Juvenile Law Course Plan (Spring 2026)
Week	Class	Topic	Readings & Assignments
Unit 1: Historical Foundations & Basic Framework
One	Class 1 Thu, Jan 15	Course Overview & Boundaries of Juvenile Law Learning Objectives: Understand the jurisdiction of juvenile courts Distinguish juvenile law from family law and criminal law Identify core actors and processes in the juvenile justice system	Windell & Bain (2015), Scope of the juvenile justice system, pp. 11-13
Two	Class 2 Tue, Jan 20	Evolution of Childhood & Early Intervention Learning Objectives: Analyze how societal understandings of childhood have evolved over time Explain how changing conceptions of youth influenced legal regulation Identify how dependency, capacity, and responsibility are socially constructed Connect historical views of childhood to early juvenile justice reform	Kerr (2022), A Brief History of Childhood, pp. 6-12
Two	Class 3 Thu, Jan 22	Child Savers, Parens Patriae, and Court Design Learning Objectives: Explain why a separate juvenile court emerged in the late 19th century Analyze the role of Progressive Era reform and the Child Savers Understand parens patriae as a justification for state intervention Key Case: Ex parte Crouse, 4 Whart. 9 (Pa. 1839)	Fitzgerald (2023), Put the Juvenile Back in Juvenile Court Burton (2019), Child Savers and Unchildlike Youth
Three	Class 4 Tue, Jan 27	Parens Patriae in Theory and Practice: When Protection Fails Learning Objectives: Explain parens patriae as a justification for state authority over children Analyze how benevolent intentions can mask coercion, inequality, and lack of accountability Compare frameworks for conceptualizing children's rights and interests Identify why parens patriae alone may be insufficient to legitimate state intervention	Rodham (1973), Children under the law Davis (2016), Little citizens and their families On Call This Week: Alexis Bishopp; K Brand Submit by 11:59 p.m. Monday (night before the week begins).
Unit 2: Constitutional Authority Over Children and Families
Three	Class 5 Thu, Jan 29	Substantive Due Process: Fundamental Rights and State Authority Learning Objectives: Define substantive due process and explain its role in identifying fundamental rights Describe how substantive due process constrains state authority even when the state claims to act protectively Understand why family autonomy has been treated as a constitutionally protected interest	Chemerinsky (2023), Fundamental Rights (excerpts on D2L)
Four	Class 6 Tue, Feb 3	Family Autonomy and Substantive Due Process in Practice Learning Objectives: Apply substantive due process analysis to concrete cases Evaluate constitutional protections for parental decision-making Identify circumstances in which the state may override family autonomy Connect substantive due process limits to state intervention affecting children Key Cases: Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510 (1925); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158 (1944)	See cases On Call This Week: Christina Barrios; Grace Crounse Submit by 11:59 p.m. Monday (night before the week begins).
Unit 3: Procedural Due Process and the Juvenile Court
Four	Class 7 Thu, Feb 5	Kent and Gault Learning Objectives: Explain why procedural due process became constitutionally necessary in juvenile court Identify the procedural protections recognized in Kent and Gault Distinguish procedural reform from full criminalization of juvenile court Assess how procedural due process functions as a constraint on state power Key Cases: Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)	See cases
Five	Class 8 Tue, Feb 10	The Scope and Limits of Juvenile Due Process Rights Learning Objectives: Identify which procedural due process rights apply in juvenile court and which do not Explain the rationale for the Court's partial extension of constitutional protections Evaluate how due process constraints shape the modern juvenile justice system Key Cases (SKIM ALL): McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970); Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975)	See cases On Call This Week: Brendan Curtis; Ryan Kennedy Submit by 11:59 p.m. Monday (night before the week begins).
Five	Class 9 Thu, Feb 12	Promise & Pitfalls of Due Process Learning Objectives: Analyze conflicting approaches to juvenile constitutional rights Identify structural limitations of Gault's procedural model Evaluate alternative approaches to juvenile justice reform	Feld & Moriearty (2019), Race, rights, and the representation of children Start with Section II. Race and Punishment in the Post-Gault Era pp. 772–786, 792–798 Buss (2003), The missed opportunity in Gault
Unit 4: Understanding Delinquency
Six	Class 10 Tue, Feb 17	Ecological Systems & Theories Explaining Delinquency Learning Objectives: Identify the competing explanations for juvenile delinquency and the assumptions each makes about youth behavior, agency, and social structure Analyze how ecological systems theory reframes delinquency as a product of layered environmental influences rather than individual moral failure Evaluate how different theories of delinquency implicitly justify different legal responses (rehabilitation, punishment, prevention, or structural reform)	Crawford (2020), Ecological Systems Theory, pp. 1-6 Thompson & Morris (2016), Theories of Juvenile Delinquency, pp. 41-53 On Call This Week: Jessica Aguilera; Malani Gonzales Submit by 11:59 p.m. Monday (night before the week begins).
Six	Class 11 Thu, Feb 19	Risk and Protective Factors Learning Objectives: Distinguish between risk and protective factors across individual, family, peer, school, and community domains, and explain how risk accumulates over time rather than operating in isolation Analyze how commonly cited "individual" determinants of delinquency (e.g., age of onset, offense severity, impulsivity) are embedded within broader social and environmental conditions Evaluate how a cumulative, multi-determined model of delinquency challenges purely punitive legal responses and supports alternative approaches such as prevention and early intervention	de las Casas & Jimenez-Gomez (2025), Juvenile delinquency: Individual determinants and social factors, pp. 481–485 and 487–491 Skip the Aichhorn biography and psychoanalytic pedagogy sections DSG (2015), Risk factors for delinquency DSG (2015), Protective factors for delinquency
Seven	Class 12 Tue, Feb 24	Family Context, Regulation, and State Intervention Learning Objectives: Identify family-level risk and protective factors associated with delinquency, including supervision, parenting practices, conflict, and instability Analyze how poverty and structural inequality shape family functioning in ways that can be misinterpreted as parental deficiency Evaluate the constitutional and policy limits of state intervention into family life when family conditions are linked to youth offending	Bates & Swan (2023), Families in context, pp. 165–191 On Call This Week: Ryan Kennedy; K Brand Submit by 11:59 p.m. Monday (night before the week begins).
Seven	Class 13 Thu, Feb 26	Peers, Schools, and the Institutionalization of Delinquency Learning Objectives: Explain how peer networks and school environments function as both risk and protective contexts for adolescent behavior Analyze the mechanisms of peer influence during adolescence and why susceptibility to peer pressure intensifies developmentally Assess how school discipline practices and institutional responses can either divert youth from or funnel youth into the juvenile justice system	Ahlin & Antunes (2021), Peers and school, pp. 79–97
Eight	Class 14 Tue, Mar 3	Risk/Needs Assessment Learning Objectives: Explain the evolution of juvenile risk/needs assessment tools and the shift from discretionary clinical judgment to structured and actuarial instruments Analyze how risk/needs tools translate developmental and social risk factors into numerical classifications used in detention, disposition, and supervision decisions Evaluate the legal and ethical limits of relying on standardized risk instruments, including concerns about predictive validity, racial disparity, and individualized justice	Sullivan & Childs (2021), Contemporary juvenile risk and needs assessment, pp. 22–48 DSG (2015), Risk/needs assessments for youths
Eight	Class 15 Thu, Mar 5	Guest Speaker: Diana Newmark	Newsome Power to Expel Ratner
Spring Break (March 10-12)
Unit 5: Police Contact and Investigation
Nine	Class 16 Tue, Mar 17	Police Contact & Youth–Police Interaction Learning Objectives: Identify the Fourth Amendment standards governing searches in schools under T.L.O. and Safford Explain how school resource officers affect student discipline and juvenile justice referrals Analyze how police discretion shapes responses to adolescent behavior in school settings Assess how school-based policing produces unequal impacts across student populations Key Cases (Skim): New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985); Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009)	Required: Sorensen, Shen, & Bushway (2023), The Thin Blue Line in Schools: New Evidence on School-Based Policing Across the United States Higgins et al. (2022), School Safety or School Criminalization? The Typical Day of a School Resource Officer in the United States Optional/Skim: Theriot (2009), School Resource Officers and the Criminalization of Student Behavior
Nine	Class 17 Thu, Mar 19	Juvenile Interrogation Learning Objectives: Explain how courts evaluate "custody" in juvenile interrogations and the role of age under J.D.B. Analyze how adolescent development affects understanding of Miranda rights and susceptibility to interrogation tactics Evaluate whether the "knowing, intelligent, and voluntary" waiver standard adequately protects juveniles Assess proposed reforms aimed at reducing unreliable juvenile confessions Key Case (Read): J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011)	Required: Kassin et al. (2025), Police-Induced Confessions 2.0: Risk Factors and Recommendations Feld (2013), Behind Closed Doors: What Really Happens When Cops Question Kids. Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy Skim: Bettens & Cleary (2024), Defense Attorney Perspectives About Juvenile Interrogations
Unit 6: Charging and Early Case Processing
Ten	Class 18 Tue, Mar 24	Guest Speakers: Pima County Prosecutor and Defense Attorneys	On Call This Week: Malani Gonzales; Brendan Curtis; Christina Barrios Submit by 11:59 p.m. Wednesday.
Ten	Class 19 Thu, Mar 26	Intake, Diversion, and Pre-Trial Detention Learning Objectives: Explain how intake discretion operates and what procedural rights apply at the earliest stages of juvenile case processing Analyze the theoretical foundations of diversion and evaluate its effectiveness as an alternative to formal adjudication Assess how pre-trial detention decisions can produce cumulative disadvantage for youth in the system	Required: Birckhead (2013), Intake discretion and procedural rights Zane & Mears (2023), Diversion theory Skim: Zane (2025), Detention and cumulative disadvantage
Unit 7: Development, Transfer, and Sentencing
Eleven	Class 20 Tue, Mar 31	Adolescent Brain Development Learning Objectives: Explain the "maturity gap" in adolescent development, including why the upper boundary of adolescence often extends into the early twenties rather than ending at the legal age of majority Distinguish cold and hot cognition and analyze how peer presence and emotionally arousing situations affect adolescent decision-making and risk-taking Assess why adolescent risk-taking can be developmentally normative rather than simply evidence of poor judgment, and identify how individual and environmental factors shape variation in development Explain how developmental science informs constitutional doctrine, particularly the Supreme Court's recognition that youth are categorically different from adults for purposes of culpability and punishment	Icenogle & Cauffman (2021), Adolescent decision making: A decade in review. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 1006–1022 Steinberg & Icenogle (2019), Using developmental science to distinguish adolescents and adults under the law. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 1, 21–40 On Call This Week: Alexis Bishopp; Ryan Kennedy; Grace Crounse Submit by 11:59 p.m. Monday (night before the week begins).
Eleven	Class 21 Thu, Apr 2	Transfer and Waiver to Adult Court Learning Objectives: Identify and distinguish the three primary mechanisms for transferring juveniles to adult court: judicial waiver, prosecutorial direct file, and statutory exclusion Explain what reverse transfer (decertification) is and how it operates as a check on transfer decisions Evaluate the empirical evidence on whether transfer to adult court deters juvenile crime or reduces recidivism	Required: Nguyen (2016), Juvenile justice: Searching for a flexible alternative to the strict and over-inclusive transfer system for serious juvenile offenders. Southern California Law Review, 90, 343–382 Optional/Supplemental: Liwanga & Ibe (2021), Transfer of child offenders to adult criminal courts in the USA. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, 49(1), 99–128 Hung (2025), Prosecutors and justice reform: Applying the American Law Institute Restatement of Children and the Law to juvenile transfers. Family Court Review, 63(3), 415–422
Twelve	Class 22 Tue, Apr 7	Roper and Graham: Categorical Limits on Juvenile Punishment Learning Objectives: Explain why the Court treats youth as constitutionally different from adults for purposes of punishment Distinguish the categorical rules announced in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) Analyze how the Court links diminished culpability and capacity for change to proportionality limits under the Eighth Amendment Evaluate what a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release" requires in practice Key Cases (Read): Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)	Required: Russell (2014), Review for Release: Juvenile Offenders, State Parole Practices, and the Eighth Amendment Focus on the discussion of "meaningful opportunity to obtain release" and the limits of parole implementation. On Call This Week: Brendan Curtis; Christina Barrios; K Brand Submit by 11:59 p.m. Monday (night before the week begins).
Twelve	Class 23 Thu, Apr 9	Miller and Jones: Individualized Sentencing and Its Limits Learning Objectives: Explain the constitutional rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and how it builds on Roper and Graham Analyze the requirement of individualized sentencing for juveniles facing life without parole, including the role of youth and its attendant characteristics Evaluate how Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. 98 (2021), interprets and limits Miller, particularly with respect to discretion and findings of permanent incorrigibility Assess the gap between the promise of individualized sentencing and its implementation in practice Key Cases (Read): Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012); Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. 98 (2021)	Required: Drinan (2021), Jones v. Mississippi and the Court's Quiet Burial of the Miller Trilogy
Thirteen	Class 24 Tue, Apr 14	Desistance, Reentry & Collateral Consequences Learning Objectives: Define desistance and explain how developmental science predicts that most juvenile offenders will age out of crime during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood Identify the key factors—including psychosocial maturity, peer networks, and life transitions—that predict which youth desist and which persist in offending Evaluate whether the juvenile justice system’s reentry infrastructure delivers on the constitutional promise of “meaningful opportunity to obtain release” established in Graham Analyze the barriers youth face during community reintegration—including gaps in supervision, services, education, and employment—and assess how these barriers undermine desistance	Required: Cauffman, Beardslee, Sbeglia, Frick & Steinberg (2024), Trajectories of offending over 9 years after youths’ first arrest: What predicts who desists and who continues to offend? Focus on the trajectory groups and predictors of desistance vs. persistence. Chung, Schubert & Mulvey (2007), An empirical portrait of community reentry among serious juvenile offenders in two metropolitan cities From the Pathways to Desistance study. Includes Maricopa County (AZ) data. Optional/Background: Development Services Group, Inc. (2017), Juvenile Reentry. OJJDP Literature Review On Call This Week: Malani Gonzales; Grace Crounse; Alexis Bishopp Submit by 11:59 p.m. Monday (night before the week begins).
Thirteen	Class 25 Thu, Apr 16	Visit to Pima County Juvenile Court Center 8:45 A.M. 2225 E Ajo Way, Tucson, AZ 85713
Fourteen	Class 26 Tue, Apr 21	Group Presentations — Group 1 Alexis Bishopp, K Brandt
Fourteen	Class 27 Thu, Apr 23	Group Presentations — Group 3 Grace Crounse, Brendan Curtis
Fifteen	Class 28 Tue, Apr 28	Group Presentations — Group 2 Christina Barrios, Ryan Kennedy, Malani Gonzales