Scope and children's courts are still in a formative stage, neither their scope nor their methods of procedure are uniform or well-defined. Both vary in different cities and States, depending upon local conditions. In general, their scope has broadened steadily throughout the country and their methods have been more advanced in the Western States than in those of the East. Beginning as institutions for dealing with juvenile offenders, their scope has gradually been extended to include every phase of juvenile delinquency, parental neglect, and maltreatment of children, however caused or legally defined— every conceivable offense, in short, committed by or against children. The broadest view of the functions of children's courts, therefore, seems to make of them official child-welfare agencies; and much of the opposi tion to these institutions has been aroused by such liberal interpretations of their scope. But neither in theory nor in practice do all children's courts claim such seemingly unlimited jurisdic tion. The juvenile court of Saint Louis, for in stance, confines itself to delinquent and depend ent children; that of Chicago, to delinquent, dependent and neglected children; while that of Philadelphia deals with all these and incor rigible children besides. Parental neglect and other contributory causes of juvenile delin quency were recognized and dealt with as early as 1907 by the laws of Colorado, which estab lished the first complete children's court in the world. This type of juvenile court is em powered even to proceed criminally against parents, guardians and all other persons charge able with serious offenses involving children. Other children's courts—notably that of Indian apolis, perhaps the most complete and efficient children's court in the world—have found themselves drawn into the affairs of the home, encroaching, that is, upon the field of the domestic relations court. This process went so far in the city of Indianapolis that its juvenile court and the domestic relations court were actually combined in 1911. Adult con tributory delinquency laws are now quite com mon, many States having followed the example set by Colorado— Virginia, Rhode Island, New York and Kentucky in 1910, and others since. Thus does the growing realization that the erring or wayward child is but a product of home, school and society continually enlarge the scope of children's courts. In line with this general tendency juvenile court laws, which originally applied to children under 16, have recently raised the age limit to 18 years. In deed, a few children's courts — those of Denver and Buffalo, for instance—have jurisdiction even of adolescents (<(adult delinquents')) be tween the ages of 16 and 21.
Under such varying circumstances, uniform ity in children's courts' procedure can hardly be expected. This depends very largely upon the particular judge in charge, the nature of the community concerned, and the laws under which proceedings are conducted at any given place. The general attitude of these courts being corrective rather than punitive, their hear ings are usually very simple and informal— even private at times. No juries are called, and no charges or criminal accusations can be made juveniles, uveniles, no matter what the offense may be, since a child cannot be considered a criminal under juvenile court laws. The rules of evidence are partly or wholly disregarded. Such information as may be needed is usually obtained before the hearing by .a probation officer, who conducts all preliminary mvcstiga tions and reports the facts to the judge. The latter may supplement these data by such ad ditional information as parents and others can furnish upon the child's character, environ ment and antecedents before disposing of a particular case. Invariably, too, the child is privately interviewed by the judge and en couraged to tell his own story in confidence. Once a child is found delinquent —verdicts of °guilty') and ((not guilty)) are, of course, out of the question in strictly juvenile cases — many courses are open to the judge. The child may be (1) returned to his home on probation, that is, in charge of a probation officer; (2) placed out in some foster home until ready to return to his own; (3) committed to the care of some children's society available for the purpose; or (4) sent to a insti tution. The order of enumeration is, obviously,
the order of preference. The child's natural home, if not positively forbidding, is by all means to be preferred. Next comes the tem porary home for such children as must, for whatever reason, be put beyond parental con trol. Only when neither of these courses are deemed expedient should society care be in voked, and, as a very last resort, the reforma tory is to be used. The best juvenile court judges — and this is one test of their fitness resort to institutional care with increasing re luctance. In any case the delinquent child passes automatically into the custody of the court and becomes a ward of the State. The spirit of the most progressive and efficient children's courts is indicated by certain delin quency laws, which expressly stipulate that the treatment of the child under them °shall be as nearly as possible like that of parents? Un fortunately, far too many children's courts are not yet conducted in this enlightened spirit. Some of them (a gradually decreasing number) still cling to the traditional manner of court procedure— even to the rules of evidence, criminal charges and the pronouncement of guilt or innocence.
Results.—The success of any particular children's court depends very largely upon its judge and probation officer, both of whom should be broad-minded and large-hearted per sons, fully in sympathy with the problems of child-life and conversant with the essential teachings of child psychology. Special insight into local conditions and resourcefulness in the disposition of cases are, of course, other neces sary qualifications in the juvenile court judge; just as maturity, a high moral purpose, and tact are among the indispensable qualifications in a good probation officer.
The general results of the establishment of children's courts have been manifold and far reaching. The juvenile courts have accom plished at least four distinct and important results. They have (1) separated the child offender from the adult criminal, thereby res cuing him from crime-breeding association and criminal court procedure; (2) made the former victims of retributive justice objects of sincere solicitude to an official child-welfare agency; (3) helped to lead parents to a better realization of their responsibility for the child's waywardness; and (4) obviated the necessity of jailing the juvenile offender, thus making the life-long sting of °convict children)) for ever impossible.
Bibliography.—Besides general works on the juvenile delinquency and the special reports on particular children's courts, consult Barrows, S. J. (Children's Courts in the United States, Their Origin, Development and Results) (Washington 1904) ; Eliot, Th. D., (The Juvenile Court and the Community) (New York 1914) ; Flexner, B., and Baldwin, R. N., (Juvenile Courts and Pro bation) (New York 1914) ; Hart, H. H.,
venile Court Laws in the United States) (ib. 1910) ; Henderson, C. R., (Theory and Practice of Juvenile
(in Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correc tion, 1904, p. 358 et seq.) ; Hornbeck, S. K., (Juvenile Courts) (Madison, Wis., 1908) ; Lind sey, B. B., (Recent Progress of the Juvenile Court Movement) (in Proceedings of the Na tional Conference of Charities and Correction, 1905, p. 150 et seg.) ; Mack J. W.,
Ju venile Court, The Judge and the Probation Officer> (ib. 1906, p. 123 et seq.); Mangold, G. B.,