• 0,

•

•

•

•

•

•

,,)

JUVENILE JuSTICE: PINS arid Statu'~ Offenders

Part;: 3 'of 5

A Selected Annotated Bibliography

" Compiled by; r-iarilyn Gehr , '0

Research Assist!3.nt'

\1

G

The,)Urtiversityof the °Sta,te"ofNew York The State,Educ!3.tion :bepartment"

'" 'The' New York "State: t:il?rlitry, Legislative Research$e1."Vic,e,""

Albany,r-Tew York12234,:April~1976

,'f..-'

I:;

Q

,?'

s'

,d

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

, o

{.;

I)

. ' ,

. c,'·

JI J

fQr~~R mOI,1}:hs ;;t:!=~er ~.J.1~ c.QVE::rp~g~ d~te of thi.s pip,~;ipgFaphy,th'r' mat~~ia~,s ,c;i.,ted,he:reiri aFe re­s:t1:'~qtecr1:o 1:1}~ 'J,,1~~' or 1:h~ ;L~gi,slM:?rE: .~p4 pf Sta.1:.e age)WY qffic;i.a~§ whp$.eWoF~< sta~{o.n j.~ 1-p Arl?~p~<" .. " .. . . "',' ,',

o

•

•

•

•

•

•

II:. • ;.;,

¢.!-'.'

0

" (I' e

0 I~ ( ()

"' • ~'

• JUVENILE JUSTICE ·:'0

• Table of Series

• Part 1: The System

• Part 2: Juveniles and Criminal Law

~~, Part 3: PINS and Status Offenders " ' . .--' IJ

• [;

Part 4: Child Advocacy

\\

• Part 5: COIll,munity CorrectioIlS

•

•

•• o

•

•

eo

•

•

•

•

• ii

•

•

• 1

• 2

•

•

3

•

• 4

•

JUVENILE JUSTICE: PINS and Status Offenders

/1 Part 3 of 5

()

Bonee) J .. L .. ) II;I:. Runaway Children, in Connecticut Bar Journal, December 1974. vol. 48, 360~89.

ON ORDER

Californiag Board of Corrections .. California Correctional System Study: Final Report, Force.

Vol.. I - 101 p. Vol. TJ: - 134 p'.

Sacramento~ 1970.

364.6309794qC153

Among the n\lmerous recommendations is the remolTal of dependent children and "pre-delinquents" from the supervision of pro-bation departments. '.:,

Coffey, Alan R .. Correctional Administration: The Management of Institutions, Pro­bation~ and Parole. Englewood Clibfs, N. J.f~ Prentice-Hall, 1975. 255 p.

364~6 C674 75-6666

o

Although "primarily on operation and manage,ment," include~ a com­parison of the system for juvenil~s vs.~hat for adults ..

Gonnor, Richard J. Constitutional Law--Minorts Right: to RefUse Court-ordered Aborti(?n, in SUffoll<University Law RevieW, Summer; 1973. 'vol. 7~' 1157-:7$.

LAW

()

1,",,-.

. r-,

·-,1

.. '

JuvetiileJust;ice: PINS .... 2

In re SIll;ith, 16 Md. App .. 209; 295A. 2d. 238 (l972). Parents petitioned 'Juvenile cou;rt to} order their daughter to have an . abortion when the child refused. The Court found the daughter t() be a cHnrs, placed her in her parents' custody, arid ord~red her to obey her parents' wishes. ,The pari:: of the d~cision on the abortion was reversed on app~al.

.5 'the Council of State Governments" States' Criminal Justice Infol;mation

o

6

and As.sistance Project. .. Status Offenders: At-Torking Definition.. Lexington, Kyo,. 1975. 30 p.

LEGIS REF ,~ .

Focus is on the potential impact of the Juvenile Justice and De..:. linquency Prevention Act of 1974 on state juvenile courts. 'The a,ct requires that within two years after appro"Tal of the jus., t;i.fication plan,juveniles who have committed uffenl:!.es which would not be cr.iminal if committed by an adult, may not be placed in detention or correctional facilities.

Darling, Stanton G., II. Youthful Offenders ~nd Neglected Children Under the D.C. Crime Act, in American University Law RevieW, December1970-M,arch1971. vol 20, 373-431.

: LAW

Thorough expla.n'ation of provJ.swns as they apply to delinqueilts, CHINS, and neglected chUdren. The act contains provisions·for the trial of 16-and 17 -year olds· in adult court,. ,if they cbintltit major felonies, ot' if they have been previously adjudged 'de..; . 1inquent~ Specifi,c rules are set for the detention of child ten, including length ~!f stay, type of facility, andcomminglihg.

7 .Di1emm'~ of the. "Uniguely" Juvenile Of'fen4e~,

" .

in William and Mary Law Review, Winter 1972. vol. 14, 386-408.

LAH'

Concerns evolution of, and constitutional issues surrounding, juvenile statutes covering status offenses. Due process, vOid-fo';t'-vaguen.ess, self-incrimination, and the,right, of cross-examin~tion are among the areas discussed. Concludes

\,l that the permanent solution should be the establisrun~nt of . i non-judiCial systein~ of rehabilitation.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• t)

,! .•

•

(i' ., , !I

•

•

•

•

c ..

Juvenile Justice: PINS ••• ~\ '.

8

9

10

Goddard, Malcol,jU. " " Statement to the New York State Assembly Juciiciary_Committ~e r'6n ]?INSl, March 28, 1974. Alb~ny,1974. . a

()

ON ORDER

Grygier, Tadeusz. Institutions for Children "Beyond Control".. CentI"G of Criminology; 19}4.

"i), OttawCi:., U 0 of" Ottawa~

ON ORDER

:::; Haller, AliceMHmed.. '.

" )J (j:

9alifornia Runaways, in Hast!ngs Law Journal, February 1975~" vol. 26rj 1013-57., . 'I ,"-'

,j

LAW.

Juvenile. court jurisdiction over rUriaways' stems from the 6ta.te fncorrigibilitystatute, (Cal. Welfare: and Institut;i.onsCode §625ff). '.' Evalua,tefLthe current handlingofrunaways,frOn\po-" ' lice encounterd'-to community treatment. Analyzes such issues as vagueness, the right to treatment,. and the right to the least restrictive alternative~ Also discusses the probable .·im-

'I pact of the Juvenile Justice e'lndDelinquencyPrevention Act of 1974 on California programs and . legislation. '. .

,'0

Q

11 Institute for Public Policy Alternatives. Sunutiary of. Statutes Governing Voluntary: Child Care Agencies in NeW York . State, by Aile~h Laventon and' Beth.D •. Russell. Stonybrook, N. y~, State University of New York, .1975. 6508.

LEGIS REF 'I, ~,,'

t

' ..... ~

.D

o.

Q'

, 0 ' ~

12

Covers the sectiops of the State Constitution. and State laws pertaining to t~e care of children. . pro:Vides. def~ni:tions,a ......', !3ummary of cout~ cases~and the variety, of legal dispositidns ) for destitute, abandoned ,.al~usechneglected, PINS, and delinquent children. Gives. a thorough descript:Lon ofregulatip:ns and're ... sponsib:i.1ities of voluntary ~genciefl.· , .

The· Institute of Judicil:l1 Administration.. . . ' The Ellery C"Decision: A Case StudY·qf Judicial Re'g\l~ation 'of.1\1"' venile Status O:f:J;ender.s. New York, 1975. 101 .~~ .

LEGIS REF

, .~= >I o· .

o·

, ~ ',:

.tI.' C

,". {!

.. (}

o

". ~~ve~il.e Jtistice:PINS ••• <.' .J'

4

• 0

14 '.'

Describ'~s, evaluates, {lnd projects th~ w£fr=ctsof thts case [S2"N.Y.2d 586,300 N.E .. 2d 424:J 347 N.Y.S. 2d 510.973)J:(.n . which theconfinEimerit afa ~INS ip·a state tra.ining /?choolwas' successfully appea.1ed.· 'l'he decision wa,~that ,persons so cpn'" . finE!ctarE! contcuninated by the presenceo;E juvenile deHnq1.fents in need of incarceration; ThelnstitutecoriclUd~sthat"although therE! is npw provision of different facilitiesfo;:" j?INS8.11djuf? vel1:tie delinqtierits, there .is still no meaningful.4iff~tence fn the services; super<rision, 'or treatment provided'~ C\ Espouses to­tallYAd~ffetent:i,ated treatment between juvenile qelinquents ~nd PINS t See Items 8, 24)' .

Institute of Judi.cial Administration~ PINS: Th~eJuvenile Status Offenders. Cambriqge; Mass., Ballinger, 1974.

ON ORDER :)

'. Temporarily out of 'print.

Juvenile Status Offender: Neither Fish nor Fowl, by Jack Hqrn, in P/?ychology Today, August· 1975. vol. 9, 31-2.' (in the "Newslin~H Column) ..

GEN R~F

Estimates that ,'of the100,Oo'b children who are placed ip correc­tional institutions in 19'],5,23% of the mlilesand7,O% o~ tl1~'fe­males are status offenders.' Comments on detention and ja~J .. ' abuses. Also discuss~s the peculiar situa~ionin Which" sp!lle youths f:i,nd thems.elveswhen they cross st~te linc=sfrQm sta~e;; in which thrpy are considered adults into states i1;1 wl1ic11 they~orriE! Un-

. der th~ j1.lvenile cQde.lnclti,des address of sources fpr J~fpr-mation ~p each of these aspects. \\'

()

!<lElbe;, .lan~ K. 'l'ersonin 'Need of Supervision: Is ther.€! a Constitutional Righttq

Tre~ff::Illent7, ,in Brooklyn Law Rev:i.ew~.Winter" 197~. vol~ 39, 62~-.'n. , ' , ,

LAW

Pespite the fact that the juvenile justice systeIll W<=lS d€!sign€!d" to help children in trouble, the trea.tment implied has been .' denied; children are merely wareho~sed. Di~cusses r~lat~d J~-" gal and constitutional issues. Concludes that :it: is 1:1:leg1f1:)t' or tl,iecoUJ;t:'to intervene in13uchcases.

•

•

••

•

•

•

.-

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

,

•

If.

Juvenile Justice: PINS •••. 5

16

17

18

19

Kravitz, Max. Due Process in Ohio for the Delinquent and Unrulv Child, in Capital University Law Review, No.1, 1973. vol. 2, 53-85.

LAW

Describes the differentiation between the delinquent and the Unruly child, and 'the due process7requirewents of the Ohio juvenile code for both. [Ch. 21,Ohio Rev~ Code Ann. (Page SUpPa 1970)J

Martin, Lawrence H. and Phyllis R. Snyder. . Juvenile Court Jurisdiction over Status Offenses: Jurisdiction Over Status Offenses Should Not Be Removed from juvenile ,Court~ in

.Crime and !?elinquency, January 1976. vol. 22, 44-7.

S364.6 N111~

(\

Argues that a change in jurisdiction over ,status pffenseswould . ~

result in a lessening of services to familiesinciisis situa'" tions, and that subsequently,the ch:i,1dren of these j:amilies would have deeper and more severe problems. A1s9 see' the:E,ol­lowing. artic!'le, "How to Retain JUrisdicti.onDver Status Offenses:' Change Without Reform in Florida". •

" McConnell; Maxine T.

Delinquent. Children and Children In.:,.Need of Supervision Under the Texas Family Code, in Family Law·QuarterlY, Summer 1974... V'oU8~. 157:"68.

LAW

An analysis of Title 3 of the Texas Family Code (Vernon's Texas Civil Stat'utes, §51ff., 1974), leads to ,theconclllsi::on that the child's constitutional rights' have been satisfied by the 'new requirements_'

McNulty,.Jill K.' I)

The. Right to be Left Alone, in American Ct:iminal Law Review, FAll 1972. vol. 11, 141:"64. ~4 •

UW

.'-:'

!t·

Concerns the over1;each of the juvenile court ",systero into deal'­ing with chi1~renenga~ed. in undes~rabl~,but· nQP'~crim;i.nal~6ei- .' havior,~ ,Claims such jUvenil~sare,helpedthe lea:st';and abu~ed the most bythe.system. Espousesrero,ovalof all M:rNS (fINS) cases ft:ptn juv;enile court jur.isdiction, and th~ establishment' of legal rep'resentEl:tio~.] for thechild.e . 0

(t.

',:.\

.. 6.

: ,r'l

:0

" '

JU'vehileJustice: . PIl'IS. 0 • 6

20

22

2.3

[The Mid-Bronx Neighborhood Youth Diversion Project]. New York City 191.3. 10 p.

ON ORDER

Program description highlight~ three major features; the (''Ad"o­cate (paraprofessionals who&ounsel children and parents, to advise them ,,Of ,their <i'~d.ghts and of the services available); 'J:he Forum (mediation and conciliation hearings conducted by trained community members); and the Assessmen.t (data c;ollection to, analyze youth problems in terms of social patterns). (see Item 27)

" . Mueller, Gerhard O. w.

Legal Norms of Delinquency: A Comparative Study. South Hackensa(!k, N. J., Criminal Law and Educatio~~enter, New Yor~ University School of Law and Fred 'B. Rothman, 1969~ 76 p.

LAW "':---.~~.

Comparison of the juvenile delinquency laws of Colorado,' (representing the U. S. ), 'Eo1and~ Y1,lgos lavia, Israel;' and Puert~ Rico. In defining juven1!;,le delinquency; only 001- , orado included offenses which are not'punishable if committed by an adult., Covers irntire juvenile, justice system~ftom definitions, through d'ispbsition.

l'Iational Councii on Crime and Delinquency. Jurisdiction over Status Offenses ShOUld be Removed from the Juvenile Court: A PoHcy Statement. Hackensack, N. J., 1974.8 p.

ON OR1)ER

NewYork(State).Div~sion of pr9batiQn. Schenectady County Family Court Probation Demonstrati6b Pro'}eo/~~, Gem­era.! Descdption ... Albany., 1972 •. 1B..e,,, (Memorand'a No. 1 + I~) ~\,>"

, . '\, , • , ' » . , ", LEGIS REF ;~'::.,7

Descripes art intens],ve pro1:>i:lti,on project for juven:Ue deliri':' " " quents and PINS cases, a joint Federal, State and Itlcal effort· ..

024 N¢w York J state): Div;i.s:i.on for Youth.

'. c

,ResponsestoQuestions~from the Governor's Office Regarding the DiV!sion for Youtht S Proposal for Separ.ating Juvenile Delinquents and" PINS.. Albarry~ 1973.

ON ORDER

(.!

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

-

•

• '0

•

•

•

•

•

•

'I)

o

I::)

Juvenile Justice: PINS , £} ,

25

26

27

28

. .. J' New, York (State) .. Jud~cia.l Conference. Offic¢ of Children's Servic;:es.

The PINS Child: A Plethora of Problems. New York, 1973. 82., p. + appendices.

LEGIS REF J

A survey of 316 case historif:\S of PINS cases was· made tl;> de­terminecommon characteristics: from background simi~arities~ through types of services required,. to kinds of residential facilities which migh~b:i3 needed •. Among the recomniendations" are the .-,retention of PINS cases under. juvenile cqJjrt juris­diction, the d'evelopment of broader treatment resources, ~nd closer investigation and monitoring'>of voluntary"agenciE!S. "

Child Welfare.

t)

New York (State). Temporary State Comrilission on The Children of the State. A Time for Change liminary Report. New York, 1975., 108 p.

iI;1 Child Care. TheJ;lre-

\ LEGIS REF

~~ .

Description and"evaluation<}f. PINS laws in NeW YO.rk State.,

b

,c\

Points out tnat'childrenopassingthrough .the juvenile justicci ..t' systems in the:\P~NS category spend,on the aV'erage,.mo;retime.p . in Division for Youth facilities, than do juveniledelinqtlents,. Reports that a grt~atdealof the frustratipn with, .andcriti~ cism of, the syste'm is traceable. to this situation~'

",-.,

Non":delincjuent Children in New York: The Need for Alternatives to Ip.;;· stitu1?ional Treatment, in O'.olumbiA Journal qf. Law and Social 'Problems, Spring, 1972. vol. 8, 251-84.

. lAW

A study of the institutional treatment of PINS children iIJ New York State, with suggestions foralternativese Describes the Mid-Broruc Neighborhood Youth Diversion Program, l,Unong oth~r~.: Strongly' advocates deinstitutionalization ofP1NS cases.CSee Item ~O) (

Novak~RaymoIld A.' 0 '. .,.,". " ••.•

The Incorrigible Child Under tl:te New J;lennsylvaniaJ'uvenile Ac.M An Unsound, Un.supportab1e, and UnfortunatePolicy.Choice,i~.Univer-: sHy of .Pittsburgh' Law ReView, Fall: 1973.' vQl.35, 73~92. " (\.

, .

Disputes the decisiQno£ the.Perl~sylvani~ .1egisl~tul:'e,to.C!iass.-· ify the ,l,.ncorrigible child "delinquent II ,unq,et 'the ,Pel1nJ,:lyl~ania .'

'\ . . .'':' .;:,:." ", . .', ,.,"

,',,'

o

'0

'0

, '

- 'i

" "vi

@

n.

a d q

"'';

I

'I

, (!J

...

u

, o

J!J,Venile Justice: PINS 8

29

J'NEmile Aot U1 Pa~S. ~ 50-101 et se_q.). I;lescribes alter­natives, provides descriptive cases.

ItQse, Rpbert G •. Juvenile Statute and Noncriminal DelinCluents: Applying the V01d .. fbr­'V~g1,leness Doctr:i.ne, in SetoriHai't Law Review, Fall-Winter 1972. V'01.4, 184-20'9.

LAW

Analyzes the PINS, CHINS, incorrigibility, and stubborn child laws of a number of states tiD det~rmine ccmstHutionality of such statutes. Concludes that most of the statutes are void due' to vagueness and that they require legislative reVision.

·f

30 RUIlaways: A .Non~Judicial Approach, in New York University Law Review, April l.974. vol,) 49, 1.10':'30.

ON ORDER

Issue missing. Replacement on order.

~'3'1 Sidman, Lawrence R.

32

The Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law: Law and Order in !:he Home, in Family Law Qua1:'ter'iy, Spr:ing 1972. vol. 6, 33-58.

LAW

ReCoqunonwealth,v. Brasher [1971 Mass.~Adv. Sh. 907, 270 'NeE. ~d. 389]'. A miI10r in a foster care:trtstitution refused; to sub­mit' to' a physical exanlin~tion, and was taken to'court under the "Stubborn",Child Law". A suit to test the law's consc1tu-

"J '.

, tionality was' unsuccessful. The author examines the conStitu-' ,tional issues inVolved: ,due process, "vaguenfi!SS, and equal pro­tection.

"

Seei;nDE!rg, David MG If':)]he Child Welfare, Act" Part 'tn, Family Law in the Courts, GIi!,'t~eU, 1973. pp. 71-9~f.

,\ ' .

1".]:. 9hi~dten '~;n Need, of Protection", H. T. G. Andrews, ed. Toronto,

LAW 74-15830

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

(" -

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Juvenile Justice:, PlNS

c

Synopsis of the law plus a listing of pertinentcases~'rhe,law in Ca.nada covers children associating with unfit o1='impro!?E:!;r', p~~t~ons, children whose' parEmts ~are unable to cop:tl::ol tili$ll.,and " habitual truants. ," ~,

Q

g" 33 Stiller, Stuart and Ca.rol Elder~ ','c

PINS.., A Concept £n N'eed' of "Supervision; in American Criminal· Law,R,ea- f))"

view, Summer 1974., vol. 1~, 33-60. ' , .

34

35

LAW ,. ,~)

Emphasi2:es possible consti,tutional, defects ,in ~UlS laws~ es":' pecially on the, grounds ,of vagueness and,oVerbroada.pplica.tioil. Discusse~ the importance of procedural safeguards in PINSPt'0"" ceedings. Advoc'ates removing PINS cases from juven;ilEl court jur.; isdiction as a better solution; D ' ,

Treatment for Misbehaving Minors, in Catholic La'W!er, Spring 1974., ' vol. 20, 106-29.

o U

ON,ORDER

Issue missing. Replacement~Ii orde1;'. ,0

Ungovernability: The UnjUstif,iable~urisdi~tion; inC Yale La.wJoi:irnal, June 1974. vol. 83, 1383-14Q9. ' ",p

"p,

LAW , ,

Concerns jurisdiction over non-:crim;i.nal juvenile behaVior. " Con.;, tends, that 25% of all juvenile ¢ou'rt, Pr-oce?dings and, 40,::5,O%9f " all ,ipcarcerations at'eforst.i1;:tis ,offE:!ri$?s~, Supports abo:lition ofcourt:furisclict;ion over such offenses.

t\

u '

CompiLed through, February 1976

• "::0.-.

If

: \;

, l\

G

" " "

"

.9

"'-

G

£fi;/­IP'

"

'" o

"

'~"""-_"""'---_"""' ___ -----7, ~--, --.--:

o

c'

" /f.-

\ t

I! C

# ,I ii I[

(II •

• 1)

>\0.: