Returning to the family history (the criticism continues), we find three generations on the mother's side in one city neighborhood-a neighborhood of varied industrial opportunities evidently. We have the chance therefore, if we choose to take it, though the record does not help us very much, to fill in a background for Mrs. Doyle's mother, Mrs. Clayton, for Mrs. Doyle herself, and for her fifteen-yearold daughter, Margaret Doyle.

I am trying to suggest many of the possibilities instead of just a few of them, but it will be evident that some, at least, have a direct bearing upon further treatment, if there is to be any. What sort of homemaker was Mrs. Clayton? According to a physician who "knows the whole family connection," she is a "rum soak"; according to Doyle's sister (who herself "has an attractive home" and "seems very placid and sensible") she "is not the right kind of woman and easily leads Kate [Mrs. Doyle] astray." This same sister relates that the Doyles married when Kate was sixteen and Angus eighteen and that “they have never agreed"; that Mrs. Doyle is a good mother, manages her children well, and is very clean, but that on the other hand, while she is not a drunkard, she sometimes drinks-a statement corroborated, as to the past, by the physician already quoted regarding Mrs. Clayton. The sister's further statement that Mrs. Doyle had "deviled" her husband into leaving and that if she would "hold her tongue" she ought to be able to "jolly him along" and keep a nice home has little evidential value, but does suggest that Mrs. Doyle may be ill tempered or given to nagging. Altogether, there would seem to be some fault on both sides, though scant basis is revealed for Angus Doyle's statement that "his wife drank, neglected her home, their children, and his meals"; according to the visitor, the "home is neatly and attractively kept, children well mannered, woman certainly not drinking now."

As to the husband, we have little evidence that is favorable. His employers had put up with his "periodical sprees" because he was an excellent mechanic; and, knowing nothing to the contrary, his fellow workers believed his statement that he "had a dreadful life with his wife." According to the physician already quoted, he is "utterly worthless; undoubtedly a good worker, but drinks hard and cares for no one but himself." His sister did not shield him as to the drink; apparently the only virtue that she imputed to him was that he was "not lazy."

Here, then, is a situation in which there are elements, behind the obvious fact of desertion and non-support, which render the return of the deserter far from a final solution of the difficulty. He has learned a lesson, doubtless, from his latest experience; perhaps it may restrain him when next the impulse to shake off family responsibilities seizes him, though of this we can be by no means sure; but so long as he continues to be a periodic drinker and abusive, so long as he and his wife are unable to live in peace, it can hardly be said that the family problem is satisfactorily solved.

With the scanty array of facts at our disposal it is impossible to say what the next move should have been, after the deserter had been found and a regular income from him insured. It would seem that at this point time might have been taken to build in a background-to learn something of Doyle's boyhood, his home training, schooling, early work history. Inquiry of the sister might reveal, for ex

ample, that he had been a trial from his earliest years to devoted parents who had set him an excellent example-an habitual truant and runaway, let us say, who later had refused to turn in his earnings. Or again, it might appear that his record as school boy, son, and young worker had been excellent, and that his delinquencies had not begun till some years after his marriage. It is evident that there would be greater hope in the latter case than in the former of studying out, with Mrs. Doyle's aid, the underlying causes of the difficulty and finding a remedy. In the same way, coming to more recent history, it might be useful to know the effect of dull times in the shipbuilding trade upon Doyle's habits and movements. Was he at home or away, drinking or sober, during the panic of 1907-08? Is his work seasonal? What is his state of health? Has he ever been arrested? Is there any court record? Are the children fond of him?

On the industrial side, had Mrs. Doyle, who worked as a buffer in the metal works, been so engaged when her husband was at home and working, or had she worked in his absence only? In either case, what effect had her ability to earn and to support the family had upon him? But for her condition, she would have been earning $2.25 a day at the buffing wheels when the society visited her. Is this healthful work for the mother of a family? Is it related in any way to the fact of her drinking? How did the children fare under Mrs. Clayton's care in their mother's absence? What about Margaret's work in the hosiery mill—are conditions favorable to health and future prospects fair?

The society was quite right to concentrate, as regards treatment, upon the desertion issue first; to find the man, that is, and put upon him the financial burden of his family. But, having gained an excellent footing with Kate Doyle by so doing, and the whole social and industrial environment that had been too much for the family in the past remaining what it had been, was the chance to readjust their relation taken full advantage of? Their earnings were larger than usual upon the last visit a fact which should have made constructive work easier—and the drink, the instability, the likelihood of another family breakdown should have been dealt with one by one.

Perhaps my criticism may seem to overemphasize a string of items, but all of them lead to one point; namely, that to organize the social services of a community in any vital sense, we must all be working out, in at least a minority of the families that come under our care, the synthetic relation of the industrial, physical, moral, and social facts which affect their welfare. In other words, what might have been a good beginning with the Doyles was mistaken for a good ending. From the very first interview with Mrs. Doyle the possibility of this wider program might have been kept in view and might have shaped the diagnosis.

Even where background is not kept in mind from the beginning, it is possible to recover the ground that has been lost and achieve synthetic results later on, though it is not so easy to do so. The Braucher case, a summary of which is given in Chapter IX, Relatives as Sources,1 illustrates this possibility.

1 See p. 188 sq.

II. THE HUSBAND AND FATHER

1. The Man Should Be Seen. Husband and wife are not of the same blood, be it remembered. They have a past in common, but each has had an earlier past apart, and, since in many forms of social work we see much of the wife and children and little or nothing of the husband and father, it is necessary deliberately to keep him in mind. Faulty methods of social work may have led him to think that his wife should do all the applying and explaining, but an understanding of the plans and purposes of the man of the family-his ambitions for his children and for himself-cannot be had without early personal contact with him. It is safer and it is fairer so, and our later planning and conferring should include him. "It is our business to see the man in this case," writes a critic of a family record. "He is probably all he is painted to be, but he has a right to a hearing."

At one charity office, the man of the family apologized for not sending his wife, explaining that she was too sick to come that day, or else she would have applied. He was told that the secretary much preferred to confer with him about his family's distress, because it was his affair, as the breadwinner, even more than his wife's.

As plans for various forms of child welfare multiply it is more easy than ever to overlook the man of the family. "Many probation officers fail to make the acquaintance of the fathers of the children in their care during the whole period of probation," write Flexner and Baldwin. "It is generally a little difficult to get in touch with a father, but he is often the key to the whole problem. Probation officers should make an effort to have at least an acquaintance with the father of every child in their care, whether or not that acquaintance can be carefully followed up by close co-operation with him."

An S. P. C. C. worker in a small town says that she tries to get all possible information from the family direct, seeking first the man's story, then the woman's, then bringing them together, if possible, and getting, in this joint interview, a good deal of new light. She appeals to them to be frank with her in order to avoid gossip, adding, "You know how the people around here like to talk, and it will be far better for us to settle this thing ourselves if we can."

2. Place of Interview. It is often better to see the two heads of the family separately, making a special evening appointment at the case worker's office or at some other convenient place in order to do this. There may be substantial like-mindedness between husband and wife and no domestic misunderstandings, but, 1 Juvenile Courts and Probation, p. 136.

in the joint interview, one naturally leads and the other follows, so that it is difficult to get acquainted with both.

To attempt to see the man of the family at his work place, especially if this happens to be a large concern, is unwise, though it is sometimes possible to see him there at the noon hour. His employer objects to having him called away from his work, and he is not at his ease, moreover. One social worker who attempted such an interview with a man who ran an elevator found every few sentences interrupted by the elevator bell.

The head of a department for mothers and infants in a children's organization, recognizing that it would be a mistake to communicate with a father through the unmarried mother of his child, always writes to the man, instead of sending him a message. She includes in her letter the statement that so-and-so has been to see her and told her something of their situation; that, before making any plan, she wants to talk the matter over with him; ending by saying that she will gladly meet him at her office at any hour that suits his convenience. This worker believes that men prefer to discuss all matters of business away from their own homes. In a given twelve months she wrote 25 such letters to the fathers of illegitimate children. Ten called at her office in response; seven responded by letter and four of these were seen later, though not at the office; the remaining eight did not reply.

3. The Unmarried Father. Efforts, such as the foregoing, to deal in illegitimacy cases with the father quite as directly as with the mother and child, and to do this out of court in the first instance, are further illustrated by the following case notes:

A children's society was puzzled as to whether it should urge marriage between the father and mother of a small baby. A clergyman and other references thought the young fellow careless and self-indulgent, and all the evidence seemed to be against the marriage. Not quite satisfied, however, the children's worker decided to try the experiment of having the man confronted with his own child. He proved to be one of the few fathers of illegitimate children who had, in her experience, shown an interest in their babies. His was at once an almost maternal devotion. So marked was this feeling that she encouraged the marriage. The home was happy and prosperous.

A girl with a young baby applied to this same children's society to secure support from her deserting husband. The man's relatives claimed that he had not seen his wife for three years and was not the father of her baby. The evidence narrowed

down to the conflicting statements of the two sets of relatives (his and hers) and both were of unestablished reliability. Finally a meeting was arranged between man and wife in the presence of the agent, and he acknowledged his parenthood.

A charity organization society was asked by a hospital to befriend an unmarried mother of twenty with a two-weeks-old baby. She named, as father of the child, a young fellow who had come from a refined home. He was not in the city and wrote to his mother denying everything. An interview arranged between the mother and the young girl convinced the older woman that the girl was telling the truth. This did not lead to marriage, but to weekly payments toward the support of the child. From the community's standpoint it is quite as important to deal with the unmarried father as with the unmarried mother.

4. The Young Couple. That the wife and one or two babies of a young, able-bodied man should, in ordinary times, need any social service that involves material relief also is a situation which demands the closest scrutiny. To discover all the reasons for the trouble, if possible, and deal with them one by one is more difficult than to give temporary help, but an irresponsible interference with their affairs is worse than none. Notes on the recorded treatment of two young couples by a charity organization society are as follows:

Italian couple, both twenty-three, with children four, two, and one just born Non-supporting. The first interview and succeeding investigations do not bring out clearly when the man began to be neglectful; whether he had exhibited the same traits before marriage; if they first appeared after marriage, under what circumstances; and what or who was the exciting cause. There should have been a much more searching inquiry among other relatives and old employers, and possibly friends of both before their marriage. Here is a pauper family in the making. It is either hopeful or otherwise. We do not know the woman's real character at all. We do not know how far back the man's present slackness goes. If everything points to absolute degeneracy on his part, far greater influence (through relatives and others) should be used to break up the family. If not, then the case is still left in the air, because no further treatment has been provided.

This is the case of a deserter from the Navy with a young wife (epileptic) and a two-and-a-half-year-old child. A quite compact, satisfactory investigation, with a good chronologically arranged first statement. A very satisfactory use of six sources of information, though there are reasons why the second relative should have been seen also. But with the return of the man in February, the summary closing of the case on February 15 was not wise. The man is inclined to be lazy, he has a very loving wife who is liable to "baby" him a good deal on account of what she will consider the hard time that he has been through. The wife has been put into a janitress's position (only rent free and $1.00). The wisdom of having