The Department of Institutions, Social and Rehabilitative Services (DIBRS) was designated as the State Planning and Coordinating Agency for statewide juvenile justice and delinquency prevention services. To explain the reasons for this new approach to juvenile justice, this study examines the development and history of juvenile justice in the United States, including attitudes expressed by the US Supreme Court, beginning with its judicial opinion, in the cases of three juveniles, Morris Kent, Gerald Gault, and Samuel Winship, that they had been denied due process. In addition to the due process issue, this study discusses arguments in favor and against juvenile trials by jury; the juvenile justice intake process in Oklahoma; the meaning of diversion and the criteria guiding selection of corrective alternatives; the factors considered in determining the use of detention of juveniles; whether juveniles are entitled to bail; the meaning of bifurcated juvenile hearings; the rules of evidence in juvenile adjudicatory hearings and during the disposition; the rules under Oklahoma laws for committing children to a ward-of-the-court status; and whether the parens-patriae obligations of the State extend to providing expensive medical treatment to juveniles in custody (they do, by ordering the other branches of government, if necessary, to afford the treatment, services, and physical surroundings needed by wards of the court). Other topics discussed in this study include court reports; court intervention in the family life of children involved with the juvenile justice system; certification of minors; appeals; probation and parole, and revocation. No evaluation of the unholy alliance has been made. Endnotes contain judicial decision citations and references.