the wife and children has been defended on the ground that if he is
forced to live too economically, he will disappear and the family will
be left with nothing. This would seem to be a self-confession on the
part of the court that it cannot enforce its reasonable requirements. It
would appear that the first thing to be considered is the minimum needs
of the wife and children, taking into consideration whether the wife can
be expected to contribute anything toward her own support or whether all
her time is needed for her children. This amount should be cut down only
when there is actually not enough left for the man to live on; and his
wife and children should not be pinched for necessities in order that he
may have luxuries or indulge in vices. The habit some judges have of
accepting the man's own statement on oath as to what his earnings are is
responsible for many unjust orders. A man who does not want to
contribute to his family's support is almost sure to understate his
earnings, oath or no oath; and the confirmation of his employer (or when
the employer is suspected of being in league with him, the inspection of
the employer's books by the probation officer) is often needed. Probably
the most difficult form of evasion to combat is that of the man who
deliberately takes a lower salary than he is capable of earning, so as
to have less to give his wife. Surprising as it may seem, this is a
common practice; but skilful probation work can nevertheless find a
remedy.
In cases of suspended sentence, payments ought always to be made through
the court and not handed by the man to his wife. It is better to have
the amount received and transmitted by some bureau attached to the
court, and so managed that the man can send the money in without
"knocking off work" to bring it and that the woman can receive it by
mail. The probation officer should not be bothered with the actual
handling of the money, but he should be promptly notified of any
delinquency in the payments.
Whether the man under court order is on probation or not, the cessation
of payments should automatically reopen the case. At present, in most
courts, the order goes by default until the wife comes in to make
another charge. This, through discouragement or fear of a beating from
the man, she often neglects; with the result that the orders of the
court mean little in the eyes of the men, and that arrears, once allowed
to mount up, are never cleared off.
This statement applies as well to long term orders for separate support
where the circumstances are such that no reconciliation is contemplated.
These orders are now made for a definite period of months, at the end of
which time the case drops unless the wife renews charges. A case of this
sort ought not to be terminable without a reinvestigation and final
hearing in court. Indeed it would seem, in such cases, that the children
involved should have at least as much protection as the children in
bastardy proceedings, and that the order should be made to cover the
term of years until the oldest child becomes of working age.
The most important step in advance with regard to payments is
undoubtedly the law which has been tried with signal success in the
District of Columbia and in the states of Ohio and Massachusetts,
requiring men serving prison sentences for non-support and abandonment
to be made to work, and a sum of money, representing their earnings, to
be turned over to their families.
In an interesting paper in the _Survey_ for November 20, 1909, entitled
"Making the Deserter Pay the Piper," Mr. William H. Baldwin discusses in
detail how this plan was made to work successfully in the District of
Columbia.
The movement for special courts to consider cases of juvenile
delinquency and marital relations has gained such headway that no word
needs to be said here in its favor. In communities where the volume of
court business permits such courts to be separately organized, they are
generally accepted as the only means of handling these matters. In
smaller communities the need may be met by setting aside regular
sessions of the magistrates' courts for this purpose.
Juvenile courts and domestic relations courts having proved a success
separately, there is a strong movement on foot to combine them into one
court, for which the name Family Court has been proposed.
A leader in this movement is Judge Hoffman of the Family Court of
Cincinnati, which he describes thus:
"The Court of Cincinnati was organized for the purpose of dealing
with the family as a unit and to ascertain possibly the cause of its
disruption. It has exclusive jurisdiction in all divorce and alimony
cases, and all matters coming under the Juvenile Court Act. It also
has jurisdiction in cases of failure to provide. The ideal court
would include in connection with the foregoing functions, adoption
of children, the issuing of marriage licenses, and bastardy
cases."[49]
One advantage of this plan is the economy it effects in the time of
probation officers. It is generally admitted that in children's court
cases it is the parents rather than the children who are really on
probation; and with two courts and two separate probation systems, we
may even have the anomaly of the same family being under the care of
two probation officers at once. Specialization can no further go! Other
leaders in the domestic relations court movement see little merit in the
proposal for a one-part family court. They think that, in the large
cities at least, the need would be better served by having the domestic
relations and juvenile courts under one roof, but as two separate and
distinct parts of the same court. All are agreed, however, that the
powers of one or the other of the two special courts should be enlarged
to cover bastardy cases, where this is not now done.
The domestic relations court, whether separate or as part of a family
court, ought to have equity powers, so that the usual rules of evidence
need not be so closely adhered to and more latitude could be allowed the
magistrate in disposing of cases, not necessarily according to ruling
and precedent but according to the social needs disclosed. A
constitutional amendment now pending in New York is a model for this
sort of legislation. It is in part as follows:
"The legislature may establish children's courts and courts of
domestic relations as separate courts or parts of existing courts,
or courts hereafter to be created, and may confer upon them such
equity and other jurisdiction as may be necessary for the
correction, protection, guardianship and disposition of delinquent,
neglected or dependent minors, and for the punishment and correction
of adults responsible for or contributing to such delinquency,
neglect or dependency, and to compel the support of a wife, child or
poor relative by persons legally chargeable therewith who abandon or
neglect to support any of them."[50]
Many courts of domestic relations which now exercise equity powers, such
as ordering that a man remain away from home or that a wife allow her
husband to see his children at stated times, do so without actual legal
warrant and subject at any time to appeal of counsel. The conferring of
equity powers on courts of domestic relations is a form of protection
both to the court and to its clients which social workers should stand
ready to work for.
Juvenile courts have in the main outstripped the domestic relations
courts in the use of physicians and psychiatrists. The best examples of
both these courts have, however, facilities for the making of physical
examinations and mental tests, where necessary, before adjudication.
Judge Hoffman says that the fact that so many cases in courts of
domestic relations disclose abnormal or perverted sex habits, makes
important the services of a psychiatrist accustomed to diagnosing these
conditions.[51]
In most states the jurisdiction of the courts of domestic relations
should be extended and co-ordinated. Few states escape some glaring
inconsistencies in the laws governing desertion and abandonment. There
is, for instance, much confusion between states as to whether a woman
whose husband brings her to a strange city and there deserts her must
prosecute him in the city where their home is or where the desertion
took place. Under certain circumstances the woman is forced to travel to
the city where her husband has gone, and bring action against him there,
if the courts in that place will entertain a suit. In New York state
there is no law which covers the case of a man who abandons his wife
while she is pregnant, if there is no other living child. To constitute
an extraditable crime there must have been abandonment of a child _in
esse_ not merely _in posse_.
But no institution, however carefully established by law, is any more
effective than the people who run it; and the usefulness of the domestic
relations court in any community depends entirely upon the
social-mindedness and freedom from political entanglement of the judge
and the amount and quality of probation service. From a social point of
view, the latter is more important than the former; for a bad decision
of the court can be mitigated by good case work later on, while a poor
probation officer may nullify the effects of the wisest judicial
decision ever made.
The importance of having enough probation officers to handle the work of
the court has already been touched upon. An overworked officer is
perforce an inefficient officer. He has usually to spend at least half
his time in the court and attending to the clerical end of his job. From
50 to 60 cases is probably all that one probation officer can be
expected to handle thoroughly at one time, if, as is to be hoped, he is
required to make careful preliminary investigations to be presented to
the judge _before_ the trial.
In training and in equipment for the job, probation officers should be
the equals of case workers in private agencies. Examinations for
probation officers ought to be conducted by social workers of skill and
high standards. A few months of cramming at a civil service school, or a
few weeks of volunteer visiting with some case working agency, should
not suffice to enable candidates to pass the examinations. The standards
should be high enough and the salaries sufficiently attractive to draw
into this field people who have successfully completed their
apprenticeship in the art of case work. Only then can the status of the
probation officer be raised to what it should be in the court itself.
The relation of the probation officer to the judge ought to be exactly
like the relation of the medical social worker to the physician--that of
a person acting under his direction in a general way, but with a special
contribution to make to the treatment of the case and with a recognized
standing as an expert in his own particular field.
FOOTNOTES:
[46] Now changed to The National Conference of Social Work.
[47] Motion, J.R.: Wife and Family Desertion: Emigration as a
Contributory Cause. Glasgow Parish Council, 1912.
[48] Handling of Cases by the Juvenile Court and Court of Domestic
Relations of the Philadelphia Municipal Court. Bulletin 2, Bureau for
Social Research, the Seybert Institution, Philadelphia, 1918.
[49] Hoffman, Charles W.: The Domestic Relations Court and Divorce, _The
Delinquent_, February, 1917.
[50] For a fuller discussion of equity powers see an article by Judge
C.F. Collins in the _Legal Aid Review_ for January, 1919.
[51] Hoffman, Charles W.: Domestic Relations Courts and Divorce. _The
Delinquent_, February, 1917.
X
NEXT STEPS IN PREVENTIVE TREATMENT
At this time of writing it is too soon after the signing of the
armistice to make predictions as to what the Great War may do to
marriage. Whether desertion and divorce will increase or decrease it is
impossible to say, and the experience of Europe is beside the mark. The
war will leave traces on this generation--no doubt about that; but our
losses have not been heavy enough seriously to disturb the balance of
the sexes. The war, which has been to the common people of our country a
war of service and ideals, has erased much that was petty and selfish;
it has also caused nervous shocks and strains incalculable and
unimagined. Years from now we may be able to strike the balance, but
today this cannot be done. It is impossible also to say whether the
growing irresponsibility that was generally recognized to be
threatening married life in the years before the war is still operating
with like effect, or whether the full tide of emotion in which the world
has been lately submerged may have swept at least a part of it away.
We are dealing here, however, not so much with modifications in the
spirit of the times, as with prevention in the individual case.
One very fundamental claim can be made concerning marital shipwrecks;
namely, that the way to prevent many of them would have been to see that
the marriage never was allowed to take place. Marriage laws and their
enforcement form a whole subject in themselves which is now receiving
careful study, the results of which should be available shortly.[52]
This fact precludes any discussion of the subject here, though the
relation of our marriage laws to marital discord is so obvious that some
mention of the matter is necessary.
It was formerly the belief of students of family desertion that the
best way to prevent desertions was to punish them quickly and severely.
It should be said that this plan has never received a fair trial on a
large scale, for legal equipment has always lagged behind knowledge. It
may be true that just as a community can, within limits, regulate its
death rate by what it is willing to pay, so it can by repressive
measures regulate its desertion rate. But measures that keep the
would-be deserter in the home which constantly grows less of a home,
simply through fear of consequences if he left it, seem hardly a
desirable form of prevention from the social point of view. It would be
much better to catch the disintegrating family in whatever form of
social drag-net could be devised, and deal with it individually and
constructively along the lines which case work has laid down.
Is it possible, however, to recognize a "pre-desertion state?" And if
so, what are the danger signals? One case worker answers this question
sententiously: "Any influences which tend to destroy family solidarity
are possible signs of desertion." Another writes: "We have sometimes
found it possible to recognize a 'pre-desertion state' in the
intermittent deserter, where we know the conditions which previously led
to desertion, but I doubt whether we have very often been able to note
it in the case of first desertions. In general, I should say a growing
carelessness or a growing despondency as to his ability to care for his
family are danger signals in the man, of which it is well to keep
track."
The conditions listed in Chapter II as "contributory factors" might in
certain combinations be decided danger signals of impending desertion.
Non-support itself is, indeed, one of the most common of such signals,
though a man who has dealt with hundreds of desertion cases maintained
recently that the best and most hopeful type of deserter is the one who
supports his family adequately up to the time of leaving home.
In the following case the items that led the case worker to suspect an
approaching desertion are set down in the order stated by her. The
couple were Irish; the man had never deserted before.
(1) He had spoken with eagerness of the wages that were being earned
in munition plants in a city a few hours away--said he would like to
go to some of those munition places and see what he could make.
(2) He was an intermittent drinker.
(3) His work record was poor; employers said he was irregular and
unreliable.
(4) Visitor felt he had never earned as much as he was easily
capable of earning and was rather indifferent to the needs of his
family.
(5) The woman was willing to work--had applied for day nursery care,
but visitor had persuaded the nursery not to accept the children.
After the visitor had stated the first two of the above items she
stopped, and did not add the more significant three that followed until
reminded that many workmen who drank intermittently were at that time
thinking enviously of munition factory wages; and that these hardly
constituted danger signals. The cumulative effect of all five items
cannot, however, be denied.
Another statement, similarly obtained, concerns a colored couple,
married about two years and with two children, the youngest less than a
month old. Man had been out of work and family had gone to live with
relatives.
(1) Man earns $20 a week but refuses to start housekeeping again,
although they are seriously overcrowded--seven adults and five
children in five rooms.
(2) Woman says he makes her sleep on chairs so that he can get
better rest.
(3) He is seeing a good deal of another woman, a friend of the wife
(wife's statement only).
(4) Woman had applied for nursery care for both children so that she
might go to work.
(5) It transpires that she lived with him before marriage, and that
the first child was a month old when the marriage took place. He
"holds it over her."
(6) Man had been married before and divorced.
(7) The family's habits of recreation are changed; the man no longer
"takes her out."
Such attempts to foretell the future are not infallible, of course; but
a listing process is a valuable aid to diagnosis, and, by its help, a
situation may be uncovered which tends toward complete family breakdown.
This may be taken in time and prevented; or, if separation is inevitable
it can be prepared for in advance, the necessary legal arrangements can
be made to protect the family, and the anxiety, suspense, and useless
effort avoided which a sudden and downright abandonment would cause.
But the trouble is that the problem seldom comes to the case worker
until matters have progressed farther than this. The real question
is--not how to recognize pre-desertion symptoms, but how to get hold of
families when these symptoms are in the incipient stage.
Mr. Hiram Myers, manager of the Desertion Bureau of the New York
Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, who has made a
close study of the subject, holds the theory that the real period of
stress in marital adjustment comes not during the "critical first year,"
about which we have been told so much, but at a later period, which he
sets roughly at from the third to the fifth year after marriage. By this
time there are usually one or two babies, the wife's girlish charm has
gone, and the romance of the first attraction has vanished, while the
steady force of conjugal affection which should smooth their path
through the years ahead has not come to take its place. It is in this
middle period that longings for the delights of his care-free youth
begin to come back to a man; if he ever had the wandering foot, it
begins again to twitch for the road; of else his fancy is captured by
some other girl not tied down at home by children. It is at this time,
too, that endless discords and misunderstandings arise--that the last
bit of gilt crumbles off the gingerbread.
As a result of his observations, Mr. Myers feels sure that the majority
of first desertions take place somewhere from the third to the fifth
year after marriage. Miss Brandt's[53] careful statistical study of 574
deserted families shows that in nearly 46 per cent of the families the
first desertion took place before the fifth year of married life. Of
course the jars that may come in the earlier months of marriage are
seldom brought to the attention of social agencies, as it is usually the
presence of children in the family and the consequent burden upon the
wife which make such agencies acquainted with her.
It is to be hoped that further study will be made upon these points. It
is well known and accepted that the majority of first deserters are
young men; but if certain danger periods in married life can be
definitely recognized, many new possibilities in prevention and
treatment will be opened up.
A number of experiments and suggestions have lately been made which may
prove to be the means of recognizing marital troubles early. The
probation department of the Chicago Court of Domestic Relations some
years ago established a consultation bureau to which people might come
or be sent for advice on difficult matrimonial situations, and without
any court record being made. The Department of Public Charities of New
York City maintains a similar bureau which is, however, so closely
connected with the court that its clients make little distinction
between them.
In addition to such conscious efforts to reach out after marital tangles
in the pre-court stage, there has recently been an interesting though
accidental development in the city of Cleveland. During the thrift
campaign of 1918, several savings banks of that city conceived the idea
that their depositors could be induced and helped to save more money if
the banks opened a bureau for free advice to their patrons on household
management. This bureau is still in the experimental stage but it has
had an increasing clientele so far. One thing that has astonished its
management--but which causes no surprise in the mind of a social
worker--has been the great variety of problems other than those
connected with the family budget that have come to light in the bureau's
consultations. Particularly is this true of marital discord centering
about money affairs.
If such bureaus prove their usefulness there is no reason why they might
not be greatly extended, and why other agencies than banks (insurance
companies, for example) might not be eager thus to serve their
customers. This opens a new field for the home economist, but
incidentally it would appear that, in order to function successfully,
such bureaus would need to have access to the services of agencies
employing highly skilled social case workers. It is conceivable that, if
there are developed in our large cities consultation facilities under
social auspices for people who feel their marriages going wrong, and
want help and advice in righting them, such bureaus as those described
above would be excellent "feeders" for this new form of social service.
Family social agencies have been distinctly backward in some of their
approaches to the fundamental problems of family life. The failure of
most of them, for instance, to study or seek improvements in the laws
governing marriage or in their administration, is difficult of
explanation. Such a consultation service as that suggested does,
however, indicate a new point of departure in dealing with marital
relations which would seem to fall distinctly within the field of the
family case work agencies. It is time that these agencies began to find
means of dealing, not with the dependent family alone but with the
family in danger of becoming dependent--not with the family broken and
estranged only, but with the one whose bonds, even if cracking and
ill-adjusted, still hold.
Concretely, why should not family agencies establish such consultation
bureaus as have just been mentioned, distinct from their regular
activities and hampered by no suggestion in their title of association
with problems of dependency? Dr. William Healy of Boston ascribes much
of his success in getting the parents of defective and backward children
to bring them voluntarily for examination to the fact that the name of
his organization (the Judge Baker Foundation) conveys no hint of stigma
or inferiority. Here is a valuable lesson in right publicity.