THE JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO A CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF CHILDREN AND THE INSTITUTIONAL UPHEAVALS OF THE 19TH CENTURY. IT HAD A PATERNALISTIC ORIENTATION AND WAS EXPECTED TO BECOME A BENEVOLENT SURROGATE FOR INEFFECTIVE FAMILIES AND CORRUPT COMMUNITIES. THE JUVENILE COURT WAS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING DELINQUENCY AND REHABILITATING OFFENDERS. BY THE MID-1960'S THE REPUTATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT HAD BECOME TARNISHED, AND TODAY REFORMS ARE ALTERING ITS BASIC PHILOSOPHICAL TENETS. THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF THE CHILD AS BEING PASSIVE AND PROTECTED HAS BEEN CHALLENGED, STATUS OFFENDERS CAN NO LONGER BE CALLED DELINQUENTS, AND MANY STATES HAVE REMOVED THEM FROM THE COURT'S JURISDICTION, AND THE IMAGE OF THE JUVENILE COURT AS A SURROGATE PARENT HAS BEEN DISCREDITED. SOME OFFENDERS ARE DIVERTED TO PUBLIC AGENCIES WHILE OTHERS ARE SUBJECTED TO ADULT-LIKE COURT PROCESSES. THE ORIGINAL JUVENILE COURT TREATED OFFENDERS WHEREAS THE CURRENT EMPHASIS IS ON THE OFFENSE. TODAY'S REFORMS DO NOT NECESSARILY DENOTE PROGRESS. THE CHILD RIGHTS MOVEMENT OFTEN CONFLICTS WITH THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN, ELDERLY, AND OTHER MINORITIES. DECRIMINALIZATION COULD PREVENT WORKING-CLASS OR SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES FROM GETTING NEEDED ASSISTANCE FROM LEGAL AUTHORITIES. DIVERSION PROGRAMS ARE NOT PARTICULARLY INNOVATIVE AND HAVE NOT PROVEN TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TRADITIONAL COURT REMEDIES. THE EMPHASIS ON DUE PROCESS FOR JUVENILES COULD ELIMINATE THE PROTECTION THEY RECEIVE FROM THE COURT AND RESULT IN A RETRIBUTIVE SYSTEM. DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION COULD EXCLUDE SOME JUVENILES FROM NEEDED COURT SERVICES, WHILE CONTRIBUTING TO DEMANDS FOR HARSHER PUNISHMENTS FOR DELINQUENTS. NOTES AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (MJM)