Document Type



Inadequate financial resources and overcrowded juvenile placement facilities have frequently been cited as grounds for the abrogation of the juvenile court's practice of retaining jurisdiction over status offenders. In this article, Judge Quinn suggests the existence of even more compelling reasons which support diversion of status offenders to programs better suited to their particular needs. The author contends that the juvenile court's jurisdiction should be confined to matters of fact-finding and adjudication, rather than intruding into areas within the domain of the parents, and into areas in which the court lacks the necessary expertise. It is argued that diversion of status offenders would also eliminate the traumatic experience of courtroom appearances and the frequently unnecessary period of incarceration. Abrogation of jurisdiction would enable the court to devote its energies and resources to its primary concerns of abuse and juvenile crime.