ABSTRACT
The broad outlines of the changes that took place in the history of California's juvenile court law sustain the idea that legal rules develop through alternating epochs of evolution and revolution, although no particular cyclical form or periodicity can be claimed for the process. The proposition, derivable from Kuhn, that an accumulation of anomalies in the course of the normal evolution of law is a necessary antecedent of revolutionary change is valid if the concept of anomalies covers discrepancies between practice and legal precept. A salient feature of the movement for change in the juvenile court law was the intense controversy and strong resistance it aroused. The resistance of the judges came closest to a pure protest against "trespass on a way of life," represented by their deep commitment to the parens patriae philosophy of the juvenile court.
