TRADITIONALLY PARENTS HAVE BEEN ASSUMED TO HAVE FULL AUTHORITY OVER THE RAISING OF THEIR CHILDREN. COURTS HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO INTERVENE EXCEPT IN EXTREME CASES OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT. A NUMBER OF EDUCATION EXPERTS AND SOCIAL WELFARE WORKERS HAVE QUESTIONED THIS AUTONOMY, BUT EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT INTERVENTION STRATEGIES FORCED UPON A FAMILY OFTEN DO AS MUCH HARM AS GOOD. FOR THIS REASON COURTS CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO INTERVENE UNLESS THE CASE IS EXTREME. THE FOCUS NOW IS ON PROVIDING COUNSEL FOR BOTH PARENTS AND CHILD. THE RATIONALE IS THAT THE CHILD WHO IS NOT REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY IS AT THE MERCY OF FACTS PRESENTED BY WELFARE AGENCIES AND PARENTS, WHILE THE PARENT INVOLVED IN CHILD WELFARE PROCEEDINGS IS IN AN ADVERSARIAL POSITION. THESE PROCEDURAL REFORMS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY CHANGES IN THE UNDERLYING STANDARDS FOR REMOVAL. THE STATE MUST PROVE THAT REMOVAL FROM THE HOME WILL RESULT IN BETTER CARE THAN THE CHILD WOULD RECEIVE IF LEFT IN THE HOME AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROVIDED. COURTS HAVE ALSO HELD THAT ALL INTERESTED PARTIES MUST HAVE ACCESS TO SOCIAL AGENCY REPORTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE, AND FAMILIES SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THESE REPORTS. THIS NEW CONCERN WITH PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS REAFFIRMS THE FAMILY'S RIGHT TO MAINTAIN A COHERENT UNIT FREE FROM STATE INTERFERENCE EXCEPT IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES. EXTENSIVE NOTES AND REFERENCES ARE APPENDED. (GLR)