JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN by Allison Morris; Henri Giller; Elizabeth Szwed; Hugh GeachReview by: BARBARA BROOKS JOHNSONJournal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3 (AUTUMN 1988), pp. 470-472Published by: Dr. George KurianStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41601980 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 06:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Dr. George Kurian is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofComparative Family Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:38:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

470 Journal of Comparative Family Studies would render the particular dynamics attended to during the process of reconstruc- tion more meaningful.

The process of reconstruction is clearly described. However, it is a lengthy pro- cess involving establishing a group of at least 12 and up to 20 people willing to un- dertake at least 20 hours of homework individually, participating in reconstructions for each member of the group (one day or week-end each on a one-a-month basis) and engaging in one's own family reconstruction. Undertaking the homework, de- veloping commitment to the group and, potentially, receiving group support could of themselves be highly therapeutic. Irrespectively, Nerin claims that the process of family reconstruction is a highly effective form of therapy. He is remiss. There is no supporting data. 1 think we should be very concerned where claims of therapeutic benefit have not been substantiated.

The set of propositions that Bill Nerin provides ranges from a technique for identifying an individual's "rule of survival" (pp. 191-193) to the qualities that the therapist should possess (pp. 156-160). This represents, collectively, a humanistic orientation. The book may be used as a resource for therapeutic principles, insights and techniques quite independently of family reconstruction. Nerin has also in- cluded a chapter describing the use of family reconstruction in therapeutic settings other than groups. At one level, readers may welcome this as a pragmatic ap- proach. At another level, it makes family reconstruction another panacea. Criteria for the use of any therapeutic technique should be advanced as a matter of princi- ple.

Family Reconstruction appears to be intended for use by mental health profes- sionals and lay people alike. Bill Nerin leaves no doubt that he considers that the technique is a major route to psychological, and hence relational well-being. After reading the book, I have an image of a charismatic and supportive group leader who respects the integrity of each person with whom he works. Yet his enthusiasm may be misleading. A number of references, especially in the second half of the book, suggest that an untested belief system is being presented. For instance, even if the therapy does not produce particular changes, there are likely to be other be- nefits (p. 116). I am concerned that, where there is such wholesale advocacy of a psychotherapeutic technique, that the individual sees any failure as being his or her fault. The appropriateness of the technique remains unchallenged.

1. Satir, V.. (1972) Peoplemaking. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

Morris, Allison, Henri Giller, Elizabeth Szwed and H lgh Geach, JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN , Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press International, Inc., 1980, 146 pages, soft cover $10.00, hard cover $26.00.

BARBARA BROOKS JOHNSON*

•Department of Social Behavior, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota 57069, U. S. A.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:38:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews 471 Justice for Children is an inditement of the juvenile justice system in Great Bri-

tain. The authors are particularly concerned with the court's confusion in applying concepts of welfare and justice. An alternative court model using a juvenile court for criminal activities and a family court for abuse and neglect is proposed.

The content is divided into two distinct parts. Morris and Giller are the prime authors of Part 1, "Crime and Justice" which examines the impáct of the juvenile court on the lives of delinquent children. Szwed and Geach have written Part 11, "Care and Justice", which is concerned with abused and neglected children.

Each section is introduced with a brief history of the development of the British Court's involvement in the lives of children. Morris and Giller trace the de- velopment of the British juvenile court from the Children's Act of 1908, which es- tablished the principle that children's cases should be heard separately from adults. A principle which stressed that court intervention should be based on the child's status rather than offense. The enactment of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1969 was the culmination of this line of thought.

The proponents of the 1969 Act believed that sanctioning a child for criminal behavior was inappropriate. Young offenders were believed to have "needs which could be diagnosed, treated and eventually cured. Protecting society form delin- quency and helping the delinquent child were seen as complementary." The cause of the child's offense could be found in the failings of family or society.

The authors challenge the effectiveness of treatment of the child and his fam- ily. They argue that treatment professionals are unable to specify "what to look for or what to do about it" and that they often compound the problem by labeling. They believe treatment should be rejected as an appropriate court intervention in favor of fewer court appearances for children, strict adherence to the nature of the offense, and suitable punishment.

The authors refer to their research to support the supposition that juveniles see dispositions as arbitrary and unfair. Unfortunately the study itself is never dis- cussed, the reader is left wondering about its validity. This is unfortunate as the au- thors point to the research to verify some interesting material. For instance they claim "when co-defendants were dealt with differently, this was seen as right and fair where obvious differences could be pointed to: the existence of a previous re- cord or greater responsibility for the current offense. When deviation from these principles was observed (e.g. when social or family background information was re- ferred to), the children saw it as unfair."

Dissatisfied with the present system Morris and Giller propose a blueprint for reform of the juvenile court. The key concepts of the system would be justice and fairness. The system would operate at several levels; long and short-term as well as individual.

The juvenile court would see only children whose delinquency was persistent and serious and who could not be dealt with through diversion. Its jurisdiction would be limited to offenses which were punishable when committed by an adult. The concern of the court would shift from the well being of the child to the

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:38:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

472 Journal of Comparative Family Studies

safeguarding of society; from treatment to ensuring the child's rights were safeguarded.

In part 11 Szwed and Geach review the legal basis for state care from the per- spective that local authorities have continually expanded their reach into the home often through poorly defined criteria. They chastise the system for lack of consen- sus on evidence or standard of proof required in family matters. They point to the fact that a magistrate can authorize removal of a child for 28 days on the word of the social worker and that parents have no right to appeal as a major threat to families, especially poor families who do not have the resources to contest the ac- tions of the local authority.

To suppourt their points an impartial review of court decisions is passed over in favor of the presentation of outrageous examples of abuses in the the welfare and court system. The Maria Calwell Case is referred to frequently but never explained leaving readers unfamiliar with British case law confused.

The conflict between justic and treatment or social welfare is stressed with the authors recommending a court shift from consideration of the welfare of the child and his or her future to a focus ensuring an orderly and fair hearing, in which the rights of all were preserved. The principle "The Best Interest of the Child" is re- jected as being too subjective. The authors offer instead six principles which they feel would preserve the balance of justice for children and their families.

Once a child is removed from the family placement of the child should be de- termined by the court in the dispositional hearing and should remain the responsi- bility of the court as opposed to local social service authority. This, the authors feel, would correct the inadequacies of the child care system. The authors fail to recog- nize the growth in research and knowledge which is available from the child care system. To ignore this growing expertise and to make child placement the responsi- bility of the court system seems to confused the very points the authors stress throughout which is the separate mission and knowledge base of treatment/welfare professionals and legal officials. Professionals must begin to appreciate the unique qualities of each discipline and to work together rather than to snipe at each other for additional territory.

The book offers several principles for reform. Its weakness is the superficial nature of the presentation of significant points.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:38:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions