The document summarizes key developments in California's juvenile justice system between the 1890s and 1961. It describes how the state established its first juvenile court in 1903 to avoid due process protections for minors. Over subsequent decades, various reforms expanded the court's jurisdiction and established additional reform schools. However, a 1957 study found the system was ineffective and inconsistent, leading to new protections under the 1961 Arnold-Kennick Juvenile Court Law.

1. California and enters the Reform School Era
(1890s)
Preston School of Industry
Wittier State School Established 1892 established 1894
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

2. Ex Parte Becknell 1897
Child cannot be imprisonment without trial by jury
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

3. California Establishes First Juvenile
Court 1903
Applied to dependent and delinquent children under the
age of 16 who resided in San Francisco, Alameda, and
Los Angeles Counties
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

4. Goals of juvenile court advocates
• Remove children form adult jails and prisons
• Control children’s behavior outside of the
criminal court
• Avoid the obstacles of due process protections
by establishing a civil process
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

5. An Era of Amendments
• 1904, juvenile court expanded to all counties in the state
• 1905, county probation system allowed salaries for probation
officers in some counties
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

6. Juvenile Justice Act of 1909
• Increased jurisdiction over minors by extending jurisdiction
age limit from 16 to 18
• Extended jurisdiction age for children who were committed to
Preston and Whittier State Schools to 21.
• Forbad the commitment of children under 8 to state reform
schools
• Required all counties to maintain detention homes for
dependent and delinquent children
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

7. 1915 Juvenile Court Law
• Included a category for “insane, or feebleminded” children
• Established the Ventura School for Girls and set different age
limits for Whittier (age 8- 16) and Preston (ages 16 to 21)
• Allowed for Inter-district transfer of cases filed in the wrong
county
• Allowed for the appointment of referees to hear the
testimonies of witnesses, investigate the case, and make
recommendations
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

8. Landmark Cases
• People v Wolf (1920) (gave judges right to transfer youth to
adult court)
• In re Daedler (1924) (denied juveniles right to a jury trial in
California)
• In re Edwards (1930) (placed restrictions on juvenile court
powers to deny parental custody)
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

9. 1937 Juvenile Court Law
• Established Forestry Camps as a reform school
alternative for less serious juvenile offenders
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

10. Youth Corrections Authority Act (1941)
Seeking a modern state corrections system
while reducing the disparate treatment in
juvenile court commitments to state reform
schools
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

11. Due Process and Challenges to California’s Juvenile
Justice System
Special State – Basic legal rights were not being uniformly or
adequately protected
Study
– Independent status of juvenile justice agencies
Commission on led to inconsistencies in philosophy,
Juvenile Justice coordination, and administration
found (1957) – Rehabilitative services were ineffective
because of a large increase of children in the
system
– Children were being excessively detained,
often when unwarranted
– Numerous inconsistencies and ambiguities
within juvenile court law
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

12. Arnold-Kennick Juvenile Court Law
(1961)
• Extended protections to children and their parents
• Provided the right to the representation and appointment
of counsel on all felony charges
• The right to proof of allegations by a preponderance of
legally admissible evidence
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013