A series of recent court decisions suggests that severely disturbed children who are incarcerated in county juvenile halls have a constitutional right to adequate and appropriate treatment. In far too many cases, this treatment is not being provided. The concept of a right to treatment dates from 1960. Recent court decisions, especially in the Robinson vs. California case, have established the right to treatment perhaps more firmly for juvenile offenders than for adults. In California, the juvenile court's rehabilitative idea has been recently confirmed. The courts have articulated numerous standards by which to measure the treatment provided by the State to its wards. Application of standards stated in the Martarella and Morales cases indicates that the treatment of mentally ill children committed to California State hospitals is inadequate. Violent juvenile offenders pose particularly difficult problems, as illustrated by the case of Coe vs. Huffordd. The state may not consider inadequate funds to be a reason for avoiding its legal and moral obligation to provide treatment. Two decisions have indicated that the court has ample authority to order the executive branch to take specific action to guarantee juvenile court wards' right to treatment. Recent affirmation of juveniles' due process rights has intensified the problem of providing treatment. In accordance with these decisions, both Los Angeles officials and San Francisco officials have tried to provide community placements for mentally ill juveniles. Similar efforts are needed throughout the State. More efficient local coordination is also needed. Also recommended are greater use of private facilities by probation departments, local children's programs funded by the Short-Doyle Act, and conversion of space in existing buildings to treatment centers for mentally ill juveniles who are hard to handle. Without such efforts, ill juveniles will be warehoused without treatment. Footnotes which include references are included.