THE FIRST JUVENILE COURT ACT WAS PASSED IN ILLINOIS IN 1899, AND MOST OF THE STATES QUICKLY FOLLOWED THE EXAMPLE AND PASSED LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR JUVENILE COURT JURISDICTION. THE STATUTES WERE SELF-RIGHTEOUS IN TONE, AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION ADVERTISED AND APPLAUDED THE NEW SYSTEM. THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM WAS BASED ON SOCIAL SCIENCE AND MEDICAL MODELS, AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION QUICKLY LOST INTEREST IN THE JUVENILE COURT; IN THE 1930'S AND 1940'S, THE COURTS BECAME THE PROVINCE OF SOCIAL WORKERS. SOCIAL WORKERS AND JUVENILE COURT PERSONNEL HAD THE TENDENCY TO THEMSELVES NOT WITHIN THE JUDGEMENTAL OR PUNITIVE FUNCTIONS, BUT RATHER AS PERSONS WORKING FOR THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS. ACCORDING TO THIS REASONING, THE CHILDREN HAD NO NEED FOR LAWYERS OR PROTECTION FROM THE COURT. BETWEEN THE TWO WORLD WARS, A SYSTEM FOR HANDLING DELINQUENT AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN DEVELOPED ESSENTIALLY OUTSIDE THE LEGAL SYSTEM. AFTER WORLD WAR II, DISILLUSIONMENT WITH THE SYSTEM RESULTED AFTER SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF DELINQUENT YOUTHS SHOWED NO REDUCTION IN ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR AFTER COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUVENILE COURT. APPELLATE COURTS WERE CALLED UPON TO ANALYZE AND APPRAISE THE OPERATION OF THE JUVENILE COURTS IN THE LATE 1950'S AND THE 1960'S, AND A RUSH OF MANDATES CONCERNING JUVENILE JUSTICE FOLLOWED. THE MOST MONUMENTAL OF THESE, THE GAULT DECISION, DECREED THAT JUVENILES MUST BE GIVEN THE FOUR MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THE SUPREME COURT EVENTUALLY RULED THAT THE JUVENILE MUST BE JUDGED GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN A TURN AROUND, THE JUVENILE COURT PROCESS IN AMERICA IS BECOMING MORE OF AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING AND MORE LIKE THE ADULT COURT MODEL. THE DISTINCTIVE ASPECTS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ARE DISCUSSED REGARDING THE PREFATORY PROCESS, FACT-FINDING ADJUDICATION, AND THE POSTADJUDICATORY PROCESS. THE PREDOMINANT ISSUES AND CURRENT THEMES INVOLVING AN AUTONOMOUS SYSTEM FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE ARE CONSIDERED INCLUDING: (1) LEGAL PROCESS VERSUS SOCIAL WORK; (2) THE SCOPE OF THE COURT'S JURISDICTION: (3) CITIZEN CONTROL OF THE SYSTEM; (4) THE PROBLEM OF ABUSED AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN; (5) INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN; (6) THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT AND THE LIMITS OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE; AND (7) THE USE OF INSTITUTIONS VERSUS COMMUNITY-BASED FACILITIES. REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (DAG)