The sole issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering a successive commitment to the department of children and youth services of a child found delinquent for a second time pursuant to the authority contained in General Statutes §§ 46b-1401 and 46b-141.2 We conclude that such a dis*272position is not authorized and remand the matter with direction to modify the disposition accordingly.
Examination of the record discloses that on April 2, 1986, the respondent was adjudicated delinquent and found to be a serious juvenile offender and committed to the custody of the department of children and youth services for an indeterminate time up to a maximum of four years. The record further discloses that on June 19,1987, probation officer Joseph H. Paquin filed a verified petition alleging that the respondent was again delinquent, having committed the underlying offense of escape from custody in violation of General Statutes § 53a-1713 on November 28, 1986. This second petition claiming further delinquency was filed because of the respondent’s escape on November 28 from Long Lane School where he had been committed on April 2 as the result of the earlier adjudication.
On July 8, 1987, the respondent admitted commission of the underlying offense and the court entered a second finding of delinquency. On August 5, 1987, the court, McGrath, J., committed the respondent to *273the department of children and youth services for a further period of two years and ordered that the new commitment take effect upon the expiration of his present commitment. The effective date of the new commitment would be April 2,1990. From this disposition the respondent has appealed.
Under Connecticut law a child may be found “delinquent” if he or she has (1) violated any federal or state law or municipal or local ordinance, or (2) violated any order of the Superior Court. General Statutes § 46b-120.4 Upon a finding of delinquency, the court may: (1) place the child in the care of an institution or agency; (2) order the child to remain at home; (3) order the child to remain in the custody of a relative or other fit person subject to the supervision of a probation officer; or (4) withhold or suspend execution of any judgment. General Statutes § 46b-140 (a), see footnote 1, supra; In re Robert H., 199 Conn. 693, 713-14, 509 A.2d 475 (1986). The court may also order the child “to do work ... in public buildings and on public property or make restitution of the fruits of his offense or . . .in an amount he can afford to pay or [otherwise] provide in a suitable manner for the loss or damage,” particularly in the event of wilful destruction of property. General Statutes § 46b-140 (a), see footnote 1, supra. If the court finds that the probation services or other available services are not adequate for the child, the court is authorized to commit the child to the department of children and youth services. General Statutes § 46b-140 (b), see footnote 1, supra; see also In re Robert H., supra.
*274Commitments to the department of children and youth services are to be for an indeterminate time up to a maximum of two years, or in the event of a serious juvenile offense, up to a maximum of four years. General Statutes § 46b-141 (a), see footnote 2, supra. During such two year period (or four year period in the event of a serious juvenile offense), the commissioner of the department of children and youth services may petition the court for an extension of the commitment for an additional period not to exceed two years. General Statutes § 46b-141 (b), see footnote 2, supra. Commitments may be reopened and terminated at any time by the court. General Statutes § 46b-141 (c).5 Extensions of existing commitments at the request of the commissioner are thus authorized. Successive commitments to be served in the future as a result of sequential petitions for findings of delinquency are not.
The objective of juvenile court proceedings is to “determinfe] the needs of the child and of society rather than adjudicate] criminal conduct. The objectives are to provide measures of guidance and rehabilitation . . . not to fix criminal responsibility, guilt and punishment.” Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 554, 86 S. Ct. 1045, 16 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1966); but see In re Luis R., 204 Conn. 630, 634-35, 528 A.2d 1146 (1987). Thus the child found delinquent is not perceived as a criminal guilty of one or more offenses, but rather as a child in need of guidance and rehabilitative services. Commitments to the department of children and youth *275services are authorized only after other services have been found inadequate for the child. General Statutes § 46b-140 (b), see footnote 1, supra. The commitments are indeterminate and may be extended beyond their original term only upon later application by the commissioner of the department of children and youth services. General Statutes § 46b-141 (b), see footnote 2, supra. Thus, absent a request to transfer a matter to the regular criminal docket, extension of the existing commitment is the statutorily authorized response to further allegations of misconduct arising during a period of commitment. See General Statutes §§ 46b-126 and 46b-127; cf. Dart v. Mecum, 19 Conn. Sup. 428, 116 A.2d 668 (1955) (juvenile court not authorized to suspend execution of a commitment).
The postadjudicatory treatment of children in the juvenile justice system is totally unlike that which occurs in the adult penal system, which views the disposition following a judgment of guilty as being a punishment in the form of fines, imprisonment, or both. General Statutes § 53a-28;6 but see In re Luis R., supra. *276In the adult system, consecutive sentences are specifically authorized to address the issue of the guilt of multiple crimes. General Statutes § 53a-37.7 There is no similar provision for juvenile dispositions. We conclude, therefore, that the order entered was not authorized.
There is error and the matter is remanded to the trial court with direction to vacate the judgment of an additional commitment to the department of children and youth services for a period of two years commencing April 2, 1990.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.