How Parents can Affect the Processing of Delinquents in the Juvenile Court

• Author: Joseph B. Sanborn
• Published date: 01 March 1995
• Date: 01 March 1995
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/088740349500700101
• Subject Matter: Articles

How

Parents

can

Affect

the

Processing

of

Delinquents

in

the

Juvenile

Court

Joseph

B.

Sanborn,

Jr.,

Ph.D.

University

of

Central

Florida

Abstract

Parents

play a

critical

role

in

juvenile

court

proceedings.

Nevertheless,

precisely

what

parents

should

do

in this

forum

has

been

ignored

in

the

literature.

In

this

study

100

personnel

(judges,

prosecutors,

defense

attorneys

and

probation

officers)

from

three

juvenile

courts

(urban,

suburban

and

rural)

were

interviewed

to

determine

how

parents

impact

the

proceedings

and

to

identify

problems

created

by

their

participation.

The

data

suggest

that

solutions

to

these

problems

will

be

difficult,

and

perhaps

impossible,

to

implement.

I.

Introduction:

The

Problem

in

Perspective

Parents

would

seem

to

be

significant

actors

in

the

juvenile

court

process.

Incredibly,

however,

most

contemporary

textbooks

ignore

the

connection

between

these

individuals

and

the

juvenile

court

(see,

e.g.,

Binder,

Geis

and

Bruce

1988;

Bortner

1988;

Cox

and

Conrad

1991;

Drowns

and

Hess

1990;

Lotz,

Poole

and

Regoli

1985;

Rogers

and

Mays

1987;

Siegel

and

Senna

1994;

Simonsen

1991;

Whitebread

and

Lab

1990).

Juvenile

justice

literature

has

focused

upon

the

parents

in

three

contexts’,

only

the

first

of

which

has

involved

empirical

research.

Grisso

and

Ring

(1979)

examined

the

dynamics

of

parents’

interaction

with

their

children

during

the

police

interrogation

stage.

They

found

that

many

parents

encouraged

youths

to

surrender

their

rights

to

silence

and

to

counsel.

(Id.:

213;

see,

also,

Grisso

and

Pomicter

1977).

Relatedly,

other

research

has

disclosed

that

juveniles

do

not

fully

comprehend

the

nature

and

significance

of

their

constitutional

rights

(Ferguson

and

Douglas

1970;

Grisso

1980,

1981;

Holtz

1987).

Other

commentators

have

observed

that

the

legislatures

and courts

have

divided

in

determining

the

standards

that

should

control

the

police

during

2

interrogation.

Some

states

hold

that

confessions

may

be

secured

from

juveniles

only

if

they

have been

allowed

to

consult

an

interested

adult

(i.e.,

a

parent

or

defense

attorney)

before

the

rights

to

counsel

and

to

silence

are

waived;

most

states

require,

however,

only

that

the

&dquo;totality

of

circumstances&dquo;

suggest

that

the

surrender

of

rights

was

both

intelligent

and

voluntary

(Comments

1985;

Digest

1985).

Although

some

experts

believe

the

totality

rule

is

sufficient

to

protect

juveniles’

rights

(Comments

1978-79),

most

authorities

insist

that

youths

should

have

an

opportunity

to

obtain

advice

from

a

parent

or

counsel

before

submitting

to

questions

from

the

police

(Comments

1971,

1973a,

1973b,

1982;

Notes

1967,1968a,

1968b,

1972a,

1972b;

Levy

and

Skacevic

1979;

Rubin

1985).

At

the

very

least

courts

have

held

that

if

the

child

requests

contact

with

a

parent,

this

request

should

be

granted

(Recent

Developments

1972),

and

that

if

there

is

conflict

between

the

parent

and

child,

the

former

loses

power

to

act

on

behalf

of

the

latter

(In

re

Manual

R

1988;

In

re

Ricky

H

1970;

K.E.S.

v.

State

1975;

McBride

v.

Jacobs

1973).2

It

is

precisely

the

potential

for

conflict

and

the

reality

that

parents

frequently

pressure

their

children

to

waive

their

rights

(

Anglin

v.

State

1972;

Bailey

and

Soderling

1981;

Casenotes

1975;

Comments

1973a,

1976a;

In

re

Carter

1974;

Postell

v.

State

1980;

Recent

Developments

1972)

that

have

convinced

numerous

experts

that

consultation

with

counsel

and

not

with

the

parents

should

be

provided

each

juvenile

who

is

subjected

to

police

interrogation

(Bailey

and

Soderling

1981;

Comments

1976a, 1976b;

Flicker

1982;

Grisso

1980, 1981;

IJA/ABA

1977;

Paulsen

and

Whitebread

1974;

Piersma

et

al.

1975;

Recent

Developments

1972).

Even

if

there

is

no

conflict

or

pressure,

parents

often

do

not

care

or

simply

do

not

sufficiently

understand

the

significance

of

surrendering

rights

to

be

able

to

render

competent

advice

to

juveniles

facing

interrogation

(Comments

1976a;

Grisso

and

Pomicter

1977;

Grisso

and

Ring

1979;

McMillian

and

McMurtry

1969-1970;

Recent

Developments

1972).

The

parents’

behavior

at

the

dispositional

level

is

the

only

other

stage

of

the

juvenile

court

process

that

has

attracted

the

attention

of

the

literature,

albeit

in

a

nonempirical

capacity.

Commentators

have

focused,

here,

upon

two

interrelated

ideas:

holding

parents

criminally

or

civilly

liable

for

the

delinquent

acts

of

their

children,

and

mandating

that

parents

play a

part

in

the

rehabilitative

process.

Parental

liability

entails

both

criminal

prosecutions,

because

they

did

not

actively

attempt

to

prevent

their

children’s

delinquencies,

and

civil

prosecutions

in

which

the

parents

are

financially

responsible,

to

some

degree,

for

the

criminal

acts

of

their

children

(Casenotes

1982;

Castle

1986;

Geis

and

Binder

1991;

Kenny

and

Kenny

1961;

Ludwig

1952;

Notes

1986, 1990;

Scott

1988).3

Although

some

individuals

favor

parental

liability

(Notes

1982,

1984;

Prescott

and

Kundin

1984),

the

majority

of

observers

offer

that

these

measures