A bulletin issued by the Seybert Institution of Philadelphia gives a very interesting set of diagrams showing the relation (or lack of relation) between the amount of man’s income, size of family, and the court order issued in the Philadelphia Municipal Court.[48]

This report gives a series of illustrations, where glaring inconsistencies between the man’s earnings and the court order were observed by visitors to the court.  A sample of the reports made by these visitors is as follows: 

“Man earning $30 to $40 a week at ammunition factory.  Can earn $20 with no overtime.  Has been sending woman $10 a week but has threatened to leave town.  Judge said:  ’You can’t keep up $10 a week—­how much can you give?’ Finally ordered $8 a week.  Woman said she couldn’t live on that and Judge told her she had to go to work herself then; that they should live together anyway.  Woman says she is unable to work—­is ill.  When man stated he was giving $10 great consternation seemed to take hold of the entire court force.  He did not say he couldn’t pay $10; the judge simply told him he couldn’t keep that up.”

The practice of assigning less than half the man’s weekly earnings to 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.