QUESTIONABLE ASPECTS OF THE ARGUMENTS SET FORTH BY PROPONENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ARE NOTED, INCLUDING LIKELY RESISTANCE TO THE TREATMENT OF FAMILIES AS UNITS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE COURTS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE REORGANIZATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OF THE COURT SYSTEM AND THE EFFECTS OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT OF 1969 SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO STABILIZE BEFORE ANY FURTHER CHANGES, SUCH AS INTRODUCTION OF A FAMILY COURT, ARE CONTEMPLATED. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT, IF A FAMILY COURT WERE SET UP, ITS JURISDICTION PROBABLY WOULD ENCOMPASS NOT ONLY CUSTODY AND ADOPTION CASES, BUT ALSO CASES INVOLVING THE CARE OF ENDANGERED CHILDREN. THE HISTORY OF THE JUVENILE COURT'S HANDLING OF CARE CASES IS REVIEWED, AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT -- THAT OF PROVIDING CARE AND CONTROL WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A COURT ORDER -- ARE CONSIDERED. IN LIGHT OF PROBLEMS IN THE JUVENILE COURT'S HANDLING OF CARE CASES, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT A NEW FAMILY COURT JURISDICTION HOLDS PROMISE. HOWEVER, CERTAIN PITFALLS -- E.G., CONFUSING THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS WITH THE INTERESTS OF ITS PARENTS -- MUST BE AVOIDED. ONE POTENTIAL PROBLEM IN FAMILY COURT PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGES WHO ARE TRAINED IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES IS THAT THE DIVISION OF FUNCTION BETWEEN CLINICAL EXPERTS AND THE JUDICIARY MAY BE BLURRED, AND THAT HEARINGS IN CARE CASES MAY RESULT IN CLINICAL DECISIONS RATHER THAN ADJUDICATIONS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE SOCIAL SERVICES ON WHICH THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A FAMILY COURT WOULD REST ARE INSUFFICIENT. ALTHOUGH THE FAMILY COURT MAY HAVE ADVANTAGES IN THE FUTURE, ENDANGERED CHILDREN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BENEFIT DIRECTLY FROM BETTER ARRANGEMENTS FOR MEETING THE NEEDS OF DESERTED WIVES AND HOMELESS FAMILIES.