THE FOUNDATION UPON WHICH A SEPARATE JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM WAS BASED WAS PARENS PATRIAE, A CONCEPT THAT VIEWS THE STATE AS PARENT, GUARDIAN, AND BENEFACTOR TO THE WAYWARD CHILD. THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ARGUED THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE NONCONFORMING OR DELINQUENT ADOLESCENT ARE BEST SERVED BY ABANDONING THE FORMAL PROCESSES OF THE ADULT COURT IN FAVOR OF INFORMAL DECISIONMAKING BY JUVENILE JUDGES WHO WILL PRESUMABLY MAKE WISE DECISIONS ACCORDING TO THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND NEEDS OF EACH JUVENILE COMING BEFORE THE COURT. SUCH REASONING IS NAIVE, PARTICULARLY REGARDING THE WISDOM AND FAIRNESS ASSUMED TO BE INHERENT IN THE DISCRETIONARY DECISIONMAKING OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES. THE CASE OF IN RE GAULT (1967) REVEALED THE ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN JUVENILE COURTS, AS MANY OF THE RIGHTS ACCORDED BY LAW TO THOSE TRIED IN JUVENILE COURTS WERE SHOWN TO BE DENIED TO THE JUVENILE IN THE GAULT DECISION. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AS A RESULT OF GAULT, HAS GRANTED DELINQUENTS THE RIGHT OF NOTICE OF CHARGES, RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FREE IF INDIGENT), RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. THE GAULT CASE, HOWEVER, DEALT WITH JUVENILE DELINQUENTS, LEAVING STATUS OFFENDERS STILL SUBJECT TO JUVENILE COURT DISCRETIONARY LAW. FURTHER LIMITS ON THE USE OF DISCRETION IN JUVENILE COURTS ARE REQUIRED IF THE RIGHTS OF JUVENILES ARE TO BE PROTECTED IN INTERVENTION PROCEDURES. FUTURE CASE LAW AND THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR JUVENILE JUDGES WILL BE THE IMPORTANT DETERMINANTS OF THE USE OF DISCRETION IN FAMILY COURTS IN THE FUTURE. (RCB)