mandatory parental involvement in the treatment of “delinquent” youth

Mandatory Parental Involvement in the Treatment of “Delinquent” Youth

By GALAN M . JANEKSELA

Author’s note: Thispaper waspresented at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Crim- inal Justice Sciences, San Francisco in 1977.

In this article, the author presents an ar- gument for increasing parental responsibility in the treatment of juvenile behaviorial problems. The author recognizes the problems of implementing the proposed ideas in view of the social and legal considerations associated with mandatory parental involvement.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this article is to advocate

mandatory parental involvement in the treatment of juveniles. Efforts to treat a juvenile in isolation from hislher famiIy will not work because the juvenile must return to a home environment which has not changed.

Author’s address: Galan M. Janeksela, Ph.D. Department of Administration

Wichita State University Box 95 Wichita, Kansas 67208

of Justice

In order to change the family environment and correct parental pathologies, authorities must have access to the parents.

A legislative model for mandatory parental involvement in treatment is proposed. In this model, mandatory involvement includes family counseling and intensive supervision of family processes by a specially trained family crisis unit of the juvenile court. Sanctions for non-compliance with the court’s order are identified.

THE FAMILY ROLE In contemporary society, the traditional

family’s functions have been usurped by other social institutions. In this process, areas of responsibility have been confused. Many agencies affect the child’s development, however, the family is the most logical institution in that parental influence is most intense during the years of personality formation.

The family environment can have a significant impact on: (1) how the child behaves in other social institutions; and (2) whether or not the child becomes defined as normal or delinquent. Difficulties which can lead to delinquent behavior may arise from faults in

February, 1979 I Juvenile & Family Court Journal 47

GALAN M. JANEKSELA

the roles played by members of the family, from the nature of the interrelationships between family members, and from the social structure of the family.

Psychologists believe that early emotional deprivation is directly associated with later psychological disturbances and emotional problems. August Aichorn stresses the im- portance of the family in shaping the individual, and he believes that the family should provide the child with love and security.’ In addition, the family should provide the child with a protective shelter from outside pres- sures. Early familial experiences lay the framework for the child’s future behavior and the development of the child’s attitudes, values, and life-style. If the family does not help the child to adjust to hidher social environment, the child does not receive the most important means of psychological support, and, the most effective agent for socialization is ineffective.

The following characteristics are some possible pathologies which may exist in a family which has one or more delinquent children: open hostility, shallow relationships between family members, a lack of concern by parents for their children, and absence of a role model with whom the youngster can identi- fy.2 When parents fail to transmit positive community norms and values, and when they fail as positive identification models, the children may come in conflict with community institutions.

Several studies have found an association between delinquency and lack of parental af- f e ~ t i o n . ~ Consistency, fairness, and strictness of discipline have also been linked to delinquency. Trojanowicz concludes that lack of punishment, inconsistent discipline, lack of parental affection, and other family variables can have an effect on a juvenile’s behavior pattern.

Many cases processed by the juvenile justice system are the result of family problems. “In California, for example, 56.4 percent of all juvenile arrests are for ‘delinquent tendencies’, which is to say conduct that departs from supposed parental norms (runaway,

truancy, failure to obey parents or school authorities, etc.), but does not amount to violation of the general penal law.”’ It is estimated that seventy percent of all kids who come into juvenile court come from broken homes.* Between thirty and forty percent of all juvenile court adjudications in Florida are children who are incorrigible, unruly, or beyond the control of their parents or guardian, but commit no act which violates the criminal iaw.9

“Serious consideration should be given to the feasibiPty of an entirely new jurisdictional concept, the Family in Need of Ser- vice (FINS). Significant improvement in the juvenile justice system depends on improvement in the family unit more than any other factor.’’

Children with delinquent tendencies con- stitute the third highest source of commit- ment to the state youth correctional system in California (drug abuse is first, burglary is second). In one urban county, seventy-two percent of the children placed out of their homes by the juvenile court had been made wards of the court for being beyond the control of their parents.” In short, it is likely that juveniles who come in contact with the juvenile justice system are experiencing family problems.

PARENTS A N D JUVENILES A recent study indicates that juvenile status

offenders view their parents negatively.” A child’s attitude toward his parents may lead him/her to run away from home.’* If a child does not feel loved and cared for in his home, he/she is more likely to have problems in his relations with other people. This may result in behavior which is defined as illegal.

If a problem exists in the home, the juvenile may act out in order to gain attention. This may be a “cry for help,” and a very minor problem may become very serious because parents were too busy to deal with the problem, or simply were unaware of the problem.

48 Juvenile & Family Court Journal 1 February, 1979

MANDATORY PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

Parent-juvenile relations are especially intense and hostile during the adolescent years. During the adolescent years, a frustrated juvenile may commit acts against authority (juvenile offenses) as an expression of his desire to be autonomous from his parents. Pa- rental control decisions may be judged as un- fair by the juvenile, and juvenile offenses may be a means of retaliating against parental un- fairness. Family tension and marital conflict may be additional factors which explain the relationship between negative attitudes toward parents and involvement in juvenile offenses. A loss of respect for parents, authority figures, and traditional values may cause a child to rebel against his family norms. A child who rejects family norms is likely to rebel against societal norms. l 3

THE JUVENILE COURT A N D THE FAMILY In many cases, the juvenile court is uti-

lized by parents to threaten their children. Some parents view the juvenile court as being responsible for their children when they have failed, and, many parents break ties with their children upon referral to juvenile court. “Many times when the child has run away from home a parent will refuse to pick the child up and will simply dump him in the lap of the juvenile C O U T ~ . ’ ’ ~ ~

The situation is desperate when parents bring their child to the juvenile court to deal with a family problem because they perceive that they have no other alternative. A juvenile court judge cannot do much in this situation. “I can’t send him back to his horrible mother. His school has thrown him out. He has done nothing more than try to run away from his miserable home. All I can offer this child is a jail.”I5

Jameson concluded that “it certainly seems ludicrous . . . to wait until a child is forced into a blatantly delinquent pattern ofbehavior before the system can mobilize itself to pay attention to him.” But, even if potentially troubled kids can be identified at a very early age, what can society do about it? How far and under what conditions is society entitled to

formally intrude into the workings of the individual family?16

The tradition of the juvenile court is to take responsibility for children when parents have failed. In the early 1900s San Francisco’s juvenile court had procedures which were fre- quently used to reform “unfit parents.”

In 1949, a Special Study Commission of Juvenile justice in California proposed that the juvenile court be converted to a family court. At the time there was strong resistance to that proposal and as a result it was not implemented. However, given the family- oriented direction in which juvenile justice is moving, it is conceivable that such a proposal would meet less resistance now.

Several states have implemented the family court concept, and several states are con- sidering the merits of mandatory parental involvement. Effective October 1, 1975, Florida legislation authorized the juvenile court . . . “to order the parents or guardians ofa child adjudicated dependent, delinquent, or of a child in need of supervision to participate in family counseling and other professional counseling activities deemed necessary for the rehabilitation of the child.”18

If the juvenile court is to work in the best interests ofthe child, it must have jurisdiction over the family. Otherwise, how can the juvenile court enforce its decisions? Ideally, the home should provide a child with guidance and discipline. If the home fails to provide for the basic needs of a child, then, that child’s welfare becomes the responsibility of the community. The juvenile court is vested with the authority, responsibility, and resources to act on behalf of the community in such a way that the need of the child and the community are balanced. The juvenile court must have this authority because many children and their families would not voluntarily comply with decisions of the juvenile court.

THE VALUE OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

A juvenile’s family-based problems cannot be solved by removing him from the family. Larry Rubin, who coordinates several diver-


GALAN M. JANEKSELA

sion projects in Orange County, California, believes that “. . . the key is to get the family involved. And that’s the most difficult thing . . . I think there’s a need for professionals to give guidance to a family that’s trying to re- group and improve itself.”I9

If the problem is in the system, or in a hier- archy of systems starting with the broad family-neighborhood-school-and society configuration and ranging down to corrections as the last system in the person-shaping continuum, it is largely futile to look for its solution in the person - the arrested, con- victed and imprisoned offender.20

Parental involvement is more likely to promote educational growth and behavioral change than noninvolvement of parents. For example, the more directly parents are involved in the instructional process, the better it will be for the child’s academic achieve- ment. Parental involvement in the educational system has convinced many educators that constructive parental involvement is necessary to the effective functioning of our schools. 21 Several propositions can be stated to illustrate the value ofparental involvement

Proposition 1: As parental involvement in the educational process increases, achieve- ment of the child increases.

Proposition 2: As parental involvement in the educational process increases, teachers’ attitudes toward the child increases.

Proposition ?: As parental involvement increases, trust between teachers and parents also increases.

Proposition 4: As parental involvement in the educational process increases there will be less conflict between the school and the home. 22

These propositions may apply to the treatment process as well as to the educational process, in that both processes depend on parental involvement.

The treatment of juveniles should be lo- cated in the home, if possible, and the em- phasis should be on the development of mutual understanding and open communi- cation between parent and child. Conceivab-

ly, volunteer involvement by parents could be arranged, but most likely, the parents who really need help would not participate. Furthermore, it may be the parents who need the treatment rather than the juvenile. Al- though parental behavior may be an underly- ing cause of juvenile misconduct, practition- ers do not have the opportunity to promote parental behavioral change. Therefore, mandatory involvement is needed. Mandatory parental involvement need not imply coercion. In most cases, it will facilitate partnership within the juvenile court system in order to find solutions to the juvenile’s problem. Many parents would welcome the assistance of the juvenile court and its professional staff in the solution of their familial problems.

The author proposes mandatory parental involvement in the treatment of delinquent youth. The specific provisions of the mandatory parental involvement legislative model include:

1. Pre-adjudication counseling services for parents who need assistance.

2. Every county must have mental health clinics to serve family counseling needs.

3. If a child is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, parents will become involved in family counseling. All parents living in the home situation will become involved in the mandatory parental concept.

4. If a juvenile commits a crime, parents are responsible for restitution.

5 . It is too easy for the parent to walk in and sign a petition of waywardness. Before a parent can file a wayward petition against their kids, they must seek family counseling.

6. Sanctions for refusal to participate will include financial fines and/or jail terms. The juvenile court currently has the right to tell parents to seek counseling, but no sanctions to help enforce this right. Although sanctions will most likely be used infrequently, they must be available. Enforcement of mandatory parental involvement laws is difficult,

50 Juvenile & Family Court Journal I February, 1979


however, this author contends that very few parents would violate such a law. Therefore, enforcement may not be as serious as one would expect.

THE FAMILY CRISIS U N I T

Family counseling will be the function of a family crisis unit which is responsible to the juvenile court. The strategy of this unit is to focus on systems instead of individuals. This prevents the counterproductive exercise of blaming individuals. The strategy is to blame dysfunctions on the system and enlist the aid of family members in changing the system. The need for a systems approach is illustrated by the following:

A growing body of clinical observation has pointed to the conclusion that therapy must be oriented to the family as a whole. This conviction was initially supported by obser- vations showing how family members respond to the individual treatment of a family member labeled as “schizophrenic”. But fur- ther studies have shown that families with a delinquent member respond in similar ways to the individual treatment ofthe member. In both cases it was found that:

1. Other family members interferred with, tried to become part of, or sabotage the individual treatment of the “sick” member, as though the family had a stake in his sickness.

2 . The hospitalized or incarcerated patient often got worse or regressed after a visit from family members, as though family interaction had a direct bearing on his illness.

3 . Other family members got worse as the patient got better, as though sickness in one of the family members was essential to the family’s way of operating.23

This phenomena has led many individual- ly-oriented psychiatrists and researchers to re-evaluate certain assumptions . . .

They noted that in trying to change one family member’s way of operating they were, in effect, trying to change the whole family’s way of operating. This put the burden of family change-agent on the patient all by himself rather than on all family members. The patient was already the family member who was trying to change the family’s way of operating,

so when he was urged to increase his efforts, he only received a more intense criticism from the family. This also led him to feel even more burdened and less

Individual counseling is not as effective as the systems approach which focuses on the system as a whole and concentrates upon change in that system. The prerequisites of family counseling, within a systems approach, include:

1. Implementation of a training program for all counselors working for the court.

2 . The counselors should be supervised. 3. The family crisis unit should be aware of

all court and community resources. 4. The family crisis unit must be integrated

with the complete counseling program of the court in order to be effective as an agent of behavioral change.

5 . The family services unit would not accept cases in which the individual is psy- chotic; these individuals would be referred to the proper professionals for evaluation and treatment.

6. There would be a minimum of ninety days of family counseling.

7. Family intervention can be most effective in the home setting.

8. The crisis unit and the court must be courageous enough to trust it’s counselors and allow them to work with the latitude needed for effective intervention.

THE V I E W OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE PERSONNEL How do criminal justice personnel view the

prospects of mandatory parental involvement in the treatment of juveniles? This issue was presented via a mailout questionnaire to: (1) several juvenile court judges in Florida, and (2) two hundred criminal justice personnel in a Kansas county.2s The results of the Kansas study are presented in Table 1. Table 1 indicates strong support for mandatory parental involvement at all levels of government and in all components of criminal justice.


GALAN M. JANEKSELA

TABLE I

IN THE TREATMENT OF YOUTH? DO YOU FAVOR MANDATORY PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

BREAKDOWN BY COMPONENT A N D LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

Law Enforcement Yes No

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Local 70 35 1 7 8.5 County 10 5 1 . 5 State 13 6 . 5 6 3 Federal 1 . 5 0 0 TOTAL 94 80 % 2 4 2 0 %

courts Local 8 4 5 2 .5 County 11 5.5 2 1 State 1 . 5 1 . 5 Federal 5 2.5 5 2 .5 TOTAL 25 66 % 1 3 34 %

Corrections Local 1 4 7 2 1 County 6 3 1 . 5 State 11 5.5 8 4 Federal 1 . 5 1 . 5 TOTAL 32 7 3 % 12 2 7 %

Although all components favored mandatory parental involvement, each component (law enforcement, courts, and corrections) for- warded a different rationale for their support:

1. Law enforcement personnel believe that parents are the most influential factor in a child’s life. Parents are role models and they should be involved and made responsible for the support and nurturing of their child.

2. Court personnel feel that the parents are often as delinquent as the child and that family differences could be soothed by the court’s intervention.

3. Correction personnel feel that parental apathy (an “I don’t care” attitude) could be helped by parental awareness of the serious- ness of their child’s actions, and by having parents share in the molding of a responsible citizen.

Three questions from the Florida survey and the responses of one judge are as follows:

1. What are the benefits of mandatory parental involvement?

Most situations I have become involved in, whether delinquent or dependant in nature, involve some failure ofthe family, either through absence of a parent, or ignorance of and failure to provide appropriate parental supervision. Court control over parents could assist in the second of these areas to some degree.

2. What are the problems encountered in enforcing statutes requiring mandatory parental involvement?

The only sanction available to the court for enforcement under the laws of my jurisdiction is a contempt citation and possible jail sentence. This is distasteful since it leaves the balance of the family unattended if the parent is incarcerated for some period, which creates new problems for social agencies to deal with while the parent is in jail and does nothing to

5 2 Juvenile & Family Court Journal I February, 1979


create a desire on the parents’ part to co- operate.

3. Would you recommend that similar legislation be passed in other states? Why?

Yes - would you like to guess how many times I’ve had to deal with parents (and other non-family members in the case of teen- agers) who effectively thumb their noses at the courts and social workers because they have had enough exposure to the system to know that the bulk of what the judge may tell them from the bench is unenforcible? The judge’s responses typify the responses of the other judges. The judges believe that families are responsible for the problems they have created, therefore, the entire family should be treated. Parents should be present at all court hearings and the court’s power of jurisdiction should be more clearly stated. The majority of respondents would recommend implementation of similar laws in other states.

CONCLUSION Contemporary juvenile law has provisions

for the dependent child, the unruly child, the child in need of supervision (CHINS), and the person in need of supervision (PINS). Serious consideration should be given to the feasibility ofan entirely new jurisdictional concept, the Family in Need of Service (FINS). This concept could subsume the existing jurisdictional categories of the ne- glected and the beyond control child.26 This new jurisdictional base would create both conceptual and operational difficulties. However, it would also afford many advan- tages.

It would abate the stigma now attendant upon the handling of the beyond control child and avoid the consequences of labeling that child as delinquent. It could provide the court with a direct jurisdiction tie to the parents; at present, the only leverage upon parents and other family members is that provided by the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over the individual child. Finally, it would direct the dis- positional focus of the juvenile justice system where it belongs in cases of deprived and unruly children: upon the family unit.*’

Significant improvement in the juvenile justice system depends on improvement in the family unit more than any other factor. 28

This was recognized in a Texas decision (Morales vs Turman), when the court ruled that. . . “Failure to allow and encourage full participation of family and interested friends in the program of a youthful offender consti- tutes a violation of the juvenile’s state and federal right to

F o o T N o T E s IAugust Aichorn, DeCnquentandChild Guidance, (New

York: International Universities Press, 1969). ZSidney Berman, “Anti-social Character Disorder,” in

Ruth S. Cavan (editor) Readings in Juvenile Delin- quency, (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1964).

3Calan M. Janeksela, “Youth, Delinquency, and the Juvenile Justice System,” in Dae H. Chang (editor), Fundamentals of Criminal Justice: A Syllabus and Workbook, (Geneva, Illinois: Paladin House, 1976). pp. 239-265.

4Sheldon Glueck, and Eleanor Glueck, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency, (New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1950); Robert G. Andry, “Faulty Paternal and Maternal Child Relationships, Affection and Delinquency,” British Journal of Delinquency, 8, 1957; Ivan F. Nye, Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958); William McCord, and Joan McCord, Origins of Crime, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959); Walter Slocum, and Carol L. Stone, “Family Culture Patterns and Delinquent Type Behavior,” Marriage and Family Living, 1963, 25: 202-208; William McCord, and Joan McCord, “The Effects of Parental Role Model on Criminality,” in Ruth S. Cavan (editor), Readings in Juvenile Delinquency, (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1964).

SNye; McCord and McCord, 1959; Slocum and Stone. 6Robert C. Trojanowicz, Juvenile Delinquency: Con-

cepts and Controls, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973).

’A. R. Cough, and M. A. Grilli, “The Unruly Child and the Law: Toward a Focus on the Family,” Juvenile Justice, 23 (NO. 3): 9.

8Ron Horswell, “Is Juvenile Justice Wishful Thinking?” Plain Truth, 17 (NO. 1): 29.

9Cough and Grilli, 9. IOGough and Grilli, 9. “Galan M. Janeksela, “Generation and Verification

of Prediction Equations for Delinquency: Cross- Validational Analysis,” Unpublished Ph. D. Disserta- tion, (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, 1975).

I2Dae H. Chang, Charles Zastrow, and Donald Blazicek, “Inmates Perception of Significant Others, and the Implications for the Rehabilitation Process,” International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1975 (NO. 3): 94.

February, 1979 / Juvenile & Family Court Journal 53

GALAN M. JANEKSELA

13Slocum and Stone, 202. I4Margaret Stevenson, “The Juvenile Justice System in

Iowa,” Unpublished Manuscript, (Iowa City, Iowa: Iowa League of Women Voters, 1973) p. 13.

I5This statement by Magistrate David Shaffer of Chicago was quoted by Charles Mangel in How to Make a Criminal Out o f a Child, (Hackensack, New Jersey: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1971).

16Horswell, 30. ”Sherry L. Caroballo, and Thomas G. Blomberg,

“Coerced Family Treatment in Florida Juvenile Courts: An Assessment,” Paper presented at the 1976 Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems.

‘8Florida Statute, 39:I 1.8. 19Horswell, 30. ZoStuart Adams, Evaluative Research in Corrections: A

Practical Guide, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing M i c e , 1974).

21Edward Kelly, Parent- Teacher Interaction: A Special Educational Perspective, (Seattle: Special Child Pub- lications, 1974).

L2Kelly, 19. Z3Sedgwick County Juvenile Court, “Proposal for a Fam-

Z4Sedgwick County Juvenile Court. Z5The Florida survey was exploratory. Fourteen judges

were non-randomly selected from a list of Florida judges. Six of the fourteen judges responded.

ily Services Unit,” (Wichita, Kansas, 1974).

Z6Gough and Grilli, 12. Z 7 G o ~ g h and Grilli, 12. 28Horswell, 30. 29Texas 364 F.Supp. 166, 1973.

54 Juvenile & Family Court Journal I February, 1979

mandatory parental involvement in the treatment of “delinquent” youth

Documents