THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT CONCEPT WAS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED IN 1960 IN RELATION TO ADULT MENTAL PATIENTS DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERTY. IN ROUSE VERSUS CAMERON, THE COURT RECOGNIZED A RIGHT TO TREATMENT BASED ON THE 1964 HOSPITALIZATION OF THE MENTALLY ILL ACT. HOWEVER, THE COURT IMPLIED THAT THE SAME DECISION COULD HAVE BEEN REACHED ON EQUAL PROTECTION AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT GROUNDS. WITH REHABILITATION AND CARE BEING THE STATED GOALS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT WAS LOGICAL THAT JUVENILES WOULD ALSO ASSERT A RIGHT TO TREATMENT WHEN THEIR LIBERTY IS CURTAILED AS, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN INCARCERATED. THE COURTS HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT TO PRETRIAL DETENTION, WAIVER TO THE ADULT CRIMINAL COURT, SPECIFIC TREATMENT ORDERS AT THE DISPOSITIONAL STAGE OF TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS, AND POSTDISPOSITIONAL REVIEWS OF THE ADEQUACY OF TREATMENT AFTER COMMITMENT. MOST OF THESE CASES HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE PARENS PATRIAE DUTIES OF THE COURT. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TREATMENT HAS OFTEN BEEN SIDE-STEPPED. ACCEPTANCE OF THE RIGHT IS FAR FROM COMPLETE AND THE FUTURE INTEGRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE AND VOCABULARY OF THE CONCEPT INTO THE FORMAL LAW AFFECTING JUVENILES IS UNCERTAIN. DESPITE ITS UNCERTAIN STATUS, THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT AS IT RELATES TO JUVENILES HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR MANY MEANINGFUL AND SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN THE TREATMENT OF JUVENILES OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS. THE MOST DRAMATIC AND NOTICEABLE CHANGE HAS BEEN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS WITHIN MANY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS. MOREOVER THE JUDICIARY IS EVIDENCING A GREATER AWARENESS THAT IT CAN AND MUST BECOME INVOLVED IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM BOTH PRIOR TO AND AFTER DISPOSITION. WHILE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS TO ORDER THE CREATION OF NEW TREATMENT PROGRAMS OR DIAGNOSE THE SPECIFIC TREATMENT NEEDED BY A CHILD, IT DOES ENCOMPASS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER MINIMUM STANDARDS OF TREATMENT ARE BEING MET OR WHETHER EXISTING PROGRAMS ARE CAPABLE OF TREATING INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN. AS INDICATED BY CASES DISCUSSED, THE FINAL SANCTION AVAILABLE TO THE COURTS IS THE OPTION OF RELEASING A CHILD IF NO SUITABLE TREATMENT PROGRAM IS AVAILABLE. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE MONITORING FUNCTIONS OF THE COURTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO INSURE THAT JUVENILES DO NOT RECEIVE THE WORST OF BOTH: NEITHER THE SOLICITOUS CARE AND TREATMENT POSTULATED FOR CHILDREN NOR THE PROTECTIONS ACCORDED TO ADULTS. REFERENCE NOTES ARE ALSO INCLUDED. (JAP)