Concomitant with investigations of the facts that occur during the course of a juvenile court proceeding, psychiatric or psychological evaluations are frequently ordered by the courts, often at the request of social service agencies or juvenile probation authorities. The length and content of these evaluations vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Evaluation became the property of the courts and as such are protected or made available according to law or court policy. It was believed that courts should concern themselves with the specific problems of each child and then seek such services and treatments best suited to the child's needs. However, there may be at least two fallacies inherent in the concept of individualized justice: it assumes that everyone consents to treatment, and that treatment is readily available. Some authorities feel there is too much discretionary power vested in the juvenile court, especially when it arbitrarily orders an evaluation. Some advocates believe that limited prospects for success do not warrant the unfairness inherent in a discretionary system built on intuitions and unrealistic expectations. They favor juvenile dispositions proportionate to the offenders's misconduct, not the offender's personality characteristics. It may be necessary to limit the court's discretion in ordering psychiatric evaluations. There should be some way for either the juvenile or the family to effectively challenge the necessity for the examination. Moreover, the contents of evaluation reports and social files should be subject to stricter review because they do play such a large role in determining the fate of the individual. Eight footnotes are provided.