provide for his wife, since he is paying the board of his child in a
good institution. He makes no charge against her character, but
insists that her quarrelsome and dictatorial disposition makes her
impossible to live with. She had haled him so many times into court
and lost him so many positions that Mellor, who earns a good salary,
will deal with her only through his lawyer, who keeps his client's
whereabouts secret and will not trust the social worker interested
even to the extent of arranging an interview.
It is generally impossible in cases of such deep-seated antagonism to
make any plans looking toward reconciliation. The "justifiable deserter"
can usually be reasoned with, and once he understands and admits his
responsibilities, can often be made to live up to them without judicial
process.
A ship steward deserted his wife, who was both alcoholic and
paretic, taking with him his only child whom he placed with his
relatives. The woman was devoted to the boy and broken in spirit
because she was not allowed to see him. The steward claimed,
probably correctly, that he was not responsible for the woman's
syphilitic condition. The following extract from the record of the
first interview with the man is quoted to show the lines of argument
which were effective with him:
"Man at District Office--Visitor started in immediately with the
subject in hand, thinking he was the sort that would respond to
absolutely direct dealing. Explained to him that we had been given
to understand his wife was ill, not only from alcoholism but also
from other complications; that it was suspected there might be some
difficulty with her blood and that we had been advised that her
mental condition was not now as strong as it had been previously.
Explained to him that he was absolutely responsible for his wife,
for her support, and for her care and protection, and that no matter
how far he traveled, his responsibility remained the same; that he
had assumed this when he married her. Said that he felt no
responsibility for her whatsoever, that he had done all he ever
would do for her and intended to devote his efforts toward his
child. Visitor explained to him that woman's intemperance might
perfectly well be a disease over which it would be very difficult
for her to have control; that, moreover, if she were suffering also
from a blood condition, this should have treatment. Explained that
he would more nearly meet his responsibilities were he to have her
examined and send her where she could procure the treatment
required, even if it meant commitment to an institution. At this
point man seemed more interested, particularly as visitor told him
that Arthur would grow up and would want to know where his mother
was and what had become of her; and if man had left her sick and
alone, at the mercy of strangers, he would not be able to give an
adequate accounting to his son. Man's reaction was not what visitor
had expected--he would be glad to put her away where she could not
trouble him any more but he did not intend to expend any more money.
Said he was under too heavy expenses with Arthur. Claimed he was
making $70 a month, and visitor forced him to add that he got in
addition his board and lodging on the ship, so that he was under no
expense except when on shore leave. Visitor repeated that as a
husband he was required to pay for woman's care, that that was the
right thing to do; that one way he would be a husband deserting his
wife, liable to arrest for non-support and desertion, and the other
way a husband with a sick wife for whom he was willing to provide
the medical attention and care that every sick person has a right to
have. He said if it was a question of a few dollars a week, he
supposed he would be willing to do it, and visitor felt he really
was willing to do the right thing if he only could be assured that
woman would not interfere with Arthur. Said he would never let woman
see the child, but finally admitted, if she were not drunk and was
in the hospital and it would do any good, he supposed she could."
With persistent or recalcitrant deserters as a group, court action has
very often to be invoked. Procedure in this direction differs so much in
different communities that only general observations can be offered
here. If the man has left his home but not the town and is still within
the jurisdiction of the local court, the magistrate will usually issue a
summons (which in many cities the wife is expected to serve) calling on
the man to appear at court on the date set for the hearing. If he fails
to appear a warrant for his arrest is issued. If he has left the city
but not the state, local courts may issue warrants, which can be mailed
to the city to which the man has gone and served by the police there; or
an officer may be sent from the home town with a warrant to arrest the
man and bring him back.
Prior to his arraignment, the best court practice calls for an
investigation by the probation officer, so that the judge may have
substantiated facts before him when the case comes up. Whether this is
done or not here is the time and place for the social worker who already
knows the family to get his knowledge in usable fashion before the
court. How best to do this varies greatly in different communities.
Sometimes the social worker is permitted to talk the matter over with
the judge personally, sometimes with the probation officer, clerk or
other court official. Sometimes a written report is required, to be
attached to the probation officer's report. Occasionally the social
worker gets no chance to be heard unless he is present to testify in
open court. In the last two contingencies, care must be taken to
safeguard information given in confidence, even by the deserter. Letters
marked "confidential" should not ordinarily be submitted in court except
by consent of the writer, as some judges hold that material so submitted
becomes a matter of public record.
The approach to the court, therefore, is governed by local conditions. A
very important part of co-operation in any community is to see that this
channel is kept free from obstruction. In general, the probation officer
should be the best friend of the other social workers, since he knows
their language. Indeed, many social workers themselves combine the
office of probation officer with their other duties.
After the institution of court proceedings the outside social worker has
usually little chance to affect the disposition of the case. This is
made by the judge on the basis of the testimony he elicits in court, and
on that of any preliminary investigation he may have caused to be made.
Disposition may be:
1. In rare instances, to dismiss the complaint altogether.
2. To remand for a later hearing.
3. To induce the woman to drop her complaint and give the man
another chance.[29]
4. To place the man under court order to stay away from home and pay
his wife a stated amount weekly. Custom differs in different places
as to whether payment shall be direct to the wife, through the
probation officer or clerk of court, or through public or private
charities.
5. To order the man to return home and contribute a stated amount.
6. To place on probation (together with either 4 or 5).
7. Commitment--usually to jail or workhouse, and for a period of not
over six months. May be longer for violation of probation or for
aggravated offense.
When the deserting man has gone without the borders of the state, there
is the added problem of securing his extradition, which is often a
difficult one. Wife desertion is in most states only a misdemeanor (in
New York it is even less serious and constitutes in the eye of the law
only disorderly conduct). Since extradition between states has to be
acted upon by the governors of the states, it is unusual (though not
impossible[30]) to secure extradition for a misdemeanor. The reluctance
of the authorities is understandable, however, when it is realized that
to extradite for wife desertion would be to create a precedent for
extradition for any sort of misdemeanor. There is in most states a law
which makes the abandonment of a minor child or children a felony,
punishable by a long term in state prison, and it is this law which is
generally invoked when the man has been traced to another state.
Complaint then has to be made to the district (or county) attorney, the
matter taken before the grand jury and an indictment secured before
extradition papers can be granted. The man, if captured, must usually be
tried in a higher court than the domestic relations court; if convicted
he is likely to be more severely punished. Extradition means expense to
the state; it is usually difficult, moreover, to get an active interest
taken in extraditing a family deserter who, to the legal eye, has
committed an offense neither against the person nor against property,
and cannot therefore be a serious offender!
If extradition for family desertion is difficult between states, with
other countries it is impossible, as no treaties exist even with
contiguous countries like Canada and Mexico.[31] By special arrangement
with the Canadian authorities, states which touch the Canadian border
can sometimes obtain the person of a deserter without actual
extradition. Information is submitted to the police of the Canadian town
where the man is known to be, who thereupon arrest him as an
"undesirable citizen" and arrange for his deportation. The neighboring
state is notified, and an officer with a warrant meets the Canadian
officer and the prisoner at the boundary, arresting the latter as soon
as he sets foot across the state line.
The testimony of social workers is, in the main, in favor of probation
as against long prison sentence for men of this type. "We have found a
shortened penitentiary sentence, with release on probation, very
successful in a number of instances." "Sometimes the probation has been
more effective by its being a sort of double probation; that is, having
the case pending in juvenile court as well as municipal or district
court. The fear of having his children permanently taken from him if he
again fails to support them has, in one or two instances, had much more
effect with the deserter than the threat of a prison sentence."
"Probation works very well and occasionally a prison sentence; but
probation is better." These statements come from cities where probation
work is well organized. From another city where the probation officers
are notoriously overworked, comes a pessimistic note: "The theory of
probation is fine, but the practice is poor because the officers have
entirely too much to do."
Probation is simply case work with the added "punch" of the law behind
it; so that when it is at all well done it should have the more lasting
results. Probation officers and other social workers agree, however,
that for certain deserters of the complacent type, an unexpected prison
sentence is sometimes a very salutary dash of cold water.
After having tried one or two short absences, ostensibly to look for
work and finding that nothing serious happened to him, Andreas
Gorokhoff walked out one day and did not come back for five years.
During that time his wife's relatives and the community's family
agency took care of his family while he led the life of a care-free
vagabond. He was ready upon his return to settle down again for a
time; but the family agency and the probation department thought
differently, and succeeded in having him sent to state prison for an
indeterminate sentence of not more than two years. He was released
on parole for good conduct, returned home, went to work, and, during
the four years which have since elapsed, all has gone well.
Good results may, and probably more often do, follow shorter prison
sentences.
A man on probation for intemperance, broke it and deserted. On
account of the children's keen feeling about the consequent
disgrace, the wife made no move until urged thereto by the social
worker interested. Her husband was then arrested in a nearby city
and brought back, much surprised at the firm stand his wife had
taken. He was sentenced to four months, served two, and was released
on parole. Since his return he has not been drinking and has been
contributing satisfactorily toward the support of his family.
* * * * *
The first step taken by Harvey Brand when released from the
workhouse after a short prison sentence, was to stop in at a
furniture store and order a green plush parlor "suit" on the
instalment plan. Harvey had never been conspicuously interested in
his home before, and the district secretary and her committee were
aghast at this new evidence of his irresponsibility. The green plush
was, however, the outward sign of an inner burgeoning, and it warmed
the heart of Mrs. Harvey as nothing else could have done. From that
time, Harvey, with judicious encouragement over a few hard spots,
has become a good family man and a regular provider.
The particular problem involved in the treatment of the family during
the trial and imprisonment of the deserter is that of encouraging the
woman to stick to her guns. If she withdraws her complaint or secures
his release before his time is up, she not only convinces him of her
lack of firmness but the entry in the court record seriously prejudices
her case should she make complaint there again. Unless the social worker
is convinced, therefore, that the sentence has been unduly severe, the
wife should be encouraged in every way to let her husband serve out his
time. If a policy of relief has been necessary, care should be taken
that it be adequate, so that economic pressure will not induce her to
ask for his release. If the home has been broken up and the children
committed, the mother's loneliness and desire to have her home back is
likely to work in the same way. The hope of making her husband kinder
when he returns often leads a woman to ask for his release. The pressure
of relatives and friends, and sometimes of her church is likely to be
exerted in the same direction and unknown to the social worker.
Chaplains of correctional institutions, interested entirely in the man
and with no knowledge of the family situation, are also likely to appear
in the case; and it is well to acquaint them, in the beginning, of our
interest and our hope that no step will be taken without a consultation.
If it is hoped or expected that the man will return to his home after
imprisonment, he should be earnestly cultivated by the social worker
while he is serving his time. Visits and letters will go far toward
breaking down his resentment at the part the worker is likely to have
played in "putting him behind the bars." Now is an excellent time to
introduce a man as volunteer visitor to the prisoner, if he is to be off
probation when released. If imprisonment or: "stay-away probation" does
not have the desired effect of making the deserter willing and anxious
to return to his family and take care of them, or if for any reason
return is permanently undesirable, the advisability of obtaining a legal
separation[32] should be considered at this point. If, on the other
hand, the man evinces eagerness to return home and support his family,
he comes automatically (though belatedly) into the class to be
considered in the next chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[26] The Questionnaire on the Deserted Family (see p. 395 sq. of
Richmond's Social Diagnosis) has already been mentioned as suggesting
lines of investigation. It will also be found useful at the stage of
summing up knowledge gained and seeing in what direction it points.
[27] The state of New York is an exception, as it grants only limited
divorce for desertion.
[28] See p. 57.
[29] See p. 132 sq. concerning court reconciliations.
[30] See Baldwin, Wm. H.: "The Most Effective Methods of Dealing with
Cases of Desertion and Non-support," _Journal American Institute of
Criminal Law and Criminology_, November, 1917.
[31] See p. 169 sq.
[32] See p. 127.
VII
THE DETAILS OF TREATMENT (Continued)
There remains a fourth classification under treatment, of cases which
demand even more individualized care and therefore more extended comment
than those just considered.
4. Man's Whereabouts Known; Man Willing to Return.--Here the question
to determine is whether it is going to be a desirable thing for the man
to re-enter the home and, if so, when. This does not always lie within
the power of the case worker to decide; the couple may and often do
resolve their differences for the time being without reference to her
opinion. But she can often hasten, defer, or even prevent the
reconciliation. Careful consideration must be given the elements
involved: What causes probably operated to bring about the rupture in
family relations? If there have been other desertions what does their
history show? Is the man's willingness to return a sign of real change
of heart and purpose, or is he merely afraid of punishment? Are his
habits such as to make him a fit inmate of the home? Is he capable of
supporting the family? Can any adjustment of temperaments be made which
will lessen incompatibility? Is the wife willing to have him return?
What are her motives? Has she enough firmness of character to carry out
a plan to which she has agreed? These are only a few of the questions to
which the social worker needs to know the answer, if the decision is to
be a wise one.
If none of the elements is present in the home out of which family life
can be reconstructed, if the man's self-indulgence and cruelty have been
proved beyond any doubt, or if affection is dead or never existed, then
the decision may have to be that no reconciliation be attempted. In many
cases the question then is how best to protect the woman and children
against the man's forcing his way upon them. Court intervention is
usually necessary here, if it has not already taken place; and a first
step is to have the husband placed under a court order to give separate
support and to stay away from his home.[33] The wife should be armed
with a warrant for his arrest, which can be served by the policeman on
the beat if the man appears. Such a man usually considers that his
proprietorship of the home and the family is not affected by his absence
or even by court orders, and when fortified by liquor he is likely to
force his entrance into the home and perhaps do harm. The protection of
the warrant is not absolute; in such cases as this it ought later to be
reinforced by a legal separation. Social workers avail themselves of
this resource far less than they should. It controverts the principles
of no religious sect and gives all the protection of absolute divorce
(including the payment of alimony) to the woman and children. To the
children it is likely to give more protection than divorce; for in the
event of the divorced husband's remarriage the children of the second
wife have prior rights over those of the first, and legal separation
makes this impossible by preventing the remarriage of either party.
Proceedings for a legal separation cannot usually be started if a man is
on probation, but may be while he is undergoing imprisonment. It should
be said that, after a separation, claims for non-payment of alimony
cannot, in many states, be pressed in a court of domestic relations but
must go to a civil court. This is usually more expensive and less
satisfactory.[34]
Some social workers even advance the heretical doctrine that support
secured through the court from a cruel and dangerous husband does not
make up for the harm he may do and the anxiety he causes. If to force
him into periodical payments means that he will be continually excited
into seeking out and "beating up" his offending wife, the support she is
able to extort from him comes high. It is sometimes necessary to move a
family to new quarters and actually help them to hide from the pursuit
of one of these insistent gentry. Even if we have some doubt that the
wife's protestations of fear or aversion are genuine, we should hardly
take the risk of revealing her address if she wishes it kept secret.
This precaution applies not only to the man but to anyone whom we
suspect of being interested on his behalf. A district secretary
continued to refuse the address of his family to a dangerous epileptic
deserter who threatened the secretary's life and, in the opinion of
physicians who examined him, was likely to carry out his threat.
The committee on difficult cases in a family social agency voted to
refuse to accept voluntary payments from a thoroughly worthless
deserter and transmit them to his wife whose address he was seeking
to learn, on the theory that it was better for her and her children
to be entirely quit of him, and that nothing would make him realize
the finality of the decision more than to refuse his money. The
agency, it was felt, would be in better position to protect the wife
and children if it refused to act as post office for the man.
The same consideration might apply in questions of extradition. When the
whereabouts of a deserter of this type has been discovered in another
city a safe distance away, it may be wiser to sacrifice the money he
might be forced to contribute than to have him brought within arm's
length of his wife and family.
A prime difficulty in dealing with the undesirable husband who is
willing to come home is often the attitude of the wife. Some of the
causes at work when a woman takes her husband back have been discussed
earlier.[35] Unfortunately, hopelessly bad husbands profit by them as
well as hopeful ones. The policy of niggardly relief to a deserted wife
has undoubtedly been responsible for many of these unfortunate attempts
to patch up a life together. "She was worn down by her efforts to keep
the household going, and, when the faint chance of her husband's
supporting her appeared, she took it" is the explanation given by a case
worker of one unpromising reconciliation, and she goes on to say of this
and another similar story: "With both of these it seems that enough
money put into the household to enable these mothers to be with their
children more and to keep up a reasonable standard of health for
themselves might have resulted in their refusing to take back their
husbands.... Our records seem to show that inadequate relief, making
life fairly hard for the deserted mother, does not tend to keep the man
from returning or others from deserting."
The story of Mrs. Francis shows the effect of adequate relief in
strengthening her decision not to take her husband back. He had been
a chronic deserter for years, had drank heavily, been foul-mouthed
and abusive, while failing to support the family when at home, so
that Mrs. Francis had only a little harder time when he was away.
His last desertion took place when she was near confinement. Owing
to her condition, the church and a family agency co-operated in an
unusually generous relief policy. This was in a state which gave
mother's aid to deserted wives. After about a year this was secured
for her, and the health of woman and children was built up and the
home improved. Then Mr. Francis sent ambassadors in the form of
relatives, with whom Mrs. Francis refused to treat. He later
appeared himself, but she would not consider taking him back. He
escaped before he could be brought into court. As he has now been
gone over two years, it seems that her stand is a genuine one.
On the other hand, when the man has been found and interviewed, he may
show signs of repentance, and the earlier history, together with the
opinion which the social worker has been able to form about the
character of man and woman may make it seem that a reconciliation should
be encouraged. A further question then arises: Shall the man return to
his home at once or first undergo a probationary period?