THE CLAIM THAT LAWS CONFERRING STATUS OFFENSE JURISDICTION ON THE JUVENILE COURTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE HOLDS TRUE ONLY FOR ONE CATEGORY OF PROVISIONS--THOSE DEALING WITH IDLE, DISSOLUTE, LEWD, OR IMMORAL BEHAVIOR, OR BEHAVIOR ENDANGERING THE MORALS, HEALTH, OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CHILD. SUCH PROVISIONS CAN BE CHANGED OR ELIMINATED WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE BASIC STATUTORY SCHEME GOVERNING NONCRIMINAL MISBEHAVIOR (TRUANCY, RUNNING AWAY, ETC.) OF MINORS. THE CLAIM THAT JUVENILE CODES UNCONSTITUTIONALLY PUNISH STATUS OFFENDERS APPEARS TO BE MISDIRECTED; LITTLE SUPPORT IS TO BE FOUND IN ANGLO-AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE FOR THE CONTENTION THAT CHILDREN SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AS ADULTS. THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL PROOF THAT STATUS OFFENSE ADJUDICATION HAS A STIGMATIZING EFFECT ON CHILDREN. THERE ARE THREE BASIC REASONS FOR RETAINING THE STATUS OFFENSE JURISDICTION: (1) ABOLITION OF THAT JURISDICTION STRIKES AT THE HEART OF THE FAMILY AUTONOMY TRADITION, WHICH IS REFLECTED IN LAWS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS PERTAINING TO CHILD-ADULT RELATIONSHIPS; (2) ALTHOUGH SOME CRITICS CHARGE THAT STATUS OFFENSE LAWS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST POOR AND MINORITY GROUPS, ABOLITION MAY WORK TO PERPETUATE SUCH DISCRIMINATION; AND (3) NO REALISTIC ALTERNATIVE HAS BEEN SUGGESTED. IT IS A MISTAKE TO FOCUS REFORM EFFORTS ON ABOLISHING THE COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER STATUS OFFENDERS RATHER THAN ON ELIMINATING ABUSES IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT JURISDICTION. (LKM)