The centers, located in London, served battered, runaway, and school phobic children, as well as those with 'unfit' parents, all of whom had come to the attention of the authorities. The author, a sociology professor, looks at the care children receive, the career and morale of the residential child-care officers, and the inter- and intra-house rivalries, the psychiatric assessment process, and the ensuring recommendations to the court. The data are based on filed notes of meetings and conversations at the center, as well as analyses of transcribed verbatim accounts by child-care officers taken from taped interviews. The author questions whether the child-care officers, the outside psychiatric consultants, and the courts were able to act in the children's best interests. The following problems are cited: the child-care officers' lack of formal on-the-job training, prior credentials, or experience; the lack of family therapy for clients; the inequitable distribution of cases among the staff; low staff morale; arbitrary use of power by senior staff; and ineffective child-staff interactions. The centers fail to appraise objectively the child's current needs and available options because of time constraints, political contingencies, low morale, and other factors. Neither the center staff nor the courts were aware of the consequences of their actions regarding the child. Centers are advised to establish trust between junior and senior staff, expand the use of family therapy, and increase the staff-to-child ratio, among other changes. Reference notes, center forms, and data tables are supplied.