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?

The quick reconciliation has been a feature of the work in domestic relations courts from the beginning of the movement.  In connection with some courts there are special officers whose duty it is to prevail upon couples who come to the court to patch up their differences and give each other another trial.  This would be an admirable procedure if the couples to receive such treatment were selected by a process of careful investigation, and if probationary supervision were continued long enough to ascertain whether permanent results could be secured.  As it actually works out it is a little like expecting a wound to heal “by first intention” when it has not been cleaned out thoroughly, and when no attention is being paid to subsequent dressings.