verge of falling into a life of crime because of their social circumstances. Because of the notion of parens 
patriea, many of the parents of these youth were not involved in the placement of their children in these 
houses. The case of Ex Parte Crouse 
Ex Parte Crouse is an example. 
5 
In 1838, a girl named Mary Ann Crouse was sent to a Philadelphia house of refuge at the request of her 
mother.  Her father petitioned to have her released since she was committed without his consent. However, 
on the grounds that the state has the right to remove children from their home, in their best interest and 
even sometimes over parental objection (because of parens patriae), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied 
the father’s petition. The court declared that failed parents lose their rights to raise their children. Parental 
custody and control of their children is natural, but not an absolute right. If parents fail to care for their 
children, educate, train, or supervise them, then the children can be taken by the state. The state is acting in 
the best interest of the child. 
Reform Schools:
Reform Schools:  The 1850s ushered in the development of reform schools or institutions used for the 
housing of delinquent and dependent children. The schools were structured around a school schedule 
rather than the work hours that defined the workhouses and houses of refuge. Many reform schools 
operated like a cottage system where the youth were divided into “families” with cottage parents who 
oversaw the day to day running of the family, discipline of the youth, and schooling. The structure is 
still used in some youth correction institutions today, however, back in the nineteenth century, children 
were often exploited for labor and many of the school de-emphasis formal education. 
6 Additionally, the 
emphasis of the reform school was on the strength of the family and they believed that by reinserting a 
strong family presence in the lives of the youth, they would be deterred from further criminal pursuits. 
7 Regardless of the lack of evaluations as to the effectiveness of these institutions, the popularity of 
reformatories continued to grow. 
The state had the legal authority to commit children and youth to reform schools based under parens 
patriae.  However, in 1870, a boy named Daniel Turner was considered a “misfortunate”, or someone who 
was in danger of becoming delinquent because his family was poor and unable to care for him. He was 
remanded to a Chicago house of refuge for vagrancy, not a delinquent act. His father filed a writ of habeas 
corpus and the court ruled that the state has no power to imprison a child, who has committed no crime, 
on the mere allegation that he is “ destitute of proper parental care, and is growing up in mendicancy, 
ignorance, idleness, and vice.” 
8 People Ex Rel. O’connell v. Turner, 55 Ill. 280 (Ill. 1870). This effectively 
closed the reform schools in Illinois since they could no longer house non-criminal children. This case 
challenged the practice of parens patriae and ruled that the state can only take control of children if the 
parents are completely and utterly unfit and/or the child had committed some act of “gross misconduct.” 
9 
5. Ex Parte Crouse (1839) 
6. Mennel, R.M. (1973). Thorns & Thistles: Juvenile Delinquents in the United States from 1825–1940. Hanover, NH: University Press of New 
England. 
7. Shoemaker, D. (2018). Juvenile Delinquency (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. 
8. People Ex Rel. O’connell v. Turner, 55 Ill. 280 (Ill. 1870). 
9. Fox, S.J. (1970). Juvenile Justice Reform: An Historical Perspective. Stanford Law Review, 22:1187–1239 
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
393