NCJ Number
72265
Date Published
1980
Length
9 pages
Annotation
The legal context and the regulations governing juvenile protection in Holland are discussed.
Abstract
The development of legal policy in Holland in the course of the 20th century has been characterized by increasing intervention of the state in previously private spheres. Thus, the government has expanded its powers to intervene in the area of parental rights and in the juvenile controls. The expansion of interventionary powers culminated in a 1965 law; which allowed almost unlimited intervention for the sake of the child. In the wake of these changes, the questions have been raised whether protection for juveniles at risk is really just a means of controlling juveniles who represent a danger to the existing order and whether forcible means of intervention are legitimate. According to the principles of Dutch law, the intervening government must prove that its intervention is appropriate, as force must always be legitimated. Furthermore, forcible government intervention can be considered legitimate only if no other possibility of achieving the desired aim remains; in other words, forcible juvenile protection is only justified if nonforcible means such as prevention and social assistance fail. Finally, further legal principles hold that juveniles are entitled to legel representation, preferably by individuals they trust, during legal proceedings and that social intervention may not render existing social inequalities still greater. However, the legal character of regulations governing juvenile protection are clearly in need of strengthening. This article argues that matters which cannot be adequately resolved through intervention should be removed from the legal sphere, but matters involving restriction of rights, forcible measures, or individual rights should remain in the jurisdiction of juvenile courts. Juvenile courts could also be revalued by expansion of the juvenile code and by creation of procedures which preserve the rights of juveniles. Creation of provisions which permit appeals by parents, juveniles, and educators, and of subjective rights which facilitate such appeals are also recommended. Notes are supplied.