THE JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM THAT EMERGED IN 1899 WAS THE RESULT OF A CONFLUENCE OF SEVERAL STREAMS OF THOUGHT AND PRACTICE. IT WAS FOUNDED BASICALLY, HOWEVER, ON THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM IN WHICH THE CHANCERY COURT HAD BROAD AUTHORITY OVER THE WELFARE OF MINORS, PARTICULARLY WHEN PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE JEOPARDIZED. PATERNALISM HAS COMPRISED THE LAW AND UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS WERE PLACED ON THE JUVENILE COURT. IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THE JUVENILE COURT COULD CONTROL CRIME, AND THIS HAS INTERFERED WITH BOTH THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF THE COURT AND ITS EFFECTIVENESS. THE CONCEPT OF FAMILY COURTS WHICH WOULD ABSORB JUVENILE CASES AS WELL AS ALL OTHER LEGAL FAMILY MATTERS IS DISCUSSED. AN IDEAL FAMILY COURT WOULD ADHERE TO LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND HAVE SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO COPE WITH THE PROBLEMS BROUGHT BEFORE IT. IT WOULD HAVE BROAD SUBSTANTIVE AND GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTION OVER FAMILY MATTERS, AND IT WOULD HAVE A CLEAR-CUT, STRAIGHT-LINE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND RESPONSIBILITY IN JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS. THE COURTS, HOWEVER, CANNOT SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND CRIME BY WAITING TO HELP CHILDREN AFTER THEY HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES. A COMPREHENSIVE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION SYSTEM SHOULD BE DEVELOPED THROUGH COMMUNITY RESOURCES THAT WOULD EMPHASIZE WAYS OF MODIFYING AND IMPROVING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP. (DAG)