THE DUAL ROLE OF THE CHILDREN'S COURTS IN AUSTRALIA--PROCESSING ACCUSED LAW BREAKERS AND DEALING WITH CHILDREN IN NEED OF CARE, PROTECTION, OR CONTROL--IS SEEN AS REQUIRING A DIFFICULT BALANCING PROCESS. THE COURT'S ALTERNATIVES FOR DISPOSITION--ADJOURNMENT, PROBATION, AND ADMISSION TO THE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT--ARE NORMALLY AVAILABLE FOR BOTH GENERAL TYPES OF COURT APPEARANCE. IT IS BELIEVED THAT WHETHER THE DISPOSITIONS ARE BASED ON LEGAL OR WELFARE GROUNDS OR A COMPOSITE OF BOTH, THEY ARE BASICALLY INEFFECTIVE MEANS OF MANAGING DEVIANT JUVENILE BEHAVIOR. A CHILD WHO IS MADE A WARD OF THE STATE, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS FEW RIGHTS TO APPEAL OR PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS RELATING TO HIS FUTURE. ALSO, INSTANCES OCCUR WHEN THE COURT MAKES A CHILD A WARD OF THE STATE, AND THE WELFARE DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY THERE AFTER RELEASES THE CHILD TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE CHILD AND HIS PARENTS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE CURRENT OPERATIONAL MODEL IS BASED ON A QUESTIONABLE STRUCTURE FOUNDED UPON THE REINFORCEMENT OF STEREOTYPES THAT PRODUCE A CIRCULAR RESULT. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT A MULTIPLICITY OF STATE AND PRIVATE AGENCIES BE USED TO MEET EACH CHILD'S PARTICULAR NEEDS. THIS METHOD IS VIEWED AS AVOIDING THE PRESENT SITUATION WHICH CLASSIFIES CHILDREN INTO ONE OF TWO GROUPS--THE TROUBLEMAKING ANTISOCIAL OFFENDER GROUP OR A GROUP LABELLED GENERICALLY AS CARE AND PROTECTION CASES. (RCB)