(1905, 1906). In South Australia a State Children’s Department has been created to care for and manage the property and persons of destitute and neglected children, and the officials of the council may act in cases of cruelty to children; the legislation of Victoria and Queensland is based on that of South Australia.
See also Children's Courts, Education and Labour Legislation. (W. F. C.; T. A. I.)
CHILDRENITE, a rare mineral species; a hydrous basic
aluminium iron phosphate, orthorhombic in crystallization.
The ferrous oxide is in part replaced by manganous oxide and
lime, and in the closely allied and isomorphous species eosphorite
manganese predominates over iron. The general formula for
the two species is Al(Fe, Mn)(OH)2PO4 + H2O. Childrenite
is found only as small brilliant crystals of a yellowish-brown
colour, somewhat resembling chalybite in general appearance.
They are usually pyramidal in habit, often having the form of
double six-sided pyramids with the triangular faces deeply
striated parallel to their shorter edges. Hardness 4.5-5;
specific gravity 3.18-3.24. The mineral, named after the
zoologist and mineralogist J. G. Children (1777–1852), secretary
of the Royal Society, was detected in 1823 on specimens obtained
some years previously during the cutting of a canal near Tavistock
in Devonshire. It has also been found in a few copper
mines in Cornwall and Devonshire.
Eosphorite occurs as crystals of prismatic habit with angles very nearly the same as those of childrenite. Unlike childrenite, it has a distinct cleavage in one direction, and often occurs in compact masses as well as in crystals. The colour is sometimes yellowish-white, but usually rose-pink, and on this account the mineral was named from ἠωσφόρος, dawn-bearer. Hardness 5; specific gravity 3.11-3.145. It was discovered in 1878 in a pegmatite-vein at Branchville, Connecticut, where it is associated with other rare manganese phosphates. (L. J. S.)
CHILDREN’S COURTS, or Juvenile Courts, a special
system of tribunals for dealing with juvenile offenders, first
suggested in the United States. The germ of such institutions
was planted in Massachusetts in 1869, when a plan was introduced
at Boston of hearing charges against children separately, and
apart from the ordinary business of the lesser tribunals. No
great progress was made in the development of the idea in
Massachusetts, as the legal authorities were not fully convinced of
the utility or need for a separate court so long as the children
were kept strictly apart from adults, and this could be assured
by a separate session. But the system of “probation,” by
which children were handed over to the kindly care and guardianship
of an appointed officer, and thus escaped legal repression,
was created about the same time in Boston and produced
excellent results. The probation officer is present at the judge’s
side when he decides a case, and is given charge of the offender,
whom he takes by the hand, either at his parent’s residence or
at school, and continually supervises, having power if necessary
to bring him again before the judge. The example of Massachusetts
in due course influenced other countries, and especially
the British colony of South Australia, where a State Children’s
Department was created at Adelaide in 1895, and three years
later a juvenile court was opened there for the trial of persons
under eighteen and was conducted with great success, though
the system of probation officers was not introduced. A juvenile
court was also established at Toronto (Canada) on the South
Australian model.
The movement when once fully appreciated went ahead very rapidly. In the United States Illinois was the first state to call a distinct children’s court into existence, and Judge Richard Tuthill was the pioneer at Chicago, where the court was established in 1899. Many states followed suit, including New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Kansas, Colorado, Indiana and others, till the number rose to nineteen in 1906. In New York, where juvenile probation is supervised by the Society for the Protection of Children, there is a separate children’s court with rooms attached, where the children for detention wait till they are brought in for trial. Brooklyn has also a children’s court. In Pennsylvania, where the juvenile court was at first opposed as unconstitutional, the difficulty was met by first bringing the child before the magistrate in the police court, a course which (though followed by his transferring the case to the special court) perpetuated the very evils the children’s court was intended to avoid; the work of probation was, however, most effectively carried out, chiefly by female officers. The Chicago Juvenile Court sits twice weekly under an especially appointed judge, and policemen act as probation officers to some extent. The court of Indianapolis, however, gained the reputation of being the most complete and perfect in the United States. It works with a large and highly efficient band of volunteer probation officers under a chief. The juvenile court of Denver, Colorado, attained remarkable results under Judge B. Lindsey, whose magnetic personality, wonderful comprehension of boy nature, and extraordinary influence over them achieved great results. The court meets once a fortnight, when fresh cases are tried and boys already on probation report themselves, often to the number of two hundred at a time. The latter appear before the judge in batches, each hands in his school report in a sealed letter, and according to its purport receives praise or blame, or he may be committed to the Detention House. An efficient court was also constituted at Baltimore, Maryland, with a judge especially chosen to preside, probation being for fixed periods, varying from three months to three years, and children being brought back to the court for parole or discharge, or, if necessary, committal to the house of one of the philanthropic societies. In Washington, D.C., the system of having no distinct court or judge, but holding a separate session, was followed, and it was found that numbers of children came to the court for help and guidance, looking upon the judge for the time being as their friend and counsellor. Probation in this instance offered peculiar difficulties on account of the colour question, two-thirds of the children having negro blood and a white boy being always preferred for a vacant situation. Throughout, the action of juvenile courts in the United States has been to bring each individual into “human touch” with kindly helpful workers striving to lead the young idea aright and train it to follow the straight path. It was the result always of the effort of private persons and not due to government initiative, indeed the advocates and champions of the system only established it by overcoming strong opposition from the authorities.
Progress in the same direction has been made in England. The home office had recommended London police magistrates to keep children’s cases separate from those of adults; the same practice or something analogous obtained in many county boroughs, such as Bath, Birmingham, Bristol, Bolton, Bradford, Hull, Manchester, Walsall, Halifax and others, and the Children Act 1908 definitely established children’s courts. This act enacted that courts of summary jurisdiction when hearing charges, &c., against children or young persons should, unless the child or young person is charged jointly with an adult, sit in a different building or room from that in which the ordinary sittings of the court are held, or on different days or at different times. Furthermore, provision must be made for preventing persons apparently under the age of sixteen years whilst being conveyed to or from court, or whilst waiting before or after their attendance in court, from associating with adults, unless such adults are charged jointly with them. The act prohibits any persons other than members and officers of the court, the parties to the case, their solicitors, counsel and other persons directly concerned in the case, from being present in a juvenile court, except by leave of the court. Bona-fide press representatives are also excepted. The main object of the whole system is to keep the child, the embryotic offender who has probably erred from ignorance or the pressure of circumstances or misfortune, altogether free from the taint or contagion that attaches to criminal proceedings. The moral atmosphere of a legal tribunal is injurious to the youthful mind, and children who appear before a bench, whether as accused or as witness, gain a contemptuous familiarity with legal processes.
The most beneficial action of the children’s court comes from its association with the system of personal guardianship and
