THE ISSUES ADDRESSED ARE: (1) REMOVAL OF JURISDICTION OVER STATUS OFFENSES FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE JUVENILE COURT; (2) INCORPORATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT WITHIN A FAMILY-COURT STRUCTURE; AND (3) AUTOMATIC WAIVER OF CASES CONCERNING MINORS 14 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO THE ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WHEN SERIOUS FELONIES ARE INVOLVED. INDIVIDUALS, PUBLIC BODIES, AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS ARE RECOMMENDING INCREASNGLY THAT STATUS OFFENSES SHOULD NO LONGER BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE JUVENILE COURT OR ANY OTHER JUDICIAL BODY. STATUS OFFENSES ARE THOSE ACTS WHICH, IF COMMITTED BY AN ADULT, WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIME. UNDER THE REMOVAL PROPOSITION, SUCH ACTS AS TRUANCY, CONSENSUAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, DRINKING, AND CURFEW VIOLATIONS WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY RESPONSE BY THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES. THOSE WHO ARGUE FOR SUCH REMOVAL DO SO ON THE BASIS THAT THE COURT'S IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IS TOTALLY NEGATIVE AND THAT A SUBSTITUTE HELPING SYSTEM SHOULD BE ERECTED TO RESOLVE THESE PROBLEMS THROUGH VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION. HOWEVER, THE MAJORITY OF STATUS OFFENDERS WHO COME TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION HAVE ALREADY HAD SUCH CONTACT WITH VOLUNTARY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCIES. THE CONCEPT OF THE FAMILY COURT HAS BEEN CHAMPIONED BY VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND GROUPS, INCLUDNG THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICAN JUDICATURE SOCIETY. THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT SUCH A COURT BE ESTABLISHED TO ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER SUCH FAMILY MATTERS AS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, CHILD NEGLECT, DEPENDENCY, PATERNITY, DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, CHILD CUSTODY, AND ASSAULT AND BATTERY BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE. HOWEVER, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE APPROACES TO SUCH PROBLEMS ARE INDIVIDUAL AND DIVERGENT AND THAT A SINGLE COURT COULD NOT HANDLE SUCH A RANGE OF PERSONAL AND PUBLIC PROBLEMS EFFECTIVELY. FOR EXAMPLE, IN DELINQUENCY MATTERS, THE COURTS LOOK INCREASINGLY TOWARD BOTH FINDING FAULT AND PUNISHMENT; HOWEVER, THE FAMILY COURT CONCEPT INCREASINGLY EMPHASIZES THE ELIMINATION OF FAULT OR GUILT AS A RELEVANT MATTER. WHILE THE JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM HAS BEEN CRITIZED FOR ITS FAILURE TO APPLY AN ACCUSATORIAL APPROACH AND TO EMPLOY ADVERSARIAL PROCEDURES, COURTS HANDLING SUCH MATTERS AS DIVORCE AND CHILD CUSTODY ARE BEING TOLD THAT THE ADVERSARY ATOMSPHERE IS UNSUITABLE. THE FINAL ISSUE REGARDS WAIVER TO ADULT CRIMINAL COURT. IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF SERIOUS FELONIES IN THE U.S. IS COMMITTED BY YOUNGSTERS UNDER THE AGE OF 18. BUT IF REHABILITATION IS TO REMAIN ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL GOALS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, THE ANSWER TO THIS SOCIAL PROBLEM IS NOT TO TRY YOUTHS AS ADULTS AND TO MIX THEM WITH HARDENED CRIMINALS. THE EXISTING CRITERIA REGARDING DISCRETIONARY WAIVER ARE NOTED, AND IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CONCEPT OF BOTH AUTOMATIC AND DISCRETIONARY WAIVER LEAD TO A LEGAL ANOMALY. (KBL)