The first priority of a 1965 youth protection law was to preserve the family and to avoid judicial boarding schools. Such a preference for preserving families through consensual social interventions in place of judicially compelled ones is evident in the statistics on minors affected by measures taken against their parents. In regard to family protection experiences, the primary one seems to be the effort made in some jurisdictions to give families at risk more staff assistance. Various researchers argue it is possible to lower costs to simultaneously protect families and avoid confinement of minors, but the successes or failures depend on the judge's decision to continue to take risks within the family context or to place juveniles in institutions in order to protect them from their family environment. 84 references