CHAPTER VII

JUVENILE PROBATION

BEFORE TRIAL, AT TRIAL, AFTER TRIAL

"The probation feature in my judgment is the keystone which supports the arch of the Juvenile Law-an arch which shall be as a rainbow of hope to all who love children and who desire that all children shall be properly cared for, and who would provide such care for those who, without it, would inevitably lead vicious and criminal lives."

This prophetic statement was made by Judge Richard Tuthill at the first session of the Juvenile Court in Chicago. This was in July, 1899, and we all realize now that this statement of His Honor was not in the least an exaggeration.

The Juvenile Court Law is plain and simple. No complicated, technical theories are involved in the statute. In short, it is but a substitution of the parental power of the state for that of the criminal branch Where a child inherited property, the courts were always solicitous about its welfare. It was made a ward of the court, a guardian was appointed to properly invest its income, to supervise and look after its personal wants and education. Strange to say, the state in the absence of property never felt that it was called upon to interfere with the control or management of the child until it became dependent or committed some offense and then and not until then did the state interfere. Instead of treating the child in a parental, fatherly way, it was placed in jail, prison or lock-up, resulting, in most cases, in its becoming a convict.

The Juvenile Court deals with the child in a way entirely different. It proceeds at once to make it a ward of the court; to assume guardianship over it; to guide and direct it so that it may become a good and useful citizen. This work is performed in a great measure by the probation officer, a man or woman appointed by the court and invested with certain powers over the child.

The Illinois Juvenile Court Law provides, section 6: "In case a probation officer shall be appointed by any court, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court, if practicable, to notify the said probation officer in advance when any child is to be brought before said court; it shall be the duty of the probation office to make such investigation as may be required by the court; to be present in court in order to represent the interest of the child when the case is heard; to furnish to the court such information and assistance as the judge may require, and to take such charge of any child before and after trial, as may be directed by the court."

The probation officer should at all times bear in mind that the normal, natural place for a child is in its own home, provided, of course, that the home is a suitable, proper place for any child to be thus situated. The paramount duty of the probation officer, as the law provides, is to represent the interest of the child; to be, as it were, counsel to the child, and to protect the child before court and after court the same as a good, patient, kind, intelligent father or mother would their own child.

The probation officer should have a certain defined territory, and to do effective work should be limited as to number of children under his or her care. No officer should have over sixty, and certainly not to exceed seventy-five active probation cases. Having been assigned to a district, it should be his duty to be thoroughly conversant with the schools, churches, settlements, neighborhood centers, playgrounds, parks and places where children ordinarily gather.

Especially should he be thoroughly conversant with all of the places of amusement, the character of people who attend such places and the character of the amusement presented for the entertainment of the audience. He should be friendly and co-operate with the police department, courts and other public agencies. He should be as well posted as to the conditions in his district as is the captain of a fire department, who, when an alarm comes in showing the location of the fire, he is able to tell almost to a certainty the extent of the same. The fire department officer has studied the buildings and knows their character. He knows the entrances, both front and rear. He knows every stairway in each building, so that he is able by standing off and viewing the fire to direct his men where the most effective work can be done and at the first sight of danger is able to give the alram and point the way of escape. So it should be with the probation officer. All pit-falls, all dance-halls, all places where children may form bad acquaintances and be liable to ruination should be thoroughly known to the probation officer.

The great work of the probation officer should be in keeping the child out of court. Courts, as we all know, are but substitutes for a well regulated home. No one will concede that it is for the best interest of the child that it be brought to court and be made to feel that the strong arm of the law has been placed on it and that, because of its own wayward acts, the love and affection and proper guidance and direction of his parents must be supplemented by strangers. The work before court can only be done by the probation officer, being thoroughly acquainted personally with the people in their district.

The instructions given the probation officer, when appointed by the Chicago Juvenile Court, provide as follows:

(1) The welfare and interest of the child is to be considered.

(2) The welfare of the community.

(3) The interest and feelings of the parents and relatives.

"When cases are referred for investigation, the probation officer will be expected to inquire into the facts of the case, with a view to assist the court in deciding what ought to be done. The court will desire to ascertain the character, of the parents and their capability for governing and guarding the child, together with the character of the home as to comforts, surroundings, inmates, etc. This information will be obtained from the child, from the parents, neighbors, teachers, clergymen, police officers and various charitable agencies.

"The court will wish to determine from these inquiries whether the child should be separated from its parents, guardian or custodian. The court will not ordinarily separate children from their parents (a) unless the parents are criminal; (b) parents are vicious or grossly cruel; or (c) the parents are entirely unable to support the children; or (d) the home is in such a condition as to make it extremely probable that the child will grow up to be vicious or dependent. The court cannot be used as a convenience for the purpose of relieving parents or relatives from their natural obligations. Whenever practicable, the child should be left in the care of its parents or of some suitable family under the supervision of the probation officer pending the final action of the court.

In case the probation officer finds it advisable to bring the child to court he should have in mind the legal status of the child and parents. It is well settled by the courts that the Juvenile Court Law is constitutional. The only difficulty is in the administration of the law. From the fact that we have a Juvenile Court Law and that the child may be brought to court it does not necessarily follow that the court without proper pleadings and a proper hearing, can invade the home and take the child therefrom. The

Supreme Court of Utah, in the recent case of Mill vs. Brown, published in the 88th Pacific Reporter, defines the power of the court very clearly. "The duty of the parent to care for the child is imposed by the moral as well as the law of society upon the father, first, so it must likewise logically follow that he must be given the first right to discharge that duty. Indeed the common law based the right of the father to have the custody and dominion over the person of his child upon the ground that he might better discharge the duty he owed the child and the state in respect to the care and education of the child. The right and duty are therefore reciprocal, and may be termed natural as well as legal and moral.

"Before a child can be made a ward of the state at least two things must be found: First, that the child is a delinquent or dependent within the provisions of the law; and, second, that the parents or legal guardian is incompetent or has neglected and failed to care for and provide for the child, the training and education contemplated and required by both law and morals.'

It will thus be seen from the fore-going opinion, which is without doubt one of the best reasoned cases that has ever been announced by the courts in this or any other country on the Juvenile Court Law, that the rights of the child as well as of the parents must be carefully protected. It is essential that a proper petition be filed with sufficient allegations in the wording of the statute, so that the court may have jurisdiction. While the proof required is not as strict as in the ordinary case, nevertheless it is necessary that sufficient evidence be procured so that the court may be properly advised in the premises.

There is a well-known maxim of the law, "that proof without allegations will no more suffice than would averments without proof." The court can only determine the legal effect of a judgment from an inspection of the whole record. The Court, acting under a special statute, there