The belief that delinquent behaviors are symptomatic of 'maladjustment' or 'behavior disorders' has been an integral part of the 'progressive' juvenile court's ideology since the 1920's. In the post-World War II era, beliefs about 'acting out' and 'emotional disturbance' of youthful misbehaviors became part of the child welfare system. By the late 1970's, mental health experts maintained that virtually all delinquents exhibited one of the three major types of mental illness. None of the youth-in-trouble systems has demonstrated empirically that programs guided by mental health theories and treatment procedures are associated with positive results as measured by the cessation of delinquent behaviors. It is time to question the treatment paradigm that has dominated all three systems. Under any new policy, only fair and just dispositions dealing with actual (not predelinquent) harms should justify involuntary attempts to change antisocial behaviors. In effect, response should be proportional to degree of harm. A more narrow use of the mental health system is justified because of its high cost compared to juvenile justice and child welfare programs. Humaneness also demands that the least restrictive alternative be pursued, commensurate with public safety and the youth's needs. Areas for future research are suggested, and 54 references are listed.