Preliminary Programme

When the French Juvenile Courts and Probation Act was passed in 1912, probation was viewed as a fundamental reform. This new penal measure was intended to take into consideration the juvenile’s personal characteristics and social environment. The probation officer, like the juvenile judge, seemed to be a new brand of actor for a more socialized justice.

However importing this model of justice imported from North America was not without problems for French legal specialists: What kind of a role should this officer have? Would his authority be a threat to those of the father and the judge? How would he be selected? If the function was a voluntary one initially, would it become professional in the future? These issues were widely discussed in the 1920s’, in debates that where divergent views were expressed about justice.

On another level, the implementation of probation was very slow. Its use by magistrates varied considerably from one court to another one. Inter-war years budgets did not allow for a wide national implementation; consequently local practices dominated the scene. Yet despite all odds, probation contributed to the development of a new form of social work in most of major cities courts, as professional probation officers gradually took responsibility over the field. (Show less)

Juvenile probation in Canada was enacted through the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act. Promoters of the Act presented it as a keystone of the new Juvenile Court. Probation officers would be the helping hand of the judge both in court and in the community. Their role was essential if the court was to fulfil its rehabilitative and protective mission. They would provide the judge with information on children and their families. They would supervise children and families in the community, thus preventing a number of placements in institutions. Yet the actual practice of probation did not match the hopes that had prompted its advent. Based on a study of the Montreal Juvenile Delinquents Court from 1912 to 1950, an overview of the reality of probation work will be presented, raising the issue of the court’s ability to meet the high expectations that had been placed upon it. (Show less)

Since the introduction of the Children’s Act in 1905, parents could lose their parental authority if they did not fulfil the obligation to look after their child properly. In 1922 a less severe protection measure was introduced: the supervision order. At the same time the Juvenile Judge was established. He would work with the supervision order.
Several decades and one world war later a lot of experience had been accumulated. A professionalization process was at full steam in the field of child protection. At the same time society experienced a rise in prosperity and the first signs of secularisation. In 1950 the number of supervision orders rose above those during the war period, slowly decreasing in the next ten years. The court district of Groningen was no exception to the national trend.
In the sixties church attendance had dropped, the pillarisation of Dutch society broke down, authority was contested and child protection came under question. Changes that had it’s roots in the previous decade.
What caused the Juvenile Judge in Groningen to award so many requests for a supervision order in the fifties? Was it the increase in population, new problems for children in a changing society, new ways of noticing problems or a lacking system of voluntary assistance for children?
By analysing the court dossiers on supervision orders I would like to show that the role of the Juvenile Judge was strong in questions of law and right but restricted in questions of pedagogical assistance. Supervision orders were strongly influenced by the current of the system of assistance. At the same time Juvenile Judges tried to be more critical of the pedagogical assistance during the supervision order of which they were in charge.
The self evident connection between law and pedagogical assistance began to deteriorate. (Show less)