THE DISCUSSION CONCERNS THE INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION/AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS RELATING TO ABUSE AND NEGLECT AND A CRITIQUE OF THE STANDARDS IN WHICH PROPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE COURT'S JURISDICTION IN ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES ARE CRITICIZED. IT IS ARGUED THAT, ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED STANDARDS MIGHT PREVENT COURTS FROM ORDERING PROTECTIVE SERVICES IN SOME INDIVIDUAL CASES IN WHICH A BENEFIT WOULD RESULT FROM SUCH AN ORDER, THE MAJORITY OF CHILDREN EXCLUDED FROM JUVENILE COURT JURISDICTION UNDER THE PROPOSED SCHEME, AS WELL AS THOSE INCLUDED, WILL BENEFIT AS A RESULT OF LIMITED STATE INTERVENTION. THE CRITIQUE OF THE STANDARDS IS SAID TO REFLECT THE BELIEF THAT REFORM OF THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM INVOLVES A REDIRECTION OF THE EFFORTS OF PROFESSIONALS BUT NOT A REDEFINITION OF THEIR ROLE IN THE SYSTEM. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE BROAD DISCRETION GRANTED CHILD PROTECTION PROFESSIONALS -- THAT THE PROFESSIONALS AND NOT THE PARENTS ALWAYS KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR CHILDREN -- LIES AT THE HEART OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE EXISTING CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM. THE PROPOSED STANDARDS ARE SAID TO BESPEAK CONFIDENCE IN THE ABILITY OF PARENTS TO HANDLE ALL BUT THE MOST SERIOUS CHILD-REARING PROBLEMS.