Abstract
State laws provide a variety of means to protect children from self-inflicted or parentally-inflicted harm. In recent years, the Supreme Court has imposed stringent procedural requirements on juvenile delinquency laws. In the past year, however, the Court has refused to extend these procedural stringencies to analogous child-protective state laws. This article explores generally the rationale for court application, by constitutional mandate, of procedural safeguards to a broad range of child-protective legislation. The article suggests that some criminal-procedure rights are vitally important to protect children and their parents from inappropriate state interventions, but that wholesale application of all criminal rights, as if these laws were no different from criminal laws, unduly restricts proper application of these laws. Guidelines for determining what criminal rights should and should not be applied to child-protective legislation generally are suggested.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bowlby, J. (1965).Child Care and the Growth of Love. Penguin Books, Inc., Baltimore.
Council of Am. Psychiat. Assoc. (1967). Position statement on the question of adequacy of treatment.Am. J. Psychiat. 123: 1458, 1459.
Dembitz, N. (1969). Child abuse and the law — fact and fiction.Rec. Assoc. Bar City N.Y. 34: 613,616.
Fanshel, D. (1971). The exit of children from foster care: An interim research report.Child Welfare 1(2): 65, 71.
Freud, A. (1964).The Psychoanalytic Treatment of Children. Schocken Books, Inc., New York.
Freud, A. (1965).Normality and Pathology in Childhood. International Universities Press, New York.
Freud, A. (1967). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. In Katz, J., Goldstein, J., and Dershowitz, A. (eds.),Psychoanalysis, Psychiatry and Law, Free Press of Glencoe, New York, pp. 144–147.
Gil, D. (1970).Violence Against Children. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Gill, M. (1967). Psychoanalysis and exploratory psychotherapy. In Katz, J., Goldstein, J., and Dershowitz, A. (eds.),Psychoanalysis, Psychiatry and Law, Free Press of Glencoe, New York, pp. 669–671.
Katz, J. (1969). The right to treatment — an enchanting legal fiction.Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 36: 755, 770–771.
Kris, E. (1958). Cited by Freud, A., in Child observation and prediction of development.Psychoanal. Study Child 13: 92, 98.
Morris, N., and Hawkins, G. (1969).The Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.
Paulsen, M. (1966). The legal framework for child protection.Columbia Law Rev. 66: 679, 680–686, 693–703.
Pitler, R. (1968). The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ revisited and shepardized.Calif. Law Rev. 56: 579.
Remington, F., Newman, D., Kimball, E., Melli, M., and Goldstein, H. (1969).Criminal Justice Administration. Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis.
Schafer, R. (1959). Generative empathy in the treatment situation.Psychoanal. Quart. 28: 342.
Schafer, R. (1967). On the nature of the therapeutic relationship. In Katz, J., Goldstein, J., and Dershowitz, A. (eds.),Psychoanalysis, Psychiatry and Law, Free Press of Glencoe, New York, pp. 722–723.
Steele, B., and Pollock, C. (1968). A psychiatric study of parents who abuse infants and small children. In Helfer, R.E., and Kempe, H. (eds.),The Battered Child, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 103, 144.
Terr, L., and Watson, A. (1968). The battered child rebrutalized: Ten cases of medical-legal confusion.Am. J. Psychiat. 124: 1432.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This article was previously published, in a slightly different format, in theMichigan Law Review (June 1971) under the title, “Forcing Protection on Children and Their Parents: The Impact ofWyman v. James.”
B.A., 1960, Princeton University; M.A., 1962, Oxford University; L.L.B., 1964, Yale University. Main interest is family law.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burt, R.A. Protecting children from their families and themselves: State laws and the constitution. J Youth Adolescence 1, 91–111 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537066
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537066