At the 1948 session of the General Assembly a bill, known as Senate Bill 175, was introduced. This bill provided, among other things which will be detailed elsewhere, that the State be divided into seventeen Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court districts--each of the seventeen courts to be a court of record.

The General Assembly, desiring further information upon this bill and matters affected thereby, directed the Virginia Advisory Legislative Council to make a study and report thereon to the 1950 session of the General Assembly. This study was directed by Chapter 390 of the Acts of 1948 which is as follows:

An Act to provide for a study, by the Virginia Advisory Legislative Council, of a system of juvenile and domestic relations courts for Virginia.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. Section 1. The public policy of Virginia has been to provide for the correction of youthful offenders rather than to rely upon punitive methods. The General Assembly views with favor the general principle of enlarging the jurisdiction of juvenile and domestic relations courts in the Commonwealth of Virginia and improving the functions of such courts in the several counties and cities.

Section 2. The Virginia Advisory Legislative Council accordingly is hereby directed to make further study and report on the advisability of establishing a state-wide system of juvenile and domestic relations courts. The Council shall particularly consider the proposals contained in Senate Bill one hundred seventy-five, session of nineteen hundred forty-eight, as originally introduced. The Council shall also carefully consider the jurisdiction to be given such courts, the question of whether the right to trial by jury is involved in cases coming before such courts, and all other matters which it deems pertinent to such study. The Council shall also consider the proper integration, of such courts into the judicial system of the State, the cost of such a system of juvenile and domestic relations courts, and to what extent the same would be compensated for by lowered criminal and welfare costs.

Section 3. The Council shall complete its study and make a report containing its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly not later than September one, nineteen hundred forty-nine.

This subject was assigned by the Council to Delegate W. R. Broaddus, Jr., Martinsville, member of the Council, as chairman of the committee to be appointed by the Council. The following 'were nominated by him and approved by the Council to serve on this committee: Earl L. Abbott, Judge, Nineteenth, Judicial Circuit, Clifton Forge; Mrs. Charles G. Baber, Lynchburg; Edwin Clements, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations, Civil and Police Court, Petersburg; Hale Collins, member, House of Delegates, Attorney-at-Law, Covington; James Roge Ricks, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Richmond. Judge Ricks was elected Vice-Chairman and Cassius M. Chichester and John B. Boatwright, Jr., served as Secretary and Recording Secretary, respectively. Col., Richard W. Copeland, Director, Department of Welfare and Institutions, served ex-officio as a member of the committee.

Meetings were held on May 6 and 7, 1949, June 3 and 4 and 24, 1949, August 5 and 6, 1949, September 16, 1949. In addition to these regular meetings the members engaged extensively in individual research. Questionnaires on specific questions were sent to local superintendents of welfare and the members of the Trial Justice Association. After wide publicity, public hearings were held on May 7, in Roanoke and June 4, in Richmond. Special notices urging their attendance were sent to the Council of Juvenile Judges, the Trial Justice Association, the Bar Associations, the League of Local Welfare Executives, the National Probation Association, State Department officials and to organizations in the State known for their interest in child welfare.

The committee completed its work and made its report to the Council. The Council has carefully studied the report and accompanying data. After mature consideration the Council now sets forth its report.

Before setting forth our comments relative to Senate Bill 175, or discussing the proposals contained in the Bill appended, a few preliminary remarks about our present juvenile court law, and what appears to be its defects and disadvantages, would seem essential for a proper understanding and evaluation of the recommendations in regard to Senate Bill 175 (1948) and the bill appended. For convenience, the report is divided into the following four parts:

PART I-The Present Juvenile Court Law: its development and effectiveness.
PART II-Senate Bill 175: its principles, provisions and recommendations in regard thereto.
PART III-The Bill Appended: its intent, general plan, drafting and system of numbering; certain new provisions with explanatory notes; estimated cost.
PART IV-Conclusion: General recommendations.