value in the children's courts. The legislature, recogniz ing this importance in all courts, has greatly strengthened the system by the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, the first ten sections of which deal with the question of pro bation. It enacts that "one or more probation officers shall be appointed for every probation area," but in country districts combined areas may be created. The secretary of State is em powered to make rules (which have now been promulgated and are in force) governing the appointment, qualifications and sal aries of probation officers and the constitution, procedure, powers and duties of the probation committees.
At first there was no thought of modifying court procedure. The idea was stressed that after conviction the confinement should be apart from adult criminals. Rise of children's reformatories made this possible in New York (1825), Pennsylvania (1828), and Massachusetts (1847) . There was also some provision for separate hearings for children, and for probation in Massachusetts between 1870 and 188o, and in New York in 1892. In 1899 the first juvenile court was organized (Cook county, Chicago, Ill.) . It brought un der one jurisdiction children who violated laws and dependent children, provided identical procedure for both, established pro bation, decreed that adjudication be deemed not a conviction of crime, but the placing of the child in the relation of ward to the State. The care for the delinquent child was to "approximate as nearly as may be that which should have been given by the par ents." Instead of warrant of arrest, examination by a police judge, bail, indictment, jury trial and sentence, there was substituted complaint, investigation by probation officer, petition, informal hearing and commitment. Fines, imprisonment and penal treat ment were abolished. The movement spread with rapidity. By 1904 ten States had juvenile courts; after the first ten years, 20 States and the District of Columbia ; by 1914, 3o States; and in 1928 only two States (Wyoming and Maine) were without juvenile courts.
This rapid expansion, without trained personnel, led to a period of critical inquiry. The State supreme courts, however, have up held the constitutionality of the original statutes. Juvenile court ideals have not been applied throughout the rural districts and small towns. In 1918 the Children's Bureau, Washington, D.C., estimated that of 175,000 cases of children in the U.S. courts, approximately only 50,000 went before courts adapted to handle them.
The juvenile court principle is, first, that the child is not an ungrown adult, but a distinct being, physically, mentally, emo tionally and socially ; the child's response to life is different ; sec ondly, that the State should not proceed against the child as prose cutor, but exercise the chancery power of parens patriae to protect the child.
Age-limits.—The legal meaning of the term "child" is defined by statute, which limits the age of criminal responsibility. Under the English common law, no child under seven was held respons ible for crime. Belgium in recent years has raised this to 16, the period sans discernment. In the United States the tendency is to increase it to 18 and even 21 (excepting offences punishable by death or life-imprisonment). In approximately one-third of the States jurisdiction of the juvenile court extends to children under 16, in one-third to children under 17, and in the remaining third to children under 18 and above.
It is argued that the older child is entitled to trial by jury, and will not be injured by penal treatment. There is however scientific evidence that the child is not capable of complete integration, or maturation, until 21 or beyond, a belief crystallized in the practice of civilized countries to keep him under legal disabilities as regards contract, voting and marriage until age of majority is reached. In the opinion of many experts it is only a question of time until the juvenile court age-limit will be the same as the recognized age of majority.
Treatment.—The psychological importance of the first offence cannot be overstated. Police methods of apprehension and in vestigation should be eliminated. The child's court hearing in the better sort of American courts is informal. A well trained juve nile court judge does not proceed to disposal unaided. He seeks the wisdom of the clinic and the social worker. If the child has constructive possibilities he may safely be placed on probation.
Foster homes are used in some parts of America for the place ment of delinquent children from unfit homes. Maintenance is supplied by public or private agencies. Correctional institutions are used for cases where an extended period of training is indi cated, or where the child is under physical or mental handicaps. Some correctional institutions have supplied individual education, notably for girls, in Sauk Center, Minn., Sleighton Farms, Penn., Samarcand, N.C., Gainsville, Texas, and for boys, in New Jersey, California and elsewhere. In these training schools self-govern ment and expert scientific guidance have met with success. Other social resources are clubs for boys and girls in industry, habit clinics, child guidance clinics, religious agencies, Big Brothers or Big Sisters, and Juvenile Protective agencies. These work most effectively under a co-ordinated philosophy of child care. To achieve this a conference is often held for social diagnosis.
Thus the old sentiments of revenge and deterrence give way to a concerted effort to understand, and to remove underlying causes. In this way sponsors of children's courts have become leaders in the scientific and humanitarian movement to prevent delinquency and to increase human happiness.