Juvenile court judges for several decades had the roles of jurist, psychologist, counselor, sociologist, and parent. The In re Gault decision in 1967 granted juvenile defendants several constitutional rights that transformed juvenile courts into criminal court-like operations. However, juvenile court judges have not been told whether they should continue to be paternal or should emulate their counterparts in adult court. The three courts in the present study were in a northeastern State and included an urban court, a suburban court, and a rural court. Fifteen judges, 25 prosecutors, 20 public defenders, 20 private attorneys, and 20 probation officers completed interviews. Results challenged a variety of assumptions about the role of the juvenile court judge and the nature of the juvenile court process. Nearly all participants regarded juvenile rehabilitation as the primary concern and responsibility of the juvenile court judge, contrary to today’s prevailing assumption. Moreover, participants perceived judicial responsibility to be relevant to all stages of the juvenile court except for the adjudicatory hearing. However, participants also claimed that juvenile court judges were not receiving appropriate training and that they relied too heavily on probation officers’ recommendations. The analysis concluded that claims of the juvenile court’s criminalization had been exaggerated and that most juvenile court workers believed that the role of the juvenile court judge is and should be unique. Tables, notes, and 49 references (Author abstract modified)