View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
CHI LDREN' S BUREAU

.

.

.

PUBLI CATI ON No. 193

THE CHILD, THE FAMILY,
AND THE COURT
GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1

&j|p9 Bpi

1 V

V

IT

To Mprhamcal College oi

cuttdtal & Mecnanu-m

CoUeg*


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Station. Texas.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
FRANCES PERKINS, Secretary

CHILDREN’S BUREAU
GRACE ABBOTT. Chief

THE CHILD, THE FAMILY
AND THE COURT
A STUDY OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
IN THE FIELD OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BY

BERNARD FLEXNER, REUBEN OPPENHEIMER.
and KATHARINE F. LENROOT

Bureau Publication No. 193
(Revised edition)

UNITED STATES
GOVERNM ENT PRINTIN G OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1933

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D , C.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Price 10 cents


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CONTENTS
P age

Letter of transmittal. _ ________________________________________________
Introduction.
----- .------------ - — _ — --------------------------------- ---------------Changing conceptions of the function of law and the administration
of justice____________________________
Social jurisprudence------- ---------------------------------- 1— --------------Cities and the law----------------------------- I--------------- ------------------Overlapping jurisdiction----------- .----------- --------------------------------- A new judicial technique_____________ __________________ _____
New courts________________________ i|||------ ------ 1 - - — : - - -------Purpose and method of study_________________ t --------- — --------------The substantive law of domestic relations---------------------------------------------Husband and wife------------------------------------------------Parent and child---------------------- ----------------------- :— - ------------ -I---------Guardian and ward----------------------------------------------Specialized courts dealing with family problems------------ ------ ------ ----------The juvenile court------------------------------------- ------------- y?-------------------The family court or court of domestic relations------------------------------History___________ ____________--=-------- ------------------------------- Extent of the family-court movement--------------------------------------Fundamental problems involved--------------------------------------Procedural changes in specialized courts--------------- M -----------------------------Conservatism in legal procedure----------------------------------------------------Examples of the new procedure__________________________ __________
The law in action_______________ _______________ — ----------------------Function of the law in family problems------------------------------------------------The limits of effective legal action------- ------------------- ----------------------Enforcement of the law of domestic relations---------------------------------Interrelation of juvenile and family-court cases------------------------------------ Early studies of overlapping-------------------------— * - - ------ ---------------Study of families dealt with in juvenile and domestic-relations cases
in Hamilton County, Ohio, and Philadelphia, Pa-------------------------Volume of cases________________________________________ ______
Interrelation of cases________________________ ________________ _
Social agencies dealing with the families--------------------------------Characteristics of the families--------------- - - -------- -------- ¡MS----------Present judicial organization for dealing with juvenile and family cases-_
Court systems having jurisdiction over cases included in the stu dy-Jurisdiction in delinquency and dependency cases-------------- - y - -------Jurisdiction in other juvenile and family cases--------------------------------Possibilities of consolidating jurisdiction. _ J ------_---------------------------Family courts and courts of domestic relations in action------------------------Consolidation of jurisdiction------------------------------Jurisdiction conferred by law or rule of cou rt- ------------ - — —
Jurisdiction exercised in p ra ctice.---------- __1----------- — ----------Extension of accepted standards of juvenile-court organization and
procedure______________________________________________
The judge---------- -------------------------------------------- —
------ -—
The probation staff----L _------------ |||||fg---------------* ----------------Precourt work and investigation of cases---------------------------------Hearings and orders_________________________- — ------------------Probationary supervision_________________________
Record system___________________ _ — - - - - - ---------------------------Extent of courts’ conformity to standards--------------------------------Effect of family-court organization on juvenile-court work--------------h i


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

v
1
1
1
2
3
4.
4
5
8
8
9
12
12
13
13
15

17
18
18
18
19
23
23
24
25
25
26
27
27
27
28
30
30
31
32
32
34
34
34
35
38
38
39
42
44
45
47
48
49

CONTENTS

IV

P age

Fundamental considerations in the extension of the new judicial tech­
nique_____________________________ •------------------------------------------------- Safeguarding the juvenile court and consolidating the gains made__
Flexibility of program----------------------------Adequacy of personnel____________________________ t-----------------------Utilization and stimulation of community resources------------------------Research and the development of scientific methods----------------------Application of the new technique to specified types of cases------------------Offenses against children___________________________________________
Nonsupport and desertion_________________________________________
Establishment of paternity and enforcement of support of children
born out of wedlock ________
—
Divorce and annulment of marriage________________________
General considerations_______________________________ _
Alimony___________________________________________________ —
Custody of children----------------------------Jurisdiction________________________
—
Adoption and guardianship________________________________
Commitment of mentally defective and insane children-------------------Public aid to dependent children in their own homes---- -----------------Conclusions__________________ i------------------------------- ^ — -----------------------Appendix A.— Family courts and courts of domestic relations in the
United States-------------Appendix B.— Study of families dealt with in juvenile and domestic-rela­
tions cases in Hamilton County, Ohio, and Philadelphia, Pa------------ -

V


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

51
51
52
53
53
54
55
55
57
58
59
59
60
60
60
62
62
63
64
67
71

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
U nited States D epartment of L abor,
C hildren’ s B ureau ,

,

Washington D. C., June 5, 1983.
M adam: There is transmitted herewith a reprint, with certain

additional material, of a report on The Child, the Family, and the
Court; a Study of the Administration of Justice in the Field of
Domestic Relations. This report, first published in 1929 as Part I,
General Findings and Recommendations, is based upon legal research
and field observations and was written by Bernard Flexner and
Reuben Oppenheimer, lawyers who have devoted much study to the
problems of juvenile and family courts, and Katharine F. Lenroot, of
the Children’s Bureau.
Descriptive material concerning 26 courts with special organization
for dealing with family cases constitutes the supporting data for the
section of this report entitled “ Family Courts and Courts of Domestic
Relations in Action ” (p. 34). Publication of this material, together
with a statistical study of families dealt with in juvenile and domesticrelations cases in Hamilton County, Ohio, and Philadelphia, Pa., now
being included as Appendix B of this report, has been greatly delayed,
first because of pressure of emergency work and second because of
limitation of printing funds. A few copies of the report describing the
individual courts are available in manuscript form for loan to students
of family-court problems. The list of references included as Appendix
B in the first edition has been revised and is being mimeographed.
Although great diversity is found in the organization and adminis­
tration of juvenile courts, there is fairly general agreement among
specialists regarding the broad principles which should, govern their
jurisdiction and procedure. No such condition prevails with refer­
ence to so-called family courts or courts of domestic relations, although
the need for development of constructive service to families coming
to the attention of the courts because of domestic difficulties is more
widely recognized each year. Proposals for legislation often lack an
adequate basis of information concerning the operation of existing
court systems and the legal framework and social setting in which
the new courts must find their place. The study was undertaken in
the hope that it might help to meet this need.
Throughout the study the domestic relations court committee of
the National Probation Association, the National Association of Legal
Aid Organizations, and the National Desertion Bureau have been
consulted. The report was read in manuscript by the following
judges or former judges of juvenile or family courts: Hon. L. B. Day
(Omaha), Hon. Charles W. Hoffman (Cincinnati), Hon. Paul W.
Guilford and Hon. Edward F. Waite (Minneapolis), Hon. Samuel O.
Murphy (Birmingham), Hon. James Hoge Ricks (Richmond); and


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

VI

LETTER OP TRANSMITTAL

by the following probation officers: Mary E. McChristie, referee and
supervisor, delinquent girls’ department, court of domestic relations,
Cincinnati; Fred R. Johnson, recorder’s court, Detroit; and Patrick
J. Shelly, magistrates’ courts, New York City. Prof. Felix Frank­
furter and the late Prof. Ernst Freund, of the law schools of Harvard
University and the University of Chicago; Dr. Sheldon Glueck, de­
partment of social ethics, Harvard University; Charles L. Chute,
general secretary, National Probation Association; John S. Bradway,
secretary, the National Association of Legal Aid Organizations;
Charles Zunser, secretary, National Desertion Bureau; Judge W.
Bruce Cobb, secretary, courts committee, Brooklyn Bureau of
Charities; and Frank E. Wade, attorney and former member of the
New York State Probation Commission, Buffalo, also read the
manuscript.
The bureau is deeply indebted to these authorities for their careful
consideration of the report and their valuable criticisms. The sug­
gestions made were considered by a small group called together by the
National Probation Association, April 25, 1928, and certain of them
have been incorporated in the report. The principal conclusions were
presented at the annual conference of the National Probation Asso­
ciation held in Memphis, April 30 to May 2, 1928, and were indorsed
in resolutions adopted by the association.
Since the publication of the first edition of the report the domesticrelations court of Multnomah County, Oreg., has been reorganized
and given much broader jurisdiction; a state-wide domestic relations
court act has been enacted in New Jersey; a court with juvenile and
domestic-relations jurisdiction has been established for Mecklenburg
County, N. C., and authorized for Forsyth County in the same State;
and by a law just passed in New York State the New York City
children’s court and the domestic-relations work of the magistrates’
courts have been combined into a family court of juvenile and limited
adult jurisdiction. The tabulation in Appendix A of family courts
and courts of domestic relations in the United States of which the
Children’s Bureau has information has been revised, and elsewhere
in the text certain references have been made to recent developments.
Although administrative changes— for the most part improvements—
in personnel and methods have been made in some of the courts, they
have not been so general nor so substantial as greatly to affect the
general findings presented in 1929.
Respectfully submitted.
G race A bbott, Chief.
Hon. F rances P erkins,
Secretary of Labor.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE CHILD, THE FAMILY, AND THE COURT
INTRODUCTION
CHANGING CONCEPTIONS OF THE FUNCTION OF LAW AND THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

A deep and general interest has developed during recent years in
the operation of law where it impinges upon the problems of family
life. Court systems and processes have been studied and seriously
criticized in relation to the treatment of such questions as the delin­
quency and dependency of children, offenses against children, desertion
and nonsupport, divorce, annulment of marriage, the establishment of
paternity, and adoption and custody. In the consideration of problems
such as these all society is vitally interested. What is the function
of law in their treatment? How is it endeavoring to perform its
function? What steps shall be taken to remedy such deficiencies as
exist?
A number of elements unite to make these questions of peculiar
importance in the United States at the present time: (1) Legal the­
ory is entering a new stage of development, the era of “ sociological,”
or “ social,” jurisprudence, in which it will consider more than ever
before the realization of human interests. (2) There is a growing
pressure from the cities for organization of justice and improvement
of legal procedure to meet the exigencies of urban development. (3)
The jurisdictions of the courts overlap, and different judges pass
upon different angles of what is really one problem of family life. (4)
A new judicial technique is developing, in which the courts rely in
large part upon such nonlegal sciences as medicine and psychology.
(5) The last quarter century has witnessed the establishment of a
number of special and in many respects novel tribunals, including
particularly juvenile courts and courts of domestic relations.
S O C IA L J U R IS P R U D E N C E

Before the beginning of the present century legal thinkers began
to realize that too much of a gap existed between the methods of
jurisprudence and those of other social sciences. There was a
reaction from the schools of legal thought represented by Maine and
Austin,1which regarded law from either the standpoint of history or
that of logical analysis. Law, it was felt, must be oriented to life.
The point of view of both bench and bar was too narrow, as was
pointed out by Mr. Justice Holmes when he was a member of the
Supreme Court of Massachusetts:
I think that the judges themselves have failed adequately to recognize their
duty of weighing considerations of social advantage. The duty is inevitable,
and the result of the often proclaimed judicial aversion to deal with such
iSee Ancient Law; Its Connection with Early H istory of Society and Its Relation to M odern Ideas,
by Henry James Sumner M aine (1822-1888) (Henry Holt- & C o., N ew York, 1907), and Lectures
pp Jurisprudence, by John Austin (J790-1859) (Soney & Sage, Newark, N . J.).

1

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

considerations is simply to leave the very ground and foundation of judgments
inarticulate and often unconscious, as I have said. When socialism first began
to be talked about the comfortable classes of the community were a good deal
frightened. I suspect that this fear has influenced judicial action both here and
in England, yet it is certain that it is not a conscious factor in the decisions to
which I refer. I think that something similar has led people who no longer
hope to control the legislatures to look to the courts as expounders of the
constitutions and that in some courts new principles have been discovered out­
side the bodies of those instruments, which may be generalized into acceptance
of the economic doctrines which prevailed about 50 years ago and a wholesale
prohibition of what a tribunal of lawyers does not think about right. I can not
but believe that if the training of lawyers led them habitually to consider more
definitely and explicitly the social advantage on which the rule they lay down
must be justified, they sometimes would hesitate where now they are confident
and see that really they were taking sides upon debatable and often burning
questions.2

The efficiency of the law is being more and more considered not
according to the theoretical accuracy of its philosophy but in the light
of its results.
Our philosophy will tell us the proper function of law in telling us the ends
that law should endeavor to attain; but closely related to such a study is the
inquiry whether law, as it has developed in this subject or in that, does in truth
fulfill its function— is functioning well or ill. The latter inquiry is perhaps a
branch of social science calling for a survey of social facts rather than a branch
of philosophy itself, yet the two subjects converge, and one will seldom be fruit­
ful unless supplemented by the other. “ Consequences can not alter statutes
but may help to fix their meaning.” We test the rule by its results.8

The purpose of “ sociological jurisprudence” is succinctly stated by
its foremost expounder, Dean Pound, of the Harvard Law School:
“ The main problem to which sociological jurists are addressing them­
selves to-day is to enable and to compel lawmaking, and also inter­
pretation and application of legal rules, to take more account, and
more intelligent account, of the social facts upon which law must
proceed and to which it is to be applied.” 4
C I T IE S A N D T H E L A W

This new point of view has made it apparent that, while the sub­
stantive doctrines of the common law and the court systems of the
United States, are the product of the late eighteenth and early nine­
teenth centuries, the rise of cities and the decided urban trend present
new and acute problems with which the judges of a century ago were
not confronted. It is indeed true that “ our largest city now con­
tains in 326 square miles a larger and infinitely more varied popu­
lation than the whole 13 States when the Federal judicial organization,
which has so generally served as a model, was adopted.” 6 A recent
report states:
When the latest census figures were published we xearned that for the first
time in our history the population of the United States had become predomi­
nantly urban. By 1920 more than half of our people had become dwellers in
cities, and this development proceeds apace with no sign of abating. From
1790 to 1800, while the structural framework of our present legal system was
being securely laid, there were only six cities or towns that could boast of more
3Holmes. Oliver Wendell: T he Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review, vol. 10, N o. 8 (M a r. 25, 1897)
pp. 467-468.
3Cardozo, Benjamin Nathan: The Growth of the Law, p. 112. Vale University Press, New Haven.
1924.
* Pound, Roseoe: Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence. Harvard Law Review, vol. 25, No.
8 (April, 1912), pp. 512-513.
5Pound, Roseoe: The Administration of Justice in the M odern City. Harvard L aw Review, vo l.26.
$io,4 (February, 1913), p. 3Q3,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

INTRODUCTION

3

than 8,000 inhabitants, and their aggregate population was only 4 per cent of
the total population of the country. The most recent census statistics reveal
that American civilization, taken as a .whole, has definitely passed from the
simpler conditions of agricultural and frontier life to the complex, intricate, and
more ruthless conditions of an industrialized society.8

It has been pointed out in this same report that in 1918 there were
about 37,500,000 people in the United States with incomes from any
source whatever, of whom more than 20,250,000 had incomes of less
than $1,200 a year; and the authors question whether many of these
20,250,000 are able to avail themselves of those equal rights before
the law which are the proudest boast of American liberty. Three
factors are specified that “ impede the even course of justice when its
protection is sought by a wage earner or by any person of small
means” — delay, the expense involved in the payment of court costs
and fees, and the necessity of employing lawyers.7 T7illiam Howard
Taft, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, has said:
I think that we shall have to come, and ought to come, to the creation in
every criminal court of the office of public defender, and that he should be paid
out of the treasury of the county or the State. I think, too, that there should
be a department in every large city, and probably in the State, which shall be
sufficiently equipped to offer legal advice and legal service in suits and defenses
in all civil cases, but especially in small-claims courts, in courts of domestic
relations, and in other forums of the plain people.8

The general realization of the significance of this urban development
in relation to the problems of the law is shown by still another highly
important recent study: In January, 1921, the Cleveland Foundation
committee authorized a survey of criminal justice in that city. The
report of the survey, which was in charge of Dean Roscoe Pound and
Mr. Felix Frankfurter, professor of administrative law, both of the
Harvard Law School, shows the deficiencies of the administration of
criminal law in a typical large American city.9 In his summary Dean
Pound points out the following problems for solution: Reshaping of
the substantive criminal law, organization of the administration of
justice, unification of courts, organization of the prosecuting system,
organization of administrative agencies, adequate provision for petty
prosecutions, preventive methods, justice in family relations, and the
unshackling of administration.
O V E R L A P P I N G J U R I S D I C T IO N

It has been charged repeatedly in recent years that the courts,
particularly in the larger cities, are doing piecemeal justice in the
domain of domestic relations. The arraignment has been phrased
by Dean Pound as follows:
Two signal cases of waste of judicial power, the multiplicity of independent
tribunals, and the vicious practice of rapid rotation which prevails in the great
majority of jurisdictions, whereby no one judge acquires a thorough experience
of anjr one class of business, may only be noticed. .As an example of the possi­
bilities of the first it has been observed that in Chicago to-day, at one and the
same time, the juvenile court, passing on the delinquent children; a court of
equity, entertaining a suit for divorce, alimony, and the custody of children;
8Growth of Legal A id W ork in the United States, b y Reginald Heber Smith, of the Boston bar, and
John S. Bradway, of the Philadelphia bar, with preface by W illiam Howard Taft, Chief Justice, United
States Supreme Court, p. 1. U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin N o. 398. Washington, 1926.
’ Ibid., pp. 7,16-17.
•Ibid., p . iv.
•Criminal Justice in Cleveland; Reports of the Cleveland Foundation Surveyor the Administration
of Criminal Justice in Cleveland, Ohio. Directed and edited b y Roscoe Pound and Felix Frankfurter.
Cleveland Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, 1922.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4

TH E CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND TH E COURT

a court of law, entertaining an action for necessaries furnished an abondoned
wife by a grocer; and the criminal court or domestic-relations court, in a prose­
cution for desertion of wife and child— may all be-dealing piecemeal at the same
time with different phases of the same difficulties of the same family.10
A N E W J U D IC IA L T E C H N IQ U E

The technique worked out by the common law for the attainment
of justice in court is based upon the presentation of the evidence and
argument by opposing attorneys before a judge who decides each
case according to established principles on the legally admissible
evidence of the witnesses. To-day in a juvenile court or a court of
domestic relations much of the evidence is taken outside the court by
court officials, and it is based in great part on medicine, psychiatry,
and the impressions of trained observers. There may be no lawyers—
the judge represents both parties and the law. In a juvenile-court
proceeding the prosecuting officer as a general rule has no place, and
in the domestic-relations court he often acts as a friend of the accused.
Social environment is given consideration. The probation officer
occupies a position of great importance, furnishing “ an impartial
investigating service.” 11 These are not the methods of the old com­
mon law; they are the instruments forged by a jurisprudence which
realizes that law, like medicine, is social engineering.
NEW COURTS

With the development of a new legal technique has come the estab­
lishment of new tribunals. Courts of small claims and municipal
courts have swept away certain of the formalities of common-law
pleading. Workmen’s compensation commissions not only are based
upon a legislative departure from common-law principles of master
and servant but are working out a procedure as flexible as their con­
ception is sound. Public-service commissions have accustomed the
public to decisions affecting the fundamentals of modern existence
based upon broad economic policies rather than legal precedents.
Juvenile courts represent a growth in legal theory rather than a depar­
ture from it; but their methods in dealing with children are for the
most part unknown to common-law procedure or to chancery pro­
cedure.12 Courts of domestic relations already exist in a number of
cities and deal in various degrees with problems of family life that
come to the attention of judicial agencies.
The existence of these courts, particularly of the juvenile and
domestic-relations courts, has heightened public interest in the prob­
lems with which they deal. Dicey has pointed out that—
Laws foster or create law-making opinion. This assertion may sound, to one
who has learned that laws are the outcome of public opinion, like a paradox;
when properly understood it is nothing but an undeniable though sometimes
neglected truth * * *. .Every law or rule of conduct must, whether its
author perceives the fact or not, lay down or rest upon some general principle,
and must, therefore, if it succeeds in attaining its end, commend this principle to
public attention or imitation, and thus affect legislative opinion.13
io Pound, Roscoe: The Administration of Justice in the M odern City. Harvard Law Review, vol. 26,
No. 4 (February, 1913), p. 313.
u Eliot, Thomas D .: The Juvenile Court and the Educational System. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, vol 14, No. 1 (M ay, 1923), p p . 25-45.
i* See The Legal Aspect of the Juvenile Court, b y Bernard Flexner and Reuben Op nenheimer, p. 21
(U. S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o. 99, Washington, 1922).
» D ic e y , Albert Venn: Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during
the Nineteenth Century (second edition), p. 41. Macmillan C o., N ew York, 1914.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

INTRODUCTION

5

A study of the operation of the law upon the problems of human
relationship must, it is obvious, be pragmatic, entered into without
preconceived theories and based upon factual observation. The
problems of family life run through the substantive law, as they run
through all society. If a study of their treatment by the law meets
the same difficulty that is encountered in the writing of history,
which Maitland compared to tearing a seamless web,14it is also true
that tearing the web of law is likely to produce a cross section of
the interrelations between the workings of justice and the life of the
community. Finally, in a study of the efficiency of judicial agencies
it is necessary to keep in mind the demarcations of the field in which
the law can hope to operate efficiently.
PURPOSE AND M ETH OD OF STUDY

As the field of the Children’s Bureau is naturally limited to
questions affecting the welfare of children, and as the primary
concern of the public in family relationships is the care and protec­
tion of children, this study has been planned to cover those cases—
and only those cases— in which the status or welfare of children is
necessarily and primarily affected,15including the following:
1. Children’s cases covered by juvenile-court laws,
including cases of delinquent, dependent, and neglected
children. ,
2. Offenses against children, including contributing to
delinquency and dependency and specified crimes against
children.
3. Cases of desertion and nonsupport of children.
4. Cases of divorce and separate maintenance when
children are involved.
5. Proceedings for the establishment of paternity and
the enforcement of support of children born out of
wedlock.
6. Children’s cases usually within the jurisdiction
of the probate courts, including adoption, guardianship of
the person, and commitment of mentally defective and
insane children.
This classification corresponds closely to that proposed by a com­
mittee of the National Probation Association in 1917 as the jurisdic­
tion that should be vested in family courts, except that the committee
report recommended the inclusion of cases of divorce and of desertion
and nonsupport where wives only were involved. (See p. 15.) In
most of the States jurisdiction over these classes of cases is greatly
divided at the present time, and in many of them the same class of
case may be handled by a number of different courts.
The aim of this study is to show: (1) The place of specialized
family courts in the juridical structure; (2) the development of
specialized courts dealing with juvenile and family problems; (3) the
*
- '~
••* ’ •|pî
’ :
:---|
—.
14“ Such is the unity of all history that anyone who endeavors to tell a piece of it must feel that his first
sentence tears a seamless w eb .” Pollock, Frederick, and Frederick W illiam Maitland: T he History of
English Law Before the Tim e of Edward I tsecond edition), vol. 1, p. 1. Little, Brown & C o., Boston,
1899.
u Excluding child-labor cases, in which the action is usually against the employer.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

6

TH E CHILD, TH E FAM ILY, AND TH E COURT

present judicial organization for dealing with these problems; (4)
the proportion of cases of delinquency and dependency which also
involve cases of other types (for example, problems of nonsupport or
desertion); (5) the organization and methods of work of courts espe­
cially established to deal with the cases included in the study and
the extent to which they are equipped to give constructive social
service; and in the light of these facts to determine the general out­
lines of a program for more effective judicial organization in this field.
In order to obtain information concerning statutory provisions
relating to jurisdiction and procedure, a compilation was made of
pertinent sections of the laws of each State and Territory under the
headings suggested by the list of types of cases, with additional
general material concerning jurisdictional provisions, probation and
parole, and compensation to prisoners. For subjects covered by
existing compilations or summaries only brief summaries of the most
essential points were prepared. The laws were then summarized
State by State, according to the same outline as that used in the com­
pilation. This material furnished basic information for the studies
of court systems in selected communities and was also used in the
preparation of a chart, which has been published separately,16showing
for each State the courts having jurisdiction over cases covered by
the study.
Statistical studies of families dealt with in juvenile and domesticrelations cases were made by the Children’s Bureau in Hamilton
County, Ohio, and in Philadelphia, that in the latter city being made
in cooperation with the statistical department of the Philadelphia
municipal court. These communities were selected because the
organization and record systems of the courts dealing with the major­
ity of family and children’s cases made such information relatively
easy to obtain and because in Philadelphia valuable assistance was
offered by the statistical department of the court.
The descriptive material regarding courts with special organization
for dealing with family cases was obtained by visits to nearly all these
courts.17 The first visits were made in the fall of 1923 and the last
in June, 1927. Data concerning the courts first studied have been
supplemented through later visits or through correspondence and
study of their annual reports. Because of the limitations of the in­
quiry it was possible to make only comparatively brief visits to the
courts. Thorough study of the case work done was not attempted,
but information was obtained for each court concerning jurisdiction,
personnel (including method of appointment, salaries, qualifications,
assignment of work, volume of work of individual officers), methods
i« Analysis and Tabular Summary of State Laws Relating to Jurisdiction in Children’s Cases and Cases
of Dom estic Relations in the United States, b y Freda Ring Lym an. U. S. Children’s Bureau Chart N o.
17. Washington, 1930. (Exhausted. Available only in libraries.)
'7 Information was obtained concerning 26 courts in the following cities and counties: (1) Four family
courts with juvenile and broad adult jurisdiction: Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Mahoning County
(Youngstown), M ontgomery County (D ayton), Summit County (Akron), Ohio. (2) Five family courts
with juvenile and limited adult jurisdiction: Jefferson C cunty (Birmingham), Ala.; M ultnom ah County
(Portland), Oreg.; Norfolk, Va.; Richm ond, Va.; St. Louis; M o. (3) Five domestic-relations courts with­
out juvenile jurisdiction: Boston, Mass.; Buffalo, N . Y .; Chicago, 111.; N ew York City; Newark, N . J.
(4) Eight juvenile courts with broad jurisdiction: District of Columbia; Denver, Colo.; Dutchess C cunty,
N . Y .; Essex County (Newark), N . J.; Hudson CountylJersey C ity), N . J.; Marion County (Indianapolis),
Ind.; New York City; Rockland County, N . Y . (5) Four municipal and district courts that have juvenile
and domestic-relations jurisdiction and special organization for domestic-relations work: Douglas County,
(Omaha), Nebr.; Polk County (Des M oines), Iowa; Philadelphia, Pa.; Springfield, Mass. (B y 1929 legis­
lation the court of M ultnom ah County, Oreg., now belongs in the first group and the N ew Jersey courts
belong in the second group.)


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

INTRODUCTION

7

of receiving complaints and of adjusting cases without court hearing,
methods of investigation, hearings, court orders, probation, and other
follow-up work.
. ,
.
; , ,,
The present report gives a general view ol the legal aspects oi tne
subject, of the efforts made to provide methods of organization and
treatment adapted to modern conditions, and of the degree of success
attained, together with suggestions as to the general principles that
should govern the establishment of new courts or the reorganization
of existing courts.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Blackstone, writing in the middle of the eighteenth century,
declared that there are three great relations in private life: Master
and servant, husband and wife, and parent and child. To these he
added the legally created relation of guardian and ward. The indus­
trial revolution has changed in large part the relation of master and
servant to one of employer and employee and thus removed this
contact from the field of domestic relations; otherwise Blackstone
classification is still generally followed.
It is impossible even to outline in a few pages all the doctrines
that constitute the law of domestic relations.1 Courts are only the
medium through which law is put in force. Changes in procedure,
however radical and far-reaching, are changes only in the way legal
principles are administered. It is advisable before considering courts
and procedure dealing with the law of domestic relations to consider
briefly some of the doctrines of the law itself.

HUSBAND AND WIFE

The creation of the marital relation requires, first, a valid contract
between the parties; this implies that they are able to understand
and that they do understand what they are doing. Second, they
must be persons whom the law permits to enter the marital status;
they must be physically competent and of proper age, and there
must be no bar of consanguinity or race. Third, they must enter
the status in the manner provided by law; in almost all the States
there must be a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony and the
giving of public notice or the issuance of a license, as may be required
by the particular jurisdiction.
In the United States the various requirements and disqualifications
are generally fixed by statute and vary in the different States, so
that cases for the annulment of marriage often involve questions of
conflict of State laws. As to questions of contractual capacity the
law of the State where the ceremony was performed is generally held
to govern; but if the laws of the State in which one or both of the
parties were domiciled at the time of the, marriage prohibit it on
some ground of public policy, the marriage is generally held invalid
even though it was valid in the State in which the ceremony took
place.
*
The rights conferred by the marital relation at common law have
been considerably altered by statutes. It is no longer true, as it
was in Blackstone s day, that a the very being or legal existence of
'F o r good textbook discussions see A Treatise on the Law of Marriage, Divorce. SeDaration and
C o me|]banv aN ° v ’
Si*th ETd ition. by Arthur W . Blakemore (M atthew Bender &
mN* ^
Jf/f 1921), Handbook on the Law of Persons and Dom estic Relations bv Walter n
? ’dany> Third Edition b y Roger W Cooley (W est Publishing Co., St. Paul, M inn., 1921); Cases on the
P h iL ™ ^oo«\DS a“ d Doinesti? Relations,-by W illiam Edward M cC u rd y, vol. 1 (Callaghan & Co
g th Paul M in n a° 9 2 « aSeS ° n Domestlc Relations, by Joseph Warren M adden (W est Publishing C o ,’

8

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE SUBSTANTIVE LA W OE DOMESTIC RELATIONS

9

the woman is suspended during the marriage.” At common law
and under many of the statutes the husband is under the legal duty
to support and maintain his wife according to his station in life and
to his means. He is not relieved from this liability because the wife
has separate means. In most States the statutes give a wife who
has been deserted by her husband or who is living apart from him.
because of his fault the right to bring a civil action for maintenance.
In many States, likewise, for a husband to leave his wife without
means of support is made a criminal offense.
With certain exceptions, sometimes recognized when the wife leaves
the husband because of his fault, the domicile of the wife merges
with that of the husband and changes with his.
The rights of husband and wife in each other’s property during
life and the rights of one at the other’s death, the validity and effect
of prenuptial and postnuptial settlements, the rights of husband and.
wife to contract, as affected by marriage, though fixed by the com­
mon law, have all been greatly modified by statute. In general,
disabilities of married women have been removed; they can contract
freely in their own interest, and can own, acquire, use, and enjoy
property of their own. A number of States have the institution of
“ community property” derived from Spanish law, in which, espe­
cially with respect to property acquired after marriage, husband and
wife are treated as a property-owning entity.
Divorce is of two kinds: Divorce a mensa et thoro, which suspends
the effect of marriage so far as cohabitation is concerned, and divorce
a vinculo, which dissolves the marriage. Whether or not divorce is
to be allowed, and if it is, upon what grounds, are determined by
the laws of each State.
PARENT AND CHILD

A child is legitimate at common law when he was born or begotten
during the lawful marriage of his parents. Statutes in this country
generally make a child legitimate also when his parents marry sub­
sequently to his birth. As a general rule the legitimacy or illegiti­
macy of a child is determined by the law of his parents’ domicile at
the time of birth.
.
Adoption was unknown to the common law but is. generally recog­
nized in the United States by statute^ In general the consent of the
parents of the child or of the surviving parent must be had to an
adoption, unless they have abandoned the child or have forfeited the
right to custody. Judicial proceedings are generally necessary for
adoption. With few exceptions adoption places the parties in the
legal relation of parent and child.
The rights of children to inherit from their parents vary accord­
ing to the statutes of each State. There is usually a distinction
between the rights of legitimate and of illegitimate children.
Whereas at common law it was occasionally held that a parent is
under no legal obligation to support his children, the obligation to
support minor children is now generally imposed upon the parent,
either by the common law or by statute. In most States failure of
the parent to support his minor children is made a criminal offense.
By the weight of authority the obligation of the parents to support
their children is not affected by divorce.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

10

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

A father was under no legal obligation to support his illegitimate
children at common law, but to-day he is generally chargeable with
their maintenance by statute. In most States the mother has a
statute remedy to enforce support from the father; this remedy is
generally known as “ bastardy proceedings,” though the tendency is to
substitute the term illegitimacy proceedings ” or “ proceedings for
the establishment of paternity.”
^ Parent is under the legal duty to protect his children and gener­
ally has the right to their services and earnings. But the common
law recognizes no legal obligation of the father to educate them.
The custody of children belonged under common law to the father,
and upon his death it belonged to the mother. To-day statutes
usually give the juvenile courts jurisdiction to remove children from
their parents custody when the unfitness of the children’s surroundmgs is clearly apparent. Such statutes represent growth in commonlaw doctrines rather than a departure, from them,2 and their consti­
tutionality has been almost uniformly upheld. Juvenile-court statutes
also give the courts power to remove delinquent children from the
custody of their parents.
In case of divorce the custody of the children is determined accord­
ing to the circumstances of each case and may be changed from time
to time by decree.
The domicile of a legitimate child is that of his father, at least
before he is emancipated; the domicile of an illegitimate child is
usually that of his mother.3 Upon divorce the parent to whom the
child is awarded has the-power to fix the child’s domicile. Under the
doctrine that the sovereign through his proper court is the protector
of every person within his jurisdiction who needs protection, it has
been held that a court may take away a foreign child from his parent
or proper domiciliary guardian.
Offenses against children are strictly part of the criminal law, not
of the law of domestic relations. Such offenses include not only
actual attacks and mistreatment but, under statutes, causation of or
contributing to a child’s delinquency or dependency. Statutory actions
of this kind generally lie not only against parents, guardians, or per­
sons having custody but against strangers as well. Infants have cer­
tain contractual rights and disabilities, which are sometimes treated
as part of the law of domestic relations but which are outside the
scope of this study.
. To prevent future dependency and to recognize the State’s interest
m children many statutes provide for pecuniary aid to mothers who
caI1 ^3°^ suPPor^ ^heir children and whose husbands are dead, have
abandoned them, or are not in a position to aid in their children’s
support. Such aid, frequently called “ mothers’ pensions,” is in some
States under the jurisdiction of a court; in others under that of an
administrative board.
GUARDIAN AND WARD

The law often intrusts the person or the estate of an infant to a
person other than the parent. Children have always been regarded
■■
f(*
the case of Shelley v W estbrooke (Jac. 266), in which Shelley was deprived of the
custody of his children because he declared himself an atheist
y
y
ne
a In Minnesota, however,yom plaint in proceedings to establish paternity may be filed in the countv
ofthe mother s residence, that of the alleged father’s residence, or that in which the child is found if he is
likely to become a public charge upon the county. (Gen. Stat. 1923, sec. 3261.)


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

11

as the wards of chancery, and there are early instances in which
equity acted to protect unfortunate minors even when no property
right was involved, although the early chancery jurisdiction was
generally exercised when some property interest was at stake. A
guardian is often named for children by will or deed. A court within •
whose jurisdiction the minor lives or has property may appoint a
guardian for such minor. Unlike a parent, a guardian is not enti­
tled to his ward’s services and earnings. He is a trustee, and usually
he must account from time to time for his ward’s estate to the court
which appoints him.
.. ,
, ,
Juvenile-court statutes generally provide for the commitment ol
dependent or neglected children to persons, institutions, or societies
that will give them proper care. When a child is committed to the
guardianship of an individual or an institution the proceeding is not
equivalent to an adoption but is only a police measure of the State,
affecting the incidents but not the existence of the legal status
between parent and child. Such a guardian has no rights over the
property of the child but has certain rights over his person.
< Courts are given statutory authority to appoint guardians for persons of unsound m ind and for inebriates as well as for children.
181443°—33------ 2


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SPECIALIZED COURTS DEALING WITH FAMILY
PROBLEMS
THE JUVENILE COURT

As early as 1890 children’s courts were introduced in South
Australia by ministerial order, and they were subsequently legalized
under a State act in 1895. Legislation looking to the same end was
passed in the Province of Ontario, but practically nothing was done
under it. Before this date Massachusetts, New York, and several
other American States had statutes providing for the separate hearing
of children’s cases. Adult probation had been in use in Massachusetts
for many years, but in 1899 laws were passed in Illinois and in Colo­
rado under which the first real juvenile courts in the United States
were established in Chicago and Denver.1
Since that time all the States except two— Maine and Wyoming—
have adopted legislation providing special court organization for
dealing with juvenile cases. Every city in the country with a
population of 100,000 or more has a court especially organized for
children’s work.2
What are the basic conceptions that distinguish juvenile courts
from other courts?
Children are to be dealt with separately from adults. Their cases
are to be heard at a different time and preferably in a different place.
The children are to be detained in separate buildings. If institutional
guidance is necessary they are to be committed to institutions for
children. Through its probation officers the court can keep in con­
stant touch with the children who have appeared before it. Taking
children from their parents is, when possible, to be avoided; on the
other hand, parental obligations are to be enforced. The procedure
of the court must be as informal as possible. Its purpose is not to
punish but to save. It is to deal with children not as criminals but
as persons in whose guidance and welfare the State is peculiarly
interested. Save in the cases of adults, its jurisdiction is equitable,
not criminal, in nature.3
It is probably the most remarkable fact in the history of American
jurisprudence that these conceptions were adopted almost universally
in less than 25 years. The initial battle was hard, but the victory,
so far as nominal acceptance of the fundamental ideas of the juvenile
court is concerned, has been almost complete. Legal writers, legis­
latures, lawyers, and laymen have come to recognize that the law
must differentiate in its treatment of adults and of children.
How far these conceptions have been put into successful practice
is another matter. For the present it is enough to state that they
have been proved workable. It is interesting to note, however, that
1 Flexner, Bernard, and Roger N. Baldwin: Juvenile Courts and Probation. Century Co., N ew York,
19X4.
1Lenroot, Katharine F., and Emm a O. Lundberg: Juvenile Courts at W ork; A Study of the Organiza­
tion and Methods of Ten Courts. TJ. S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o. 141. Washington, 1925. (Ex­
hausted. Available only in libraries.) In 1931 Maine passed a law extending the jurisdiction of municipal
courts over offenses committed b y children under 15 years of age and providing certain special procedure
in these cases. (Act of Apr. 3, 1931, ch. 24L Laws of 1931, p. 273.)
8See The Legal A spect of the Juvenile Court, pp. 8-9.

12

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SPECIALIZED COURTS DEALUSTG W IT H FAM ILY PROBLEMS

13

‘

their growth has been in the way of a circle. In the beginning few
doubted that the law should treat adults and infants in most respects
the same. Then it was seen that the law must provide special treat­
ment for children. To-day the vanguard of thought is recognizing
that many of the principles of socialized treatment— such as study
of the characteristics of the individual and the environment in which
he lives and constructive supervision during probation— are applicable
and should be extended gradually to the whole field of criminal jus­
tice and in part to certain questions of domestic relations now dealt
with under civil procedure. Thus, in these respects at least, adults
and infants are again treated alike.
THE FAMILY COURT OR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
H IS T O R Y

Partly as a result of the extension of the ideas underlying juvenile
courts and partly as a result of the development of probation in
criminal cases a number of new tribunals have been created. They
are referred to generally as “ courts of domestic relations” or “ family
courts.”
This movement has progressed along two different lines
which have tended to converge in the family courts of the broadest
jurisdiction.
The earliest development was the extension of the jurisdiction of
juvenile courts.
The first juvenile courts were given jurisdiction
over children’s cases only. Very early the necessity that the court
have power to deal with certain types of closely related adult cases
became apparent. Colorado enacted in 1903 special legislation making
contributing to delinquency or dependency an offense within thè jur­
isdiction of the juvenile court. Nearly all juvenile courts now have
jurisdiction over certain types of adult cases, though the nature of
this jurisdiction varies greatly from State to State. The juvenilecourt standards drafted by a committee appointed by the United
States Children’s Bureau and adopted by a conference held under
the auspices of the Children’s Bureau and of the National Probation
Association in 1923 recommended that cases of contributing to delin­
quency or dependency, nonsupport or desertion of minor children,
and determination of paternity and the support of children born
out of wedlock, as well as adoption cases and cases of children in
need of protection or custodial care by reason of mental defect or
disorder, should be brought within the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court.4
In 1910 a domestic-relations division was established in the city
court at Buffalo, under the provision in the law creating the city
court5which authorized the chief judge of this court to determine the
parts into which the court should be divided. This'domestic-relations
division had jurisdiction over all criminal business relating to domes­
tic or family affairs, including bastardy cases.6 Cases of wayward
minors between the ages of 16 and 20 years, inclusive, also were
4Juvenile Court Standards; report of the committee appointed by the Children’s Bureau, August, 1921,
to formulate juvenile-court standards, adopted b y a conference held under the auspices of the Children’s
Bureau and the National Probation A sociation, Washington, D . C „ M ay 18, 1923
U S. Children’s
Bureau Publication No. 121. Washington, 1923.
5 N. Y,, act of M ay 29, 1909, ch. 570, Laws of 1909, pp. 1654-1659.
« Jurisdiction in bastardy cases was transferred to the Brie County court by act of Apr. 15,1926, ch. 386,
Laws of 1926, p. 703, which amended ch. 14 of the Consolidated Laws as added by act of Apr. 1, 1925, ch.
255, sec. 1, Laws of 1925, p. 508.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

*14

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

assigned to this division. A larf of 1924 specifically authorized the
establishment of a domestic-relations court as part of the city court,
and equity jurisdiction as well as criminal jurisdiction was conferred
upon this court"as authorized by the constitution of New York State.7
In several cities the example of Buffalo in setting apart by law or rule
of court a division of a municipal court to deal with domestic-relations
cases, chiefly nonsupport and desertion, has been followed. In dis­
cussing this type of court Mr. Frank E. Wade, of Buffalo, for many
years a member of the New York State Probation Commission, has
said:
During the past 10 or 15 years three distinct court systems or procedures, all
related under various names and dealing exclusively with the family, have been
enacted into law in many parts of the United States. The earliest was the socalled domestic-relations court. This in the main has been an inferior criminal
court, having exclusive jurisdiction of nonsupport and assault cases between
husbands and wives. Taking family trouble out of the slime of the old police
court was at the time considered a great step forward. Many of these courts
are functioning in all parts of the United States and doing a splendid work, espe­
cially through the probation departments, in enforcing support orders.8

The Chicago court of domestic relations, a branch of the munic­
ipal court, is of the same general type as the Buffalo court. In 1921
Judge Harry A. Fisher, then a judge of the municipal court, outlined
the advantages of these courts as follows:
The advantages of having such a court are in the main the possibility of
establishing a social-service department in connection with it, which is required
to make investigation of cases and when possible to avoid bringing these matters
before the court either by effecting reconciliations or by obtaining voluntary
contributions for the support of the families, and to look after a proper collection
of the money ordered for the support of wife or child. A separate court for
these matters also develops expertness on the part of the judge who is assigned
to preside over it. It separates these cases from the other cases that are usually
brought before the criminal branches of the court, and, above all, makes it pos­
sible to treat these cases from a social point of view. The proceedings are less
formal, and the court is not limited to the trial of bare issues of fact. It is in a
position to call to its aid the numerous private social agencies which exist in the
city and which are able to help solve many domestic problems. In fact, our
court has become much more a great social agency than a court. The judicial
power is resorted to only where coercion is necessary.9

In 1914 the first family court in the United States to exercise juris- .
diction over both domestic-relations and juvenile, cases was created
in Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio, as a division of the court of
common pleas. For the first time divorce cases were brought under
the jurisdiction of a court especially organized to deal with cases
affecting child welfare and family fife. Similar courts have been
established in six other Ohio counties and in certain other c immuni­
ties, and the Cincinnati court has been regarded generally as the
pioneer in the movement for family courts as distinguished from
domestic-relation*courts with adult jurisdiction only.
The aim of the family court, in the language of Judge Charles W.
Hoffman, of the domestic-relations court of Cincinnati, Ohio, a leader
in the movement for their establishment, is provision “ for the con­
sideration of all matters relating to the family in one court of exclusive
» N . Y ., act of Apr. 25, 1924, eh. 424, Laws of 1924, p. 777, adding Art. I l l A (sec. 80) to Laws of 1909,
ch. 570, in accordance with Art. V I, sec. 18, of the constitution as amended b y concurrent resolution of
the senate (Apr. 8, 1921) and assembly (A pr. 16,1921), Laws of 1921, pp. 2534-2535. Art. V I of the con­
stitution was itself amended in 1925 (Laws of 1926, pp. 1583-1595).
8 Discussion in Proceedings of the National Probation Association, 1924, p. 191.
•Quoted in Courts of Domestic relations, by Edward F. Waite (Minnesota Law Review, vol. 5, N o.3
(February, 1921), pp. 164-165).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SPECIALIZED COURTS DEALING W IT H FAM ILY PROBLEMS

15

jurisdiction, in which the same methods of procedure shall prevail
as in the juvenile court and in which it will be possible to consider
sdcial evidence as distinguished from legal evidence. In fact, provid­
ing for a family court is no more than increasing the jurisdiction of
the juvenile court and designating it by the more comprehensive
term of family court.” 10
In 1917 a committee of the National Probation Association
recommended the establishment of family courts with jurisdiction
in the following classes of cases:
(a) Cases of desertion and nonsupport; (&) paternity cases, known also as
bastardy cases; (c) all matters arising under acts pertaining to the juvenile court
known in some States as the children’s court, and all courts, however designated
in the several States, having within their jurisdiction the care and treatment of
delinquent and dependent children and the prosecution of adults responsible for
such delinquency and dependency; (d) all matters pertaining to adoption and
guardianship of the person of children; (e) all divorce and alimony matters.11

Commenting on this report, Judge Edward F. Waite has said:
In this grouping there appear to be three underlying ideas: The interest of
the State in the conservation of childhood, the intimate interrelation of all justici­
able questions involving family life, and the need for administrative aid in the
wise solution of such questions.12
E X T E N T OF T H E F A M IL Y -C O U R T M O V E M E N T «

The terms “ family pourt” and “ court of domestic relations” (often,
used interchangeably) indicate different types of organization, includ­
ing at least the following:
1. A fam ily court of juvenile and broad adult jurisdiction, including
children's cases, cases of divorce, desertion or nonsupport, and contrib­
uting to delinquency or dependency.
The divisions of domestic relations in the courts of common pleas
of Franklin, Hamilton, Lucas, Mahoning, Montgomery, Stark, and
Summit Counties, Ohio, the domestic-relations courts of Multnomah
County, Oreg. (by law of 1929), and of Cabell County, W. Va., and
the division of domestic relations of the first circuit court of Hawaii
are examples of this type.14
2. A fam ily court of juvenile and limited adult jurisdiction, including
some of but not all the types of cases listed in paragraph 1.
The juvenile and domestic-relations courts in New Jersey (by law
of 1929) and Virginia (under state-wide systems) and in Jefferson
and Montgomery Counties, Ala., also the domestic-relations court
of Mecklenburg County, N. C. (by 1929 law), have jurisdiction over
cases of desertion and nonsupport, but these courts do not have
jurisdiction over divorce.16 The domestic-relations court of St. Louis,
Mo., on the other hand, has jurisdiction over divorce but not over
desertion and nonsupport.

»

10 Hoffman, Charles W .: Social Aspects of the Family Court. Journal of Criminal Law and Crimi­
nology, vol. 10, N o. 3 (November, 1919), pp. 409-422.
11 Proceedings of the National Probation Association, 1917, p. 85.
12 Waite, Edward F .: Courts of Dom estic Relations. Minnesota Law Review, vol. 5, N o. 3 (February,
1921), p. 167.
« See Appendix A , p. 67.
,w
u a Tennessee law of 1929 (Private Acts of 1929, ch. 675), authorized a court of this type m Hamilton
County, which, however, was held unconstitutional b y the State supreme court Dec. 15, 1930 (N ewton
v. Hamilton Co., 161 Tenn. 634; 33 Sw. (2d) 419).
u The domestic-relations court of Monongalia County, W . Va., which was established in 1923 and went
out of existence in 1929, belonged to this group (Laws of 1923, ch. 134; Laws of 1927, ch. 92). A North
Carolina law of 1931 (ch. 221) authorized such a court in Forsyth County, but it was not established by
1933.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

16

TH E CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND TH E COURT

3. A juvenile court of broad jurisdiction, not including jurisdiction
over divorce.
The outstanding example of courts of this type is that in Denver,
Colo. Its jurisdiction includes children’s cases, mothers’ aid,
adoption, contributing to delinquency or dependency, offenses
against children, desertion or nonsupport, illegitimacy (action tech­
nically under the charge of contributing to dependency), and children
whose custody is in controversy in divorce cases under a general
provision relating to cases in which custody of a child is involved.
The juvenile courts of Marion County, Ind., and of the District of
Columbia also have broad adult jurisdiction.
The New York State
children’s court act attempted to vest such jurisdiction in children’s
courts, but judicial decisions appear to have limited their jurisdiction
in adult cases.16 These are only a few of the juvenile courts that
have broad jurisdiction. In 17 States and the District of Columbia
the juvenile court has jurisdiction over cases of desertion and non-,
support; in 6 States and the District of Columbia it has jurisdiction
over proceedings for the establishment of paternity; in 24 States and
the District of Columbia it has jurisdiction over contributing to
delinquency and dependency. In some of these States only certain
juvenile courts have this jurisdiction.
4. A domestic-relations court without juvenile jurisdiction and with
adult jurisdiction over cases of desertion or nonsupport and sometimes
illegitimacy and certain offenses against children (<divorce not being
included).
The domestic-relations courts of Buffalo, Chicago, and Boston and
the family courts of New York City and Newark are of this type.
The Newark family court also has jurisdiction in morals cases; and
cases of wayward minors are assigned to the Buffalo court, which
has both equity and criminal jurisdiction.17
5. A municipal or district court with juvenile and domestic-relations
jurisdiction and special organization, by law or rule of court, fo r domesticrelations work.
Among the courts of this type are the Philadelphia municipal court
and the district court of Springfield, Mass., with separate juvenile and
domestic-relations divisions, and the district courts of Douglas
County, Nebr., and Polk County, Iowa,18 with juvenile and domesticrelations divisions. The two latter courts, but not those of Phila­
delphia or Springfield, have divorce jurisdiction. Courts of this type
may be established by rule of court without special legislation.
In this report the term “ family court” will be used in general to
indicate a court with combined juvenile and domestic-relations juris­
diction and the term “ domestic-relations court” to indicate a court
or division with jurisdiction over adult cases only. Individual courts
will generally be referred to by the term used locally.
Unified probation departments, usually serving a county, have been
established in a number of communities in which no unified family
court has been created.19 Through these departments that serve
several courts a considerable degree of coordination in the social
i« As In re Cole (212 A pp. D iv. 427; 208 N . Y . S. 753), People ». De Pue (217 A pp. D iv. 321; 2i7 N . Y.
S. 205). As to family court see C ity of New York ». Kaiser (125 Mise. 637; 210 N . Y . S. 598).
17 For provisions of a new law (1933) for New York C ity see Appendix A, p 67.
18 See Appendix A, p. 67.
19 See recommendation in Report to the Crime Commission of N ew York State of the Subcommission
on Adjustment of Sentences, b y W . Bruce Cobb, p. 30 (Albany, Feb. 28,1927).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SPECIALIZED COURTS DEALING W IT H FAM ILY PROBLEMS

17

treatment of family problems can be accomplished. Ohio has a
state-wide law authorizing the establishment of such departments at
the option of the county.20 New Jersey is organized on this basis.
The probation department of Kamsey County, Minn., serving the St.
Paul courts, is also an example of this type of coordinated service.21
Programs of county organization for social work, designed primarily
for rural communities and small cities, may make social service by a
unified county department available to all the courts. For example,
in North Carolina the county superintendent of public welfare is
responsible for the probationary supervision of both children and
adults.22
In spite of the diversity of organization indicated by these various
types of courts described, the family-court movement, as has been
shown, has gained wide recognition in the past 20 years. To sum­
marize: In addition to the many States in which the juvenile court
has more or less broad jurisdiction over domestic-relations cases, the
family court combining juvenile jurisdiction with jurisdiction over
certain types of adult cases has been established in the entire State
in New Jersey and Virginia, in seven counties in Ohio, and in one or
more communities in Alabama, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon,
West Virginia, and the Territory of Hawaii.*3
The domestic-relations court with adult jurisdiction only has been
established in parts of four States: Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jer­
sey, and New York. ‘In other States, including Iowa, Nebraska, and
Pennsylvania, and also in Massachusetts, organization for juvenile
and domestic-relations work has been developed by municipal,
district, or superior courts.
F U N D A M E N T A L P R O B L E M S IN V O L V E D

It is apparent that the family court, or court of domestic relations,
embodies two desires— first, to extend the new method of legal
treatment of certain classes of cases, best exemplified in juvenile
courts; second, to prevent duplication of jurisdiction by various
tribunals. In other words, these new courts involve a problem of
legal procedure and a problem of judicial organization.
20 Ohio, act of M ar. 24, 1925, Laws of 1925, p. 423, Cods 1930, sees. 1554-1 to 1554-5.
21 Doyle, John J., Chief Probation Officer, Ramsey County Courts, St. Paul, M inn.: The Family in
Court—A Unified Probation Staff. Proceedings of the National Probation Association, 1926, pp. 59-63.
22 See Public Child-Caring W ork in Certain Counties of Minnesota, North Carolina, and New York,
b y H. Ida Curry (U. S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o. 173, Washington, 1927) and The County as
an Administrative U nit for Social W ork, b y M ary R uth C olby (U. S. Children’s Bureau Publication
N o. 224, Washington, 1933).
22 An Oklahoma law of 1925 (act of Apr. 11, 1925, ch. 128, Laws of 1925, p. 182) established family courts
in counties of 90,000 population. The district judges of Tulsa County declined to assume jurisdiction,
stating that, in their opinion, the law was unconstitutional, and no court has been established in Okla­
homa County, the only other county of this size. An Alabama law of 1931 (No. 401) to create a court of
domestic relations in counties of 105,000-300,000 inhabitants (M obile County) with jurisdiction over juve­
nile cases, contributing to delinquency or dependency, nonsupport, and (for investigation only) divorce
cases involving minor children was held unconstitutional on the ground that the procedure for its adop­
tion violated the provision of the State constitution (sec. 106 of 1901) requiring publication of notice of
intention to apply for passage of local laws (Kearley v. State ex. rel. Hamilton etc., 137 So. 424).,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROCEDURAL CHANGES IN SPECIALIZED COURTS
CONSERVATISM IN LEGAL PROCEDURE

It is a maxim of legal history that it is easier to effect a change in
the substantive law than it is to effect a change in procedure. The
natural conservatism of the bar is most in evidence when a change
in the way cases are handled is proposed. Nor is this conservatism
unjustified. Abstract justice becomes unimportant if the method of
obtaining justice is not suited to the needs of the community. The
common law was several centuries in working out its system of
procedural rights. Almost from the first these procedural rights
have been jealously guarded, as witness the construction of the phrases
“ law of the land” in Magna Charta, and “ due process of law ” in
the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. In
view of this conservatism1 the speedy adoption of the procedure
involved in the establishment of juvenile courts is all the more
remarkable.
EXAMPLES OF THE NEW PROCEDURE

Typical hypothetical cases before and after the establishment of
the juvenile court will illustrate best the far-reaching nature of the
change due to the new procedure:
In the middle of the nineteenth century a boy 13 or 14 years
old set fire to a stable. He was indicted by the grand jury, and
because he could not give bail he was sent to jail until he was tried
before a petit jury in a crowded court room. The State’ s attorney
presented his evidence, consisting of proof that the boy committed
the act with which he was charged and that he was old enough
to know what he was doing. The boy’s attorney offered evidence
to the contrary. The judge ruled on questions of evidence.
Hearsay evidence was not admissible. No one thought of offering
testimony as to the boy’s surroundings. He was convicted and sent
to the penitentiary, in which he served his sentence in the company
of the usual hardened convicts in a penal institution.
That boy’s grandson to-day sets fire to a garage in a jurisdiction
that has a modern juvenile court. Complaint is made. The boy
is brought in and is sent to a juvenile detention home in which are
no adults except the persons in charge. There he is examined
physically and mentally. In the meantime a court probation offi­
cer investigates the boy and his environment. He finds that the
boy’s grandfather was sent to prison, that his family is poor, that
they have moved from State to State, that he has had little school­
ing, and that he has been associating with vicious companions. A
plan is made for the boy’s care and training. His case is heard in
a room informally arranged in which there are no spectators except
those immediately concerned in the case and no lawyer except the
judge. The judge hears the complaint and reads the reports of the
physician, the psychiatrist, and the probation officer. The boy
admits the act complained of. (If he had not admitted it the
judge would have heard testimony and decided the question of fact.)
The judge talks to the boy and to his parents and places him on
probation. The cooperation of social agencies is enlisted and a
better job is found for the boy’s father. The probation officer coni See T he English Straggle for Procedural Reform, by Edson R . Sunderland (Harvard Law Review,
(April, 1926), pp. 725-748).

vol. 39, N o. 6

18

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROCEDURAL CHANGES IN SPECIALIZED COURTS

19

suits the school authorities and arranges for the boy to have school
work that will hold his interest. He puts the boy in touch with
recreational activities that will occupy his spare time in a whole­
some way. The boy comes to the probation office regularly to
report progress and to talk over his problems. The probation offi­
cer visits the boy and his family at frequent intervals and endeav­
ors to bring the mother and father to a better understanding of
their son and his needs. Finally, the boy is discharged from
probation, or, if he continues in his old ways, he may be commit­
ted to a training school for boys.

If this boy in the hypothetical case of to-day had been referred to
court because he did not have a suitable home or proper parental
care similar procedure would have been followed. The fact of depend­
ency would have been determined, his physical and mental condition
would have been studied, and his environmental conditions would
have been ascertained, and the case would have remained under the
jurisdiction of the court, with officers of the court actively engaged
in supervision, until discharge or commitment for foster-home or
institutional care was deemed advisable.
What is the law doing in these cases? First, generally, as in cases
of contract and property, it is determining an event. It determines
whether or not the boy set fire to the garage, as it might determine
whether a deed was actually signed or whether a seller failed to deliver
an order. Second, it is determining a condition— the boy’s health,
mentality, and environment— again the factual question. Third, it
is treating the event in the light of the condition, just as it may weigh
considerations of public policy against considerations of individual
interest in deciding whether a noise from a factory constitutes a
public nuisance and should be enjoined. Fourth, it gives the case
continued treatment, as it continues to supervise the administration
of a trust in equity.
In such cases concerning minors the law formerly included only the
first step. Taking the next three steps involved a method of approach
rew in this type of case but already known to the law in other cases.
The great departure consists in the way the additional steps are
taken— in the consideration of such factors as environment, of which
the common law took no cognizance; in the action of court officials
in investigating and reporting on questions of fact; and in the active
participation of the court in endeavoring to improve environmental
conditions.
THE LAW IN ACTION

It is apparent that the court in its new procedure is combining
three distinct acts. It not only determines the facts, it seeks them
out, and it may itself apply the treatment indicated. It unites the
judicial process of the judge,with the processes of the grand jury, of
the posse, and of the district attorney, and it continues administrative
supervision.
That the facts which the agencies of the court unearth include
elements of psychology and psychiatry unknown a few decades ago
to laymen as well as to lawyers is here immaterial. The content of
judicial decisions always varies. Some centuries ago the courts were
concerned mainly with questions of land tenure; to-day problems of
corporation law bulk large. Nor is it unprecedented for a court to
take into account considerations of economics and social polity.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

20

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

The judicial process is generally influenced, consciously or subcon­
sciously, by the thought of the era in which it is functioning,2 as
witness the legal history of labor problems. The most important
change is that these courts combine three distinct functions: Inves­
tigation, decision, and treatment. This combination of functions is
often said to result in an “ administrative tribunal,” but such phrase­
ology is both loose and dangerous. People are too prone to give a
complex situation a name; then because they can recognize its tag
they believe that they understand its nature. Courts have always
had their agencies by which the decisions of the judges were made
effective, from the clerks who recorded them to the sheriffs who acted
upon them. The law has always had, too,its agencies of investigation,
from -the time when the judges traveled from county to county to
pass upon the breaches of the king’s peace which the assizes had
revealed. On the other hand, decision of course is not a purely
judicial role; from early times there have been executives and legis­
lators. The remarkable fact is that these new tribunals study the
whole situation, formulate their policies, issue the orders for carrying
them out, and decide when and how they are being violated and what
shall be done about their violation. “ Administrative ” is too color­
less a word.
The New York State Judiciary Constitutional Convention of 1921
was of the opinion that “ extensive legislative, executive, and judicial
powers are being vested and combined in administrative bodies in
distinct and reckless disregard of the sound principle of the separation
of governmental powers, which was deemed so essential to the true
protection of individual rights by the wise founders of our republic n
form of State governments.3 As a matter of constitutional law the.e
is no Federal requirement that the executive, legislative, and judicial
functions of the States be kept separate.4 The various State consti­
tutions generally provide for a separation of functions; but there is
no clear legal demarcation, and the question of the jurisdiction to be
given to the courts is generally one of policy rather than one of law.6
It is true that the jurisdiction of these new courts is defined by the
legislature, but their jurisdiction is sometimes as broad as the limits
of family problems. It is true also that parties are given the right
of appeal and the right to be represented by counsel, but the parties
are represented by lawyers in relatively few cases, partly because of
poverty, partly because the court itself not only acts as judge but
also takes an active part as an investigator and as a friend of the
parties. The relatively small proportion of appeals is attributable
partly to lack of funds and partly to the absence of lawyers.
Under the new procedure precedent means little except as-it repre­
sents experience. The question whether or not to take a child away
from his parents and commit him to hn institution is not governed
by what seemed advisable in a previous reported decision. In fact,
the decisions of these courts are not generally reported; the judge is
s see The Nature of the Judicial Process, by Benjamin N . Cardozo (Yale University Press, 1921,
fe^Report

N ew York Legislature of Judiciary Constitutional Convention of 1921, p. 11.

Legislative

D °Preifus ».^Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U. S. 210,213. See also Constitutional Aspects of American Admin­
istrative Law. by Cuthbert W . Pound (American Bar Asssociation Journal, vol. 9. N o. 7 (July, 1923), pp.
4°U3ee6Power of Congress Over Procedure in Criminal Contempts in Inferior Federal Courts; A Study in
Separation of Powers, b y Felix Frankfurter and James M - Landis (Harvar4 Law Review, vol. 37, N o -»
(June, 1924), pp. 1010-111?).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROCEDURAL CHANGES IN SPECIALIZED COURTS

21

not restrained by the knowledge that his judgments will be read and
criticized by fellow members of his profession, a knowledge generally
regarded as one of the most salutary checks of the common law.
Likelihood of appeal and the existence of printed reports are vividly
present to other u administrative ” tribunals, such as public-service
commissions and even industrial-accident commissions, where financial
interests, large or small, are at stake. The judge of a family court,
without these checks, has opportunities well-nigh oriental in scope.
Nor is this tremendous power over the fives and happiness of thousands
confined to the judge._ It is shared by the officials of the courts,
particularly the probation officers, who are intrusted with the prelim­
inary investigations and the follow-up work. Indeed, in some family
courts only a relatively small proportion of the cases come before the
judge’s bench.
The danger of this system is the danger of all magisterial justice.
The common law as it emerged from feudal times is essentially a
system of checks and balances and is fundamentally a practical
institution. Its procedure in particular reflects a long history of
struggle against abuses of freedom. Because it is a practical institu­
tion it is changing its procedure. The celerity and businesslike
organization of the English High Court of Justice are far removed
from the leisurely processes of Coke and Blackstone. The rush of
modern civilization, the problems brought on by the industrial revo­
lution, and the growth of huge cities have necessitated a new judicial
technique. But that technique as it is being worked out in family
courts is not unlike the manorial courts of feudalism itself.
The distinction between the new procedure and the old commonlaw ways can not be overemphasized. The old courts relied upon
the learning of lawyers; the new courts depend more upon psy­
chiatrists and social workers. The evidence before the old courts
was brought by the parties; most of the evidence before the new
courts is obtained by the courts themselves. The old courts relied
upon precedents; the new courts have few to follow. The decisions
of the old courts were reported, studied, and criticized by lawyers,
and their rooms were filled with lawyers; the decisions of the new
courts are seldom reported, and their hearings are attended by pro­
bation officers trained in social service. The judgments of the old
courts were final, save for appeal; in the new courts appeals are
infrequent, and the judgment of the court is often only the beginning
of the treatment of the case. In the old courts the jury was a vital
factor; in the new courts, in practice, the jury is discarded. The
system of the old courts was based upon checks and balances; the
actual power of the new courts is practically unlimited. Justice in
the old. courts was based on legal science; in the new courts it is based
on social engineering.
In other words, whatever analogies may be drawn with old com­
mon-law cases and customs, the vivid fact emerges of departure from
an attempt to obtain justice by precedent and abstract reason and of
return to an attempt to reach justice in the individual case.
From one aspect the new freedom may be the old tyrahny. uThe
powers of the court of Star Chamber were a bagatelle compared with
those of American juvenile courts and courts of domestic relations. If


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

22

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND TH E COURT

those courts chose to act arbitrarily and oppressively they could cause
a revolution quite as easily as did the former.” 6
The new socialized procedure is gaining ground steadily and has
affected not only the treatment of juvenile and domestic-relations
cases but also general criminal procedure. Fundamentally and
applied within its proper sphere the theory of the new procedure is
sound because it is adapted to modern conditions. It can be success­
ful in practice, however, only if it lives up to its theory. It must be
supplied with the exceptionally able, trained man and woman power
that its success demands. It must be regarded not as an end but as
a means toward legal and social development. It must be treate d
frankly as an experiment requiring constant watching and study.
Emotionalism must be shed, errors must be acknowledged when they
are found, and facts must be dealt with. Finally undue haste to
abolish the safeguards and the science of the common law must be
avoided. It must be remembered that law is only a part of life,
only one science among many to be used for social betterment; but
it must be borne in mind, too, that law can not make over life.
• Pound, Roscoe: The Administration of Justice in the M odern C ity.

No. 4 (February, 1913), pp. 302-328.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Harvard Law Review,

vol. 26,

FUNCTION OF THE LAW IN FAMILY PROBLEMS
THE LIMITS OF EFFECTIVE LEGAL ACTION

What is the proper field for the new procedure as applied to domes­
tic relations? Obviously it can not be made to cover the whole
substantive law. It is not adapted, for example, to deal with pre­
nuptial property agreements. It can not compel the enforcement of
connubial rights beyond ordering the payment of money or prohibit­
ing certain acts. In short, the law has inherent limitations as appli­
cable here as elsewhere.
Dean Pound, in discussing before the Pennsylvania Bar Association
the question how far the law can hope to go, pointed out five limita­
tions, the first one growing out of the difficulties involved in ascertain­
ment of the facts to which legal rules are to be applied. As a matter
of fact, nothing is more difficult than to get the truth in a family
tangle. The suppression of vital elements by the parties, or igno­
rance of their existence, combined with the innate delicacy and manysidedness of the problems, makes it practically impossible in many
cases for the court to uncover the real situation. He continues as
follows :
Another set of limitations grows out of the intangibleness of duties which
morally are of great moment but legally defy enforcement. I have spoken
already of futile attempts of equity at Rome and in England to make moral
duties of gratitude or disinterestedness into duties enforceable by courts. In
modern law not only duties of care for the health, morals, and education^ of
children but even truancy and incorrigibility are coming under the supervision
of juvenile courts or courts of domestic relations. * * *
A third set of limitations grows out of the subtlety of modes of seriously
infringing important interests which the law would be glad to secure effectively
if it might. Thus grave infringements of individual interests in the domestic
relations by talebearing or intrigue are often too intangible to be reached by
legal machinery. * * *
A fourth set of limitations grows out of the inapplicability of the legal machin­
ery of rule and remedy to many phases of human conduct, to many important
human relations, and to some serious wrongs. One example may be seen in the
duty of husband and wife to live together and the claim of each to the society
and affection of the other. * * *
Finally, a fifth set of limitations grows out of the necessity of appealing to
individuals to set the law in motion. All legal systems labor under this neces­
sity. But it puts a special burden upon legal administration of justice in an
Anglo-American democracy. For our whole traditional polity depends on indi­
vidual initiative to secure legal redress and enforce legal rules. It is true the
ultraindividualism of the common law in this connection has broken down. W e
no longer rely wholly upon individual prosecutors to bring criminals to justice.
We no longer rely upon private actions for damages to hold public-service com­
panies to their duties or to save us from adulterated food. Yet the possibilities
of administrative enforcement of law are limited also, even if there were not
grave objections to a general régime of administrative enforcement. For laws
will not enforce themselves. Human beings must execute them, and there must
be some motive setting the individual in motion to do this above and beyond
the abstract content of the rule and its conformity to an ideal justice or an
ideal of social interest.1
i Pound, Roscoe: The Limits of Effective Legal Action. Report of the Twenty-second Annual M e e t
ing of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, 1916, pp. 233-238.

23


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

24

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AUD THE COURT

The law, after all, beyond giving money compensation, is much
more adapted to deal with negatives than with positives. It can
keep a baseball player from working for a team other than the one
with which he signed, but it can not compel him to play for that team.
It can order a man not to live with a woman other than his wife, but
it can not give the wife her husband’s society. The most it can do
generally by way of affirmative action is to order a thing done and
punish the defendant for contempt if he refuses.
ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

In view of its inherent limitations how far should the law endeavor
to go in the solution of domestic difficulties? The answer is simple:
The law should enforce to the best of its ability the fulfillment of the
legal rights and obligations of the family. These rights and obliga­
tions are formulated by common law and statute, as has been outlined
in a preceding section. If the substantive law itself goes too far,
beyond the practical boundaries of effective legal action, the law
itself— not its functioning;—needs overhauling. The law, it must
always be kept in mind, is only one of the social agencies. There
are others, such as the church and social-welfare organizations, which
may be much better equipped to deal with certain aspects of family
problems. But the substantive law in general does not go too far.
Here and there, of course, it needs revision. In some States it may
include matters with which the law should not concern itself; in
others the arsenal of legal remedies is incomplete. Uniform deser­
tion and nonsupport laws are needed, and the varying doctrines of
divorce are not all in accord with modern thought. But it can be
said as a general proposition that for the most part the doctrines of
the substantive law of domestic relations as it exists to-day are just
and that it stays within the limitations of the law pointed out by
legal thinkers and tested by the practical experience of centuries.
The problem to-day is not so much what the law of domestic rela­
tions should be as how the law should be enforced. In other words,
the first concern of students of the subject should be not the limita­
tions of legal doctrine but the limitations of its enforcement.
Enforcement of the law of domestic relations involves the two
elements of judicial technique and court organization. The new
technique has been discussed. The problem of court organization,
like the problem of procedure, is not confined to domestic relations
but runs throughout the judicial structure. The two problems, which
are in some measure interrelated, must be kept distinct so far as
possible in aid of clear thinking on these questions of the law and the
family.
The effective limits of the enforcement of the law are after all
pragmatic. ^If the law can be enforced more adequately, if its final
aim of justice can be obtained more completely through the new
socialized procedure and socialized courts, those means must be
found— provided always that in seeking to do justice no injustice is
committed. The criticism of unwarranted meddling with the most
intimate personal relations of humanity is not new and is not always
unfounded. A meddlesome and ill-equipped family court may do
far more harm than the old common-law tribunal, whose mischief at
least was limited.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

INTERRELATION OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY-COURT CASES

Reference has already been made to “ the intimate interrelation of
all justiciable questions involving family life.” (Seep. 15.) A number
of instances of conflict of jurisdiction between juvenile courts and
courts awarding custody of children in divorce cases have come before
courts of last resort,1 and conflict also occurs between divorce courts
granting alimony and courts having jurisdiction over criminal non­
support actions. Machinery established in some jurisdictions for the
collection of support orders in .the criminal courts is not always avail­
able for the collection of money ordered as alimony for the support
of children of divorced parents. Careful methods of investigation
that have been developed in the best juvenile courts for the protection
of dependent children whose custody is to be transferred have not
been available for the protection of children who are to be given per­
manently in adoption.
To eliminate piecemeal justice in the field of domestic relations has
been one of the aims of the family-court movement. Evidently there
is a real problem in the overlapping of jurisdiction in cases involving
the law of domestic relations, in that a number of courts may be
passing upon different phases of the same family problem. Relatively
little information is available, however, concerning the actual extent
to which the same families are dealt with by more than one court or
in more than one type of juvenile or domestic-relations case.
EARLY STUDIES OF OVERLAPPING

A study of the extent of duplication between the children’s court
and the family court of New York City, which has jurisdiction over
cases of nonsupport, desertion, and abandonment, showed relatively
little overlapping in the two courts in a period of three years and
four months (January 1, 1919, to May 1, 1922). Only 2.4 per cent
of 7,563 cases coming before the children’s court during this period
had ever been in the family court, and only 1.1 per cent had been in
both courts within a period of six months at any time in their history.
It must be borne in mind, however, that both the children’s court
and the family court had limited jurisdiction at the time of this
study.2
A Minneapolis study covering a small number of cases known to
social agencies indicates considerable overlapping. It was found that
33 of 89 families dealt with in 1921 and 1922 in divorce cases (over
which the district court has jurisdiction) were known also to the
juvenile branch of that court; that 54 of the men had been before
the municipal court on charges of nonsupport, assault and battery, or
drunkenness; and that 36 of them had been dealt with previously by
the district court on desertion charges. Nineteen of the 89 families
had appeared in all three courts (district, juvenile, and municipal),
37 others in two courts; and many of them had appeared repeatedly.
The proportion of families with records in more than one court prob­
ably was higher than if an unselected group of families, including both
1 For example: l a re Hosford (107 Kans. 115; 190 Pac. 765); Spade v. State (44 Ind. A pp. 529; 89 N E .
604); Brana ». Brana (139 La. 306; 71 So. 519); State v. Trim ble (306 M o. 657; 269 SW . 617).
*See the report of a study made b y the committee on criminal courts of the Charity Organization
Society of the C ity of New Y ork (Annual Report, Forty-first Year, Oct. 1,1922, to Sept. 30,1923, pp. 32-33,
Bulletin No. 470, Apr. 30,1924).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

26

THE

child, the family, and the coubt

those known to social agencies and those not known, had been
studied.3
Much overlapping appeared in the statistics presented by the
Philadelphia municipal court for 1922, as 16 per cent of 3,771 new
cases received in the juvenile division of this court were known to
have records in other divisions of the court, 12.1 per cent in the
domestic-relation division.4
STUDY OF FAMILIES DEALT W ITH IN JUVENILE AND D O M ESTICRELATIONS CASES IN HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, AND PHILA­
DELPHIA, PA.

In order to obtain information concerning the volume of cases
involving juvenile and domestic-relations problems, the extent to.
which the same family was dealt with in cases of different types and
by two or more organizations, and something of the characteristics of
the families and the extent to which they had been dealt with by
social agencies, studies were made by the Children’s Bureau in
Hamilton County, Ohio, and Philadelphia, Pa.
Hamilton County, in which Cincinnati is situated, was the pioneer
community in the development of a family court with broad juvenile
and domestic-relations jurisdiction (the domestic-relations division of
the court of common pleas). In this city juvenile and divorce cases
and certain other types of domestic-relations cases are dealt with by
this family court, which has a central record system. Domesticrelations cases (chiefly desertion or nonsupport) not dealt with by
the family court are given through the Ohio Humane Society the
type of service usually rendered by a probation department. Statis­
tical data for the year 1923 were obtained from the records of the
family court, the humane society, and the probate court— which has
jurisdiction over adoption, guardianship, and commitment of mentally
defective persons. In Philadelphia practically all the juvenile and
domestic-relations work except that relating to divorce cases is
centered in the municipal court, which has juvenile, domestic-rela­
tions, misdemeanants, and criminal divisions, and a central record
system and statistical department. The Philadelphia study was a
joint undertaking of the Children’s Bureau and the court’s statistical
department, which gave valuable assistance. In addition to munici­
pal-court records, the records of the court of common pleas were con­
sulted and information was obtained concerning 284 divorce cases
involving children under 18 years of age. Although the Hamilton
County study covered the entire year 1923, the Philadelphia study,
because of the large number of cases passing through the court,
covered only the month of October, 1923.5
3 The 89 families were chosen from a much larger group known to social agencies, and detailed information
was obtained as to their social histories and court records. The families known to the social agencies repre­
sented 30 per cent of an unselected group of individuals applying for divorces cleared through the socialservice exchange on the basis of the surnames and first names of the men and women as given m the news­
papers. See Where Courts Interlock, by M ildred D . M udgett (Family, vol. 4, N o. 3 (M ay, 1923), pp.
51-55). The social-service exchange is a clearing bureau maintained for the use of social case work agencies
to prevent duplication in case work and to assist in investigations. W hen a case is registered with the
exchange the names of agencies previously registered are given to the registering agency.
< Ninth Annual Report of the M unicipal Court of Philadelphia, 1922, p. 449.
.
* For detailed presentation of the findings of this study see Appendix B, p. 71, and for the jurisdiction
of the courts see Appendix A , p. 67.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

INTERRELATION OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY-COURT CASES

27

V O L U M E OP CASES

The .studies indicate a considerable volume of domestic-relations
work in Cincinnati (Hamilton County) and Philadelphia. More
than 5,000 families (5,286), or approximately 4 per cent of all the
families in Hamilton County, ■were dealt with in the year 1923 by
the family court, the humane society (with or without court action),
and the probate court in juvenile and domestic-relations cases (in­
cluding divorce cases in which children were involved). In a single
month (October, 1923) the Philadelphia municipal court dealt with
6,728 families, or approximately 2 per cent of the total families in
Philadelphia, in juvenile and domestic-relations cases exclusive of
divorce, adoption, and certain other types of cases included in the
Hamilton County study.
The family court in Hamilton County, which has jurisdiction over
all the cases included in the study except cases of adoption, guardian­
ship, and feeble-mindedness, actually dealt with only 68 per cent of
all the families in that community included in the study. Many
dependency and neglect cases and the great majority of the desertion
or nonsupport and illegitimacy cases were dealt with by agencies other
than the family court.
IN T E R R E L A T IO N OP CASES

Many families presented two or more different types of family
problems, some of the kind usually coming within the jurisdiction of
a juvenile court and others involving such issues as divorce, desertion
or nonsupport, illegitimacy, or adoption. Such overlapping is sig­
nificant in relation to efforts to consolidate court work in juvenile and
domestic-relations cases. One-eighth of the Hamilton County
families (13 per cent) were dealt with in more than one type of case
during the year. Six per cent of the Philadelphia municipal-court
cases were dealt with in more than one type of case in a single month
(October). Fourteen per cent of the juvenile cases in Philadelphia,
the same percentage of desertion or nonsupport cases, and 20 per cent
of the illegitimacy cases had been dealt with in cases of other types
during the year ended October 31, 1923.
Forty-one per cent of the Hamilton County families dealt with
in dependency or neglect cases in 1923 were dealt with also in that
year in cases of other types, usually domestic relations. Twentysix per cent of the families dealt with in divorce cases were known
in cases of other types, chiefly desertion or nonsupport. The greatest
amount of overlapping was found to exist between dependency or
neglect and desertion or nonsupport, divorce and desertion or non­
support, and offenses against children and delinquency. Thirteen
per cent of 284 divorce cases dealt with by the Philadelphia court
of common pleas were known to the municipal court .during the
year in which divorce petitions were filed, and 47 per cent had been
known to the municipal court before or during the year, practically
all of them to the domestic-relations division of the court.
SO C IA L A G E N C IE S D E A LIN G W IT H T H E F A M ILIES

Many of the families dealt with by the courts in juvenile and
domestic-relations cases (and, in Hamilton County, by the humane
society) had required various types of community social service. In
181443°—33------3


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

28

TH E CHILD, TH E FA M ILY, AND TH E COURT

Hamilton County 53 per cent of the families dealt with were reported
by the social-service exchange as known to Hamilton County agencies
other than the courts or the humane society, or as known to the
family court or the humane society in cases of other types than those
included in the study. Thirty-three per cent were known to more
than one agency. Among families dealt with in desertion or non­
support cases, 53 per cent— and among those dealt with in divorce
cases, 36 per cent— had social-agency records. More than one-third
of all the families included in the study had been known to familywelfare agencies.
The Philadelphia percentages approximated very closely those for
Hamilton County, 58 per cent of the families dealt with by the
municipal court in juvenile and domestic-relations cases having been
known to social agencies, 36 per cent to more than one agency, and
24 per cent (a considerably smaller percentage than in Hamilton
County) to family-welfare agencies. Among families dealt with by
the Philadelphia court in more than one type of case, 89 per cent
had social-agency records.
It is clear that use of the social-service exchange and of the infor­
mation available in the case records of the agencies is exceedingly
important in the work of family courts.
C H A R A C T E R IS T IC S OF T H E FA M ILIES

Information concerning race of mother and age of parents was
obtained for Hamilton County but not for Philadelphia. The per­
centage of colored mothers in Hamilton County was almost three
times as high as the percentage of colored in the whole population.
Many of the parents were young or in early middle life. In 36 per
cent of the families the mother was between 21 and 30 and the father
between 21 and 40 years of age. Both parents were 21 and under
30 years of age in 17 per cent of the families dealt with in dependency
and neglect cases, 21 per cent of those dealt with in divorce cases,
and 29 per cent of those dealt with in desertion or nonsupport cases.
Less than one-fourth of the mothers (23 per cent) had reached the
age of 40.
The number of living children in the Hamilton County families
dealt with in the course of a year in juvenile and domestic-relations
cases was 10,681, an average of 2.4 per family in the 4,477 families
with living children (excluding unborn children). In Philadelphia
17,143 children, an average of 2.8 per family, were reported in the
6,017 families with living children dealt with in the course of one
month by the municipal court in juvenile and domestic-relations cases.
The Hamilton County families studied which had been dealt with
in divorce cases included only those that had minor children; of these,
54 per cen£ had children under 7 years of age and 21 per cent had
children under 3 years of age. Seventy-three per cent of the families
dealt with in desertion or nonsupport cases had children under 7, and
47 per cent had children under 3 years of age. These cases are thus
seen to involve, very frequently, provision for the care and protection
of young children, a task which can be performed only when the court
has facilities for social investigation, planning, and supervision. Of
the whole group of Hamilton County families for which age of children
was reported, 53 per cent had children under the age of 7 years and


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

INTERRELATION- OF JUVENILE AND FAM ILY-COURT CASES

29

28 per cent had children under the age of 3 years. The Philadelphia
percentages were very similar— 52 per cent with children under 7 and
27 per cent with children under 3. The types of cases included in the
two communities were somewhat different.
As was to be expected, many broken homes and complicated family
situations were included in the groups for which information was
obtained. In only 23 per cent of the Hamilton County families
were all the children the children of both husband and wife and all
living with both parents. Corresponding information was not avail­
able for Philadelphia. In 12 per cent of the Hamilton County fami­
lies and 13 per cent of the Philadelphia families none of the children
was with either parent.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PRESENT JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION FOR DEALING WITH
JUVENILE AND FAMILY CASES
COURT SYSTEMS HAVING JURISDICTION
IN THE STUDY

OVER

CASES INCLUDED

At the present time in most States jurisdiction in juvenile and
domestic-relations cases is divided among (1) specialized juvenile,
family, or domestic-relations courts; (2) criminal courts; and (3)
courts of probate and chancery jurisdiction. Attempts to consoli­
date jurisdiction therefore must take into consideration these three
classes of courts, constitutional limitations relating to the establish­
ment of courts, and the vested jurisdiction of existing courts.
The number of courts having jurisdiction over family cases of
course depends in the first instance upon the general judicial organ­
ization of the State. This country seems to take a peculiar zest in
the formation of new courts. Many States have courts which do
not coordinate with the other judicial units but whose jurisdiction
overlaps theirs in almost every particular; and the cure for this situ­
ation is often taken to be creation of another court. This condition is
by no means nation-wide. In some jurisdictions there is real evidence
that the business aptitude for organization for which Americans are
supposed to be famous has permeated into the judicial system. In
others there is a marked lack of coordination.
Original jurisdiction in criminal cases is usually divided between
courts that deal with cases on indictment or information (as the court
of general criminal jurisdiction) and courts of summary jurisdiction
(justices of the peace, municipal courts, police courts) that have
power to dispose of minor cases immediately and hold only the more
serious cases for the grand jury or the court of general criminal jurisdic­
tion. Sometimes the same domestic situation may be dealt with as a
misdemeanor and disposed of in a municipal or police court or may be
dealt with as a felony by the grand jury and higher criminal court.
This is particularly true of nonsupport and desertion cases (as m
Arkansas, California, and Indiana). In fact, in some jurisdictions
(for example, Indianapolis and St. Louis) three or four types of courts
may deal with nonsupport: City courts, courts of inferior criminal
jurisdiction, courts of general criminal jurisdiction, and (as m
Indianapolis) the juvenile court under a law relating to contributing
to dependency.
. . . . .
. .
,
In considering chancery and probate jurisdiction it is found that
in many States cases of adoption and guardianship are dealt with in
the probate or county court, and cases of divorce and annulment
of marriage are dealt with in the superior, district, or circuit court or
in some other court of general civil and criminal jurisdiction. In some
States, however, divorce and annulment cases come under the juris­
diction of a chancery court without criminal jurisdiction, as m
Arkansas and Mississippi. On the other hand, adoption and guardian­
ship jurisdiction is sometimes vested in a court of general criminal
and civil jurisdiction, as in California, where the superior court has


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PRESENT

JUDICIAL

ORGANIZATION

EOR DEALING

W IT H

CASES

31

exclusive probate and juvenile jurisdiction, and in Iowa, where the
district court has exclusive probate jurisdiction. In the latter State
the probate division of the district court handles guardianship matters,
and all courts of record (including both the district court and the
division of this court designated the juvenile court) have jurisdiction
over adoption.
A summary of the'number of different court systems in each State
that have jurisdiction over the various cases included in this study is
of interest in this connection.1 Specific offenses against children,
which are classed as misdemeanors or felonies and are handled usually
by any criminal court having jurisdiction over the grade of offense
indicated, are excluded; and juvenile and domestic-relations courts
that are divisions of larger courts have not been counted as separate
courts. Possibly some local courts that may have jurisdiction under
special laws or under ordinances not published in the codes have not
been counted.2 In only 3 States is jurisdiction over the cases specified
vested in only two courts. In the District of Columbia and 8 States
it is divided among three courts; in 17 States four or five courts may
have jurisdiction; in 15 States, six or seven courts; and in 5 States,
eight or more courts.3
JURISDICTION IN DELINQUENCY AND DEPENDENCY

CASES

One of the first points to be considered with reference to the juris­
diction that should be vested in the juvenile or family court is whether
juvenile jurisdiction includes all young people who should be brought
under the protection of the special procedure that has been developed.
This involves two questions: (1) The age jurisdiction of the juvenile
court, and (2) exceptions or modifications in juvenile-court jurisdiction
with reference to serious offenses committed by children.
The tendency clearly is to raise age jurisdiction to 18 years at least.
About half the States extend the delinquency jurisdiction of the juve­
nile court to both boys and girls, or to girls only, under 18 years of
age; and in a few States jurisdiction extends to a higher age. Con­
siderable work, however, remains to be accomplished if the standard
adopted in 1925 by the National Probation Association in its standard
juvenile court law be regarded as a desirable goal.4 To reach this it
would be necessary to raise age limits to 18 years throughout the State
in some or all classes of cases (boys’ or girls’, dependency and neglect,
or delinquency) in 29 States 5 and the District of Columbia, and to
1 See p. 15 of this report and also Analysis and Tabular Summary of State Laws Relating to Jurisdiction
in Children’s Cases and Cases of Domestic Relations, p. 1.
2 It has been impossible to ascertain in every instance whether city and municipal courts should be
considered one or two types of court, and the same is true of justice of the peace and police courts. In the
absence of information to the contrary they have been counted as two courts. Of course not all the courts
authorized b y law are operating in all jurisdictions, and sometimes several courts are presided over by
the same judge and served b y the same staff. For example, in New Jersey the judge of the court of common
pleas is also judge of the courts of quarter sessions and special sessions and of the juvenile court (except
in counties of the first class), and he m ay be judge of the orphans’ court, all these courts having jurisdiction
over cases included in the study.
3 T w o courts have jurisdiction in Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana; 3 in California, Nebraska, Nevada.
North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Washington, W yom ing; 4 in Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Montana, N ew Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont; 5 in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas,
Massachusetts, N ew Mexico, Oklahoma, Wisconsin; 6 in Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, W est Virginia; 7 in Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Ohio, Virginia; 8 in Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee; 9 in New York; and 13 in N ew Jersey.
* A Standard Juvenile-Court Law, prepared b y the committee on standard juvenile-court laws (revised
edition) National Probation Association (Inc.), New York, 1933.
3 Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, N ew Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Ver­
mont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

32

TH E CHILD, TH E FAMiLTT, ANP TH ® COURT

eliminate exceptions to juvenile-court jurisdiction or modifications of
it in cases of serious offenses in 27 States6and the District of Columbia.
These changes would prevent overlapping of jurisdiction in cases of
children under the age of 18 years.
JURISDICTION IN OTHER JUVENILE AND FAMILY CASES

In 33 States, in parts of 5 others, and in the District of Columbia
the juvenile court or the court of which it is a part has at least con­
current jurisdiction over cases of contributing to delinquency or
dependency; and in 29 States, parts of 10 others, and the District of
Columbia such courts have jurisdiction over some or all types of
offenses against children. In 28 States, the District of Columbia,
and parts of 15 States such courts have jurisdiction in cases of desertion
or nonsupport. In 3 States, parts of 3 others, and the District of
Columbia the juvenile court or family court has jurisdiction over
cases of establishment of paternity, and in more than a third of the
States such jurisdiction is vested in courts having juvenile divisions.
Jurisdiction over divorce is vested in juvenile or family courts in
1 State and parts of 4 others; and courts having juvenile divisions are
given such jurisdiction in 8 States and parts of 13 others.
In few States is jurisdiction over adoption or guardianship cases,
or the commitment of mentally defective or insane children, vested
in the juvenile court; but in a number of States the court of which
the juvenile court is a part has such jurisdiction. In more than half
the States possibilities exist for coordination of work in these cases
through court assignment and utilization of the social-service machin­
ery of the juvenile division.
POSSIBILITIES OF CONSOLIDATING

JURISDICTION

As is indicated by the preceding analysis, certain types of judicial
organization greatly simplify the problem of centralizing jurisdiction.
For example, in certain of the western States, such as Nebraska, the
district courts have very broad general jurisdiction, including cases
under the juvenile-court law, nonsupport and desertion cases, and
divorce cases. There it was possible without special legislation to
reassign cases and to create a special docket, establishing divisions of
domestic relations of broad scope. In Hamilton County and other
Ohio counties a similar situation existed, the court of common pleas
having jurisdiction over juvenile cases, divorce cases, cases of failure
to provide for minor children, and illegitimacy cases. Accordingly
the Ohio laws creating family courts are very brief and involve no
difficult legal problems. Over the two last-named classes of cases,
however, municipal courts in Ohio also have jurisdiction, which is
frequently exercised in at least two of the Ohio cities having family
courts.
In contrast to th^ relatively simple situation in Nebraska, which
makes consolidation easy, is the very complicated system in New
York City, where jurisdiction is divided among the children's court;
o Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,'Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, N ew Mexico, N ew York, North Caro­
lina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and W yoming.
The standard law would permit the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction in the case of a child 16 years of
age or over charged.with an offense that would amount to a felony in the case of an adult.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PRESENT

y(

JUDICIAL

ORGANIZATION

FOR DEALING W IT H

CASES

33

the magistrates’ courts, which deal with deserting and nonsupporting
husbands as “ disorderly” ; the court of special sessions, with jurisdic­
tion in illegitimacy cases; the surrogate’s court, with jurisdiction in
adoption cases; and the supreme court, with divorce jurisdiction.
The children’s court has been given certain enlarged powers with
reference to families of children before the court as delinquent, neg­
lected, or dependent, and in three boroughs “ family divisions’’ of the
magistrates’ courts have been developed to deal with desertion and
nonsupport cases.7 In a number of States possibilities exist for
further consolidation in the juvenile or family division of jurisdic­
tion over the classes of cases included in this study or for utilization
of the social-service machinery of that division without legislative
action.
i B y a law of 1933 the family courts have been merged with the children’s court, and the domesticrelations jurisdiction has been considerably broadened (N . Y ., act of Apr. 26, 1933, ch. 482).

\

#


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

*
FAMILY COURTS AND COURTS OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
IN ACTION

M

The efficacy of a court can not be judged by the number of cases
that come before it nor by the amount of money it handles. Most
courts can be judged according to their published opinions, but family
courts rarely make law. They must be tested by results, and it is
results that are hardest to evaluate. However, the court’s jurisdic­
tion, the number and quality of personnel, the equipment, actual
observation of hearings, and information concerning methods or organ­
ization and administration are all indicative of the extent to which
the court succeeds in correcting the individual family and community
maladjustments with which it deals.
CONSOLIDATION OF JURISDICTION

It has been pointed out that one of the aims of the family-court
movement has been elimination of the overlapping jurisdiction of
various tribunals. How far this aim is realized depends in the first
place upon the content of the legislation under which the courts
operate and in the second place upon the extent to which the new
courts actually exercise jurisdiction. The first factor is affected by
the constitutional limitations regarding the establishment of new
courts and the conferring of exclusive jurisdiction upon these courts
and the legal status of the courts upon which jurisdiction is conferred
(as whether their jurisdiction is limited and whether provision is
made for jury trials). The second factor is largely dependent upon
the extent to which public opinion, as expressed through prosecuting
authorities, bench and bar, and cooperating social agencies, supports
the new court.

#

JU R IS D IC TIO N C O N F E R R E D B Y L A W O R RULE OF C O U R T

The four family courts of juvenile and broad adult jurisdiction
that were studied in Hamilton, Mahoning, Montgomery, and Summit
Counties, Ohio, have jurisdiction over all types of cases included in
the study except cases of adoption and guardianship. The family
court of Multnomah County, Oreg., also has very broad jurisdiction.’
The family courts of juvenile and limited adult jurisdiction that
were studied furnish an interesting contrast. Desertion and non­
support cases, but not divorce cases, are included in the jurisdiction
of the New Jersey and Virginia courts and in that of Jefferson County,
Ala., whereas in the court of St. Louis, Mo., the reverse is true.
Offenses against children are dealt with by the Virginia courts and
that of Jefferson County but not by those of New Jersey and St.
Louis. The jurisdiction of the New Jersey, Jefferson County, and
St. Louis courts covers one or more of the types of cases that usually
are dealt with by a probate court. The Virginia courts have power
to commit mentally defective children who are within their jurisdic­
tion for other reasons.

A.

34

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

m

FAM ILY COURTS IN’ ACTION

35

The jurisdiction of the juvenile courts included in the study is
in some instances so broad as to make the line between this group
and the preceding group little more than an arbitrary division.1 All
of them have jurisdiction over contributing to delinquency or over
other offenses against children, though in the District of Columbia
and New York City such jurisdiction is quite limited. All have
jurisdiction over desertion or nonsupport, though in Indianapolis,
Ind., the procedure is in reality a contributing-to-neglect procedure;
but in New York City such jurisdiction is limited to cases in which
the child is already before the court on a charge related to juvenile
jurisdiction. The New York and District of Columbia courts have
jurisdiction over proceedings for the establishment of paternity.
None has divorce jurisdiction. Adoption jurisdiction is vested in
the New York and Denver courts, though in New York City it is
limited to cases in which the child is already before the court. "Power
to commit mentally defective children and at least certain powers with
reference to guardianship are also vested, with certain exceptions, in
the courts of this group.
The jurisdiction of the five domestic-relations courts without
juvenile jurisdiction that were studied (see p. 16) is limited for the
most part to cases of desertion and nonsupport, though two courts
have jurisdiction over cases of establishment of paternity and three
over at least certain types of cases of offenses against children. None
of these courts has divorce jurisdiction nor jurisdiction over adoption,
guardianship, or the commitment of mentally defective children.
The municipal and district courts with organization for juvenile
and domestic-relations work are a group concerning which information
is difficult to obtain, because they may be established by rule of court
without special legislation. Jurisdiction has been given by law over
divorce to one of the four courts studied, over adoption to one, over
commitment of mentally defective children to two. In addition,
nearly all types of cases included in the study may be assigned to
these courts. Cases of offenses against children, however, and cases
of establishment of paternity were not usually assigned to the juvenile
and domestic-relations divisions.
JU R IS D IC TIO N E X E R C IS E D IN P R A C T IC E

Much of the adult jurisdiction of the family court or court of
domestic relations is concurrent with that of other courts. In each
of the four Ohio counties whose family courts of juvenile and broad
adult jurisdiction were studied the chief city has a municipal court
with limited criminal and civil jurisdiction, including concurrent
jurisdiction over nonsupport, illegitimacy, and offenses against chil­
dren; and each county has a probate court with jurisdiction over
adoption, guardianship, and commitment of mentally defective chil­
dren. In each community also is a humane society, a very old
organization that has been granted special privileges by State law.
This society had been accustomed to prosecute cases of neglect,
abuse, or nonsupport and desertion in the municipal court; and in
Hamilton and Mahoning Counties it continued to prosecute them
i For the location of the juvenile courts studied see footnote 17, p. 6, and for the extent to which they
are representative of a larger group see p. 16. Legal authority was given in 1923 for designating the Den­
ver court “ for convenience” the family court.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

36

TH E CHILD, TH E FAM ILY, AND TH E COURT

in the municipal court after divisions of domestic relations had been
established in the courts of common pleas. In 1923 in Hamilton
County only 14 per cent of the families dealt with in cases of desertion
or nonsupport and not in cases of other types and 10 per cent of those
dealt with in illegitimacy cases only were handled by the family
court. The remainder were dealt with by the humane society,
informally or through the municipal court. (See Appendix B, p. 73.)
The Mahoning County division of domestic relations did not exercise
jurisdiction over desertion or nonsupport except in cases of failure
to pay alimony and cases in which the children were cared for apart
from both parents, and illegitimacy jurisdiction was not exercised.
All or most of the nonsupport cases in Montgomery and Summit
Counties were reported to be heard in the family courts, but only
the Montgomery County court heard paternity cases. Thus in
these four Ohio communities consolidation of jurisdiction had not
approached in practice the extent to which it is authorized by law.
The court of Multnomah County, Oreg., was not exercising to any
extent its jurisdiction over nonsupport or contributing to delinquency.
In the family courts of juvenile and limited adult jurisdiction
that were studied the situation was found to be as follows: The.
jurisdiction of the Virginia courts was exclusive in the cases designated
by law as coming under their control. The volume of business had
not been so great in any community as to make it necessary to
separate the court into two divisions. The jurisdiction of the court
of Jefferson County, Ala., was similar to that of the Virginia courts
and was exclusive over juvenile cases and desertion and nonsupport
cases, and also over cases of contributing to delinquency or depend­
ency. This court had had two separate divisions, presided over by
different judges, holding sessions in different places, staffed by different
officers, and having relatively little provision for coordination of
work. Little social-service work was done in adult cases. In 1927
the situation was improved by legislation establishing in place of the
existing court a juvenile and domestic-relations court with a single
judge.2 The court of St. Louis, Mo., likewise was divided into
distinct juvenile and divorce divisions with little coordination of
activities except that the judge presiding over one of the divorce
divisions was assigned also to the juvenile division. In the two New
Jersey counties many domestic-relations cases within the jurisdiction
of the county family courts were dealt with by other courts. Practi­
cally all the probation work in these two communities was done
through county probation bureaus serving all the courts in the
county. Each of these bureaus had a domestic-relations division,
so that the social-service work in these cases was coordinated even
though jurisdiction was divided.
Among the juvenile courts of broad jurisdiction that were studied
several had succeeded in consolidating jurisdiction to a considerable
degree, if not to the full extent authorized by law. The District
of Columbia juvenile court was exercising jurisdiction in the majority
of cases of desertion or nonsupport, and it had exclusive jurisdiction
in illegitimacy cases. It was not exercising the very limited juris­
diction that it possessed over cases of offenses against children, and
its jurisdiction in cases of serious offenses committed by children was
limited to preliminary examinations.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

FAM ILY COURTS IN ACTION

37

The judge of the Denver juvenile court interpreted the legislation
under which it operated to mean that it had exclusive jurisdiction in
the first instance as to the custody and disposition of all children
under the age oij 21 years in both delinquency and criminal cases;
but it might direct that children under 21 not included in the definition
of delinquency who were brought to court on criminal charges should
be tried either in the criminal court or under criminal procedure in
the juvenile court.3 The juvenile court had concurrent jurisdiction
in criminal cases against adults if the offense charged was against
the person or concerning the morals or protection of a person under
the age of 21 years. The Colorado laws relating to contributing to
delinquency and dependency were very broad, and concurrent jur­
isdiction in desertion and nonsupport cases was vested in the juvenile
court. In 1923 an arrangement was made with the district attorney
whereby the juvenile court was given authority to investigate all
nonsupport cases in which fathers failed to pay for the support of
their children. If court action was justified, charges of contributing
to dependency instead of nonsupport charges were filed in the juvenile
court. It was stated in 1924 that illegitimacy cases were dealt with
by the juvenile court under charges of contributing to dependency,
that divorce cases in which children were involved were often referred
to the juvenile court for investigation, and that cases of rape and
of other offenses against children, jurisdiction over which was con­
current, were dealt with by the juvenile court. Much unofficial court
work was done in cases involving questions of divorce, insufficient
support, nonsupport, and family trouble.
In New York City, prior to the 1933 law effective October 1, juris­
diction in nonsupport cases was divided between the juvenile and
domestic-relations courts. In Indianapolis, Ind., such jurisdiction
was divided between the juvenile and municipal courts. In Indi­
anapolis nonsupport cases were dealt with in the juvenile court under
a contributing-to-neglect law and in the municipal court under a non­
support law. In New York City the jurisdiction of the children’s
court in adult cases was limited to cases in which the child was before
the court as delinquent or neglected. In exercising even this juris­
diction the court had been proceeding very slowly, partly because
questions had been raised as to the validity of certain parts of the
act. It exercised its nonsupport jurisdiction first by undertaking
the collection of orders for the support of children placed in institutions
or under the care of agencies; after this work had been well developed
it began to collect support for neglected and delinquent children in
their own homes.
The state-wide children’s court act of New York State attempted
to give to the children’s court jurisdiction in all juvenile and family
cases involving the welfare of children under the age of 16 years,
except cases of divorce and alimony and adult cases involving
offenses of the grade of felony, the jurisdiction to be exclusive except
over truancy, adoption, guardianship, custody, contributing to
delinquency, and other offenses against children. But decisions of
the New York State supreme court, appellate division, weakened
this jurisdiction, as has been stated (see p. 16), and limited the
jurisdiction of the children’s courts throughout the State substantially
to that conferred upon the New York City court. Information
> The judge elected in 1927 has interpreted the delinquency jurisdiction of the court somewhat less broadly.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

38

TH E CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND TH E COURT

obtained in the course of this study indicated that the courts were
proceeding slowly in exercising adult jurisdiction.
The five domestic-relations courts without juvenile jurisdiction that
were studied had little opportunity to consolidate jurisdiction in
various types of cases. The jurisdiction actually exercised by these
courts has already been described. (See p. 35.)
The four municipal and district courts with juvenile and domesticrelations divisions that were studied had succeeded in centralizing the
treatment of a variety of juvenile and family cases. In Philadelphia
and in Springfield the juvenile and domestic-relations divisions were
separate, though in Springfield the probation office was not divided
into distinct departments but served all parts of the court. In Polk
County, Iowa, and in Douglas County, Nebr., a single division had
dealt with juvenile and domestic-relations cases. Later the work
of these courts was reported to be departmentalized to some extent.
EXTENSION OP ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF JUVENILE-COURT
ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE

# Inasmuch as one of the two main objects of family-court organiza­
tion was to extend to family cases the point of view and methods
developed in the juvenile court it is pertinent to inquire into the
extent to which the organization and methods of the new courts con­
form to generally accepted standards of juvenile-court procedure. It
must be borne in mind that with perhaps a few notable exceptions
these juvenile-court standards have not yet been put fully into prac­
tice in juvenile courts themselves; also that almost no attempt has
been made to modify the rules of criminal procedure as applied to
cases involving nonsupport and desertion (aside from those dealt with
by juvenile courts under laws on contributing to dependency) or
offenses against children.4
The principal juvenile-court standards applicable to family courts
or courts of domestic relations 6 and the extent to which courts of vari­
ous types included in the study approached the respective standards
may be summarized as follows:
T H E JU DGE

1.
The judge should be chosen because of his special qualifications for
the work. The term of office should be sufficiently long to make special­
ization possible, preferably not less than six years. The judge should be
able to devote such time to the work of the court as is necessary to hear
each case carefully and thoroughly and to give general direction to the
work of the court.
With few exceptions the judges, probation officers, and staffs of
juvenile courts and family courts or courts of domestic relations are
not adequately paid. The wonder is, not that the judges and their
assistants are not better but that so many capable officials are at
work.
. The position of judge of a family court requires qualities of the
highest order: Broadmindedness, executive ability, tact, knowledge of
the law, knowledge of the principles governing social work, and
* Chancery procedure in contributing to delinquency and dependency cases has been developed in
Denver, Colo., and equity jurisdiction, along with criminal jurisdiction, is being developed in nonsupport
cases in N ew York State.
Adapted from Juvenile-Court Standards, pp. 2-10.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

FAM ILY COURTS IN ACTION

39

knowledge of people. To these must often be added ability to con­
vince appropriating authorities and the general public that suffi­
cient funds must be made available. These specifications are rarely
filled.
The terms of consecutive service of the judges of courts other than
juvenile courts included in the study ranged from the 6-year terms
in Ohio, in Norfolk and Richmond, Va., and in Jefferson County, Ala.,
to assignments of three weeks in Boston. With the exception of the
Philadelphia municipal court, which had short assignments in the
domestic-relations division, and of the St. Louis court, which had
2-year assignments, the terms of service in all the courts haying both
juvenile and domestic-relations jurisdiction were four to six years.
The juvenile courts with broad jurisdiction included in the study also
had long terms— 4, 6, or 10 years. Only one of the five domesticrelations courts without juvenile jurisdiction— that in Newark,
N. J.— had a long term of service (four years) for the judge; in the
others the judge as a rule served for periods of a few weeks or a few
months. In New York City, however, some of the judges have
served in the family court for much longer periods.
In a number of the courts the judges did not have sufficient time to
“ hear each case carefully and thoroughly and to give general direc­
tion to the work of the court.” The volume of divorce business was
very heavy in the Ohio courts, and in three of the four courts studied
this occupied the major portion of the judge’s time. These Ohio
courts, however, gave much more time to the consideration of indi­
vidual divorce cases than some of the other courts having divorce
jurisdiction included in the study; for example, one that heard 60 to
70 divorce cases in a single day. The judges of some of the courts
gave a great deal of time, both in formal hearings and otherwise, to
considering the problems of individual cases.
T H E P R O B A T IO N STAFF

2.
Not more than 50 cases should be under the supervision of one pro­
bation officer at any one time. Probation officers should be chosen from
an eligible list secured by competitive examination. The minimum
qualifications of probation officers should include a good education,
preferably graduation from college or its equivalent or from a school
of social work; at least one year in case work under supervision; good
personality and character; tact, resourcefulness, and sympathy. The
compensation of probation officers should be such that the best types of
trained service can be secured. The salaries should be comparable with
those paid to workers in other fields of social service. Increases should
be based on records of service and efficiency.
It is very difficult to measure the volume of preliminary work, such
as interviewing and investigating, that each probation officer does,
but the number of probationers under the supervision of each officer
can be ascertained and a comparison made. In only five or six of
the courts studied did the case loads even approximate the standard
of 50 cases per officer, and two of these courts were serving rural
counties. For instance, in one court having jurisdiction over juve­
nile and nonsupport cases the two juvenile officers had 74 and 130
cases, respectively, and the adult officers had 160 to 198 cases; in
addition they made investigations and served as bailiffs and court


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

40

TH E CHILD, TH E FAM ILY, AND TH E COURT

attendants. In another court with similar jurisdiction no case super­
vision of adult probationers and very little of juveniles was at­
tempted; some of the juvenile officers did not even know for how
many probationers they were responsible. In one juvenile court
with broad jurisdiction the juvenile-delinquent case load was in con­
formity with the standards (boys 51, girls 33); but the officer superyising neglected and dependent children was responsible for 159
families, and the adult probation officers were responsible for 96 to
132. Other courts had as many as 200, 250, and 500 adult proba­
tioners under a single officer; and some frankly stated that they
attempted little or no supervision in adult cases. In general the
juvenue-case loads were lighter than the adult-case loads.6
»
appointment based upon a system of competitive examination
is comparatively infrequent in probation work, it is encouraging to
find that m the majority of the courts included in the study appointg ® * were made from eligible lists established after examina tions
held by civil-service commissions or other agencies. In the New
Jersey courts, for example, initial appointments were made from
btate civil-service registers, and provision was made for regular in­
creases m salary after promotional examinations. Several courts
failed to obtain full value from the merit system of appointment
because some of the staff members assigned to social-service work
were appointed as constables or other court officials not covered by
the competitive-examination system. As a rule, the probation
departments m which appointments were made from lists established
through competitive examination did not prescribe definite standards
of education and experience. The New Jersey examinations, how­
l e r , did prescribe such standards, though they were usually very low
with reference to education, and examinations for the New York Citv
domestic-relations court required one year’s social-service experience
though experience in a volunteer capacity was sometimes accepted *
Not many members of the probation departments had the training
and experience outlined in the standards as desirable— graduation
from college or its equivalent or from a school of social work and at
least one year in case work under supervision. This may be explained
in part by the salaries paid, which as a rule were markedly inadequate
and m part by the fact that probation work in most communities
has not yet been placed upon so firm a professional basis as social
work done by private family-welfare organizations or by child-caring
agencies with high standards. Opportunities for training and for
professional advancement and recognition are believed to be less and
young workers with good general education and professional prepa­
ration are not so eager to enter this field. Yet the case loads carried
by probation officers are much heavier in most courts than the case
loads of workers in private organizations of the kind mentioned and
the work is more difficult and more responsible than that of many
private agencies.
J
Several of the chief probation officers and some of the other officers
were law-school graduates. A few women probation officers were
graduate nurses. In one court none of the probation officers had
7
indficFrted
improvement in case loads in a number of the courts studied.
. The probation laws of N ew York State were strengthened greatly b y legislation enacted in 1 Q2 8 nrnJin1? g —at Probationofflcers shall be selected because of definite qualifications as to character ability
and training. (Acts of Mar. 9 and 21, 1928, chs. 313 and 460, Laws of 1928, pp. 7 9 5 , 1013.)
’


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

FAM ILY COURTS IN' ACTION

41

had training or previous experience in social work; one officer had been
a public-health nurse. In another court the staff dealing with adult
domestic-relations cases was composed exclusively of persons who
had had experience only as constables or sheriffs or in courthouse
clerical work. In a court with a separate domestic-relations division
only one of eight investigators had any training or previous experi­
ence related to the work, and her training had been limited to a
period of six months.
A few of the courts had staffs better prepared by education and in
some cases by experience. Thus in the District of Columbia juvenile
court nearly all the probation officers were college or law-school
graduates, and several had had previous experience in social work.
One of the six members of the staff of the domestic-relations division
of the Boston municipal court’s probation department was a member
of the bar and had had four years’ unusually successful experience in
the juvenile court of Boston; and the one woman officer— also a
member of the bar— had had experience in settlement work and in a
family-welfare society. Three had had no previous social-service
experience; one had been an attorney, one the chief clerk of the pro­
bation department, and one was a law student. One had familywelfare experience.
Several of the executives of probation departments serving domes­
tic-relations courts and other courts and one devoting full time to
domestic-relations and juvenile-court work received in 1931 salaries
ranging from $5,600 to $9,000, and a number received $3,000 to
$4,100; but some received $2,500 to $2,850 or even as little as $1,920.
Most of the chief probation officers received salaries too low for posi­
tions of such responsibility. In probation departments with super­
visors of divisions as well as chief probation officers 5 had salaries
ranging from $2,000 to $3,000, 5 had a higher range (to $5,000 in one
court), and 2 had a lower range. Salaries of investigators and pro­
bation officers ranged from $1,080 to $3,400; only a few probation
officers received less than $1,800 or more than $3,000.8
On the whole the most adequate salary scale was found in the
probation departments of Essex and Hudson Counties, N. J., which
served all the courts in their respective counties. In Essex County
the chief probation officer received $9,000, the assistant chief proba­
tion officer received $5,000, the probation officers in charge received
$3,600, and the probation officers received $2,160 to $3,360. In
Hudson County the chief probation officer received $7,500, officers in
supervisory positions received $3,500 to $3,800 (except one receiving
a nominal salary), and the salaries of probation officers were $2,400 to
$3,400.
.
. '
m%£
Information on salaries summarized for 20 probation departments
serving large cities included in the study9 showed that in 13 of these
the chief probation officer received in 1931 less than $3,500 or some of
the probation officers received less than $1,800, or both these conditions
existed. Information subsequent to 1931 has not been obtained.
8 In some courts persons assigned to the investigation of cases are termed “ investigators,” the term
“ probation officer” being reserved for those supervising persons on probation. Information on salaries
presented in the first edition of this report related to the year 1927. From 1927 to 1931 there had been
improvement in salaries in some courts, but on the whole there was little change.
8 Tw o of these were in New Y ork City, the children’s court and the magistrates court of which the
family court was a part.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

42

the

c h il e ,

the

f a m il y

,

afte

the

court

P R E C O U R T W O R K A N D IN V E S T IG A T IO N OF CASES

3.
The judge or a probation officer designated by him should examine
all complaints and after adeguate investigation should determine whether
formal court action is to be taken. It should be the duty of the court to
bring about adjustment of cases without formal court action whenever
possible.
Social investigation should be made in every case and should be set in
motion at the moment of the court’s earliest knowledge of the case. Psy­
chiatric and psychological study should be made at least in all cases in
which the social investigation raises a question of special need fo r study
and should be made before decision concerning treatment, but only by a
clinic or an examiner properly qualified fo r such work.
These standards would apply- to cases of nonsupport and desertion
and to other family difficulties as well as to juvenile cases; and it is
sometimes urged that so far as they relate to conciliation service and
social investigation they are applicable to divorce cases, at least
where children are involved. (See p. 59.) For the purpose of this
summary only juvenile cases, nonsupport and desertion cases, and
divorce cases will be considered, as these usually represent the most
important classes numerically.
Most of the courts with juvenile jurisdiction included in the study
were following the tendency noted in most juvenile courts through­
out the country in placing considerable emphasis on the unofficial
adjustment of children’s cases, especially cases of delinquency.10 The
practice varied from that in courts adjusting only a small minority
of children’s cases unofficially to that in courts like the family court
of Hamilton County, Ohio, which adjusted nearly all children’s cases
unofficially.
Nineteen courts (not including two courts serving rural counties)
were dealing with considerable numbers of nonsupport and desertion
cases. In 12 of these emphasis was placed on unofficial adjustment,
and in most of the others some work was done along this line, either
by the court or by a cooperating private agency. Some courts had
developed a comprehensive technique for this kind of service, includ­
ing individual interviews with the complainant and defendant, home
visits, and joint interviews, with agreements to pay through the court
in many cases. Such agreements were approved by the judge in the
New York and Philadelphia courts, and under the law these had all
the force of official court orders. Needless to say, the services of
attorneys in these cases were not required, though defendants were
often represented by attorneys. All that was necessary to initiate
action was for the mother to tell her story to an officer of the court.
Eight courts included in the study had divorce jurisdiction. In
three of these considerable emphasis was placed on conciliation serv­
ice in divorce cases, either before or after the filing of the petition
or libel. In a fourth court two probation officers gave full time to
w Juvenile courts receive m any complaints which are regarded h y some judges as not requiring formal
judicial treatment or official determination of the status of the child. For instance, complaints of trivial
offenses can often be settled with a warning to the child, and it would involve needless expense for the
court and trouble for all concerned to insist on service of notice and formal hearing. As the juvenile
court becomes well established in the com m unity parents and others bring to the attention of its officers
problems of conduct or of environment which call merely for advice or for direction to the social agency
best equipped to handle the difficulty. In addition to giving advice which does not involve assuming
responsibility for the child, m any courts make a practice o f supervising children whose parénts desire
them to have the benefit of such oversight and guidance without the formality of hearing and of determina­
tion of delinquency. (Juvenile Courts at W ork, p. 109.)


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

FAM ILY COURTS IK ACTION

43

adjusting domestic controversies of various kinds, but this work was
not closely related to the divorce business of the court.
All or practically all the juvenile cases were investigated in most
of the courts having juvenile jurisdiction. Sometimes investigations
were not made in unofficial delinquency cases. In one court the
investigations in many juvenile cases were made by police officers.
In some courts investigations were not made in all juvenile cases; one
usually postponed home investigations until after the child had been
placed on probation. The investigation varied from a few items
entered on a small card to complete investigations reviewed by the
chief probation officer or other supervisory officer. In several
courts juvenile cases were not cleared with the social-service exchange
as a matter of routine.
All but 3 of the 19 courts (not including 2 courts serving rural
counties) dealing with considerable numbers of desertion and nonsup­
port cases made some attempt to obtain social histories in these cases,
but 4 courts usually limited the investigation to office interviews,
sometimes supplemented by verification of earnings and by histories
obtained from social agencies knowing the families. One of these
courts consulted the social-service exchange in all cases; another
consulted the exchange in cases in which warrants were issued. Ten
courts made outside investigations in all cases, in all official cases, or
in many cases, and another court made them in cases requiring
extradition and in probation cases after the defendant had been
placed on probation. A twelfth court made investigations in cases
in which differing statements as to earnings were made by husband
and wife and in some other cases, and consulted the social-service
exchange in all official cases after court hearing. The investigations
varied from those in which little history was recorded to those in which
comprehensive studies of the family history, economic conditions,
present difficulty, and care of the children were made.
Investigations in divorce cases include those made to prevent
collusive divorce and social investigations made primarily to determine
what the provision should be, through custody and alimony orders,
for the welfare of the children. The latter type of investigation
involves determination of the parents’ fitness to have custody of the
children, their financial ability, and arrangements that can be made
for avoiding the conflicts with reference to the children’s care,
education, and guidance often incident to divorce or separation and
frequently disastrous in their effects on the children.
In four of the eight courts having divorce jurisdiction investiga­
tions in divorce cases were not usually made, though in one court
the judge ordered investigation if he was in doubt concerning the
custody of the children; one court obtained fairly comprehensive
information through office interviews; and three made investigations
that included home visits. One of the courts not making investiga­
tions had formerly made them in all cases, covering chiefly the char­
acter and reputation of the parents and the alleged grounds for di­
vorce; another had made them in cases involving children under the
age of 14 years, covering the condition of the children and the arrange­
ments that should be made for their care but not covering the grounds
for divorce. In the former court a later judge had discontinued
the practice; in the latter the policy of making investigations had
been abandoned, except in case of special need, because the probation
181443°—33

4


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

44

TH E CHILD, TH E FAM ILY, AND TH E COURT

officer who had made the investigations had resigned and his succes­
sor’s work in that field had been unsatisfactory. One of the three
courts making investigations that included home visits made them
in all divorce cases; another made them in uncontested divorce cases
and in cases involving children; and the third made them in cases
in v o lv ing m in or children.
In two courts the investigation covered
the causes of divorce, though in one of these the emphasis was being
placed increasingly on the care of the children,11 and in the third
court it was concerned primarily with the condition of the children
and the provision that should be made for their care.
Few courts had made adequate provision for physical and mental
examination of either children or adults. Special child-guidance
clinic or psychiatric service was available to 6 of the 20 courts with
juvenile jurisdiction for which information on this point was obtained
(not including courts serving rural counties). In some of the other
courts such service was available for a limited number of cases, and
some provided facilities for psychological testing without psychi­
atric study. A full-time psychologist was on the staff of one of
these courts.
In a few courts facilities for physical and mental examinations
were available for nonsupport and desertion cases when need was
indicated. Three courts were parts of a municipal-court organiza­
tion with a medical and psychiatric department in which physical
and mental examinations were made. In one of these courts it was
said that in nonsupport and desertion cases the wives and children
of the defendants as well as the defendants themselves were some­
times referred to the psychiatric department.
H E A R IN G S A N D O R D E R S

4.
Hearings should be held promptly, and unnecessary publicity and
formality should be avoided.
Sufficient resources should be available for home supervision or for
institutional care, so that in disposing of each case the court may fit the
treatment to the individual needs disclosed.
Juvenile hearings were conducted informally in all the courts hav­
ing juvenile jurisdiction.12 The general public was excluded from all
juvenile hearings, but in some courts a considerable number of per­
sons— staff members, representatives of social agencies, and visitors—
were present.
Most of the courts with jurisdiction over nonsupport and deser­
tion cases, illegitimacy cases, and cases of contributing to the delin­
quency or dependency of children conducted the hearings in a simple
and informal manner unless the cases were contested or unless jury
trials were demanded. As a rule, persons not concerned in the cases
were not present. Some courts, however, conducted hearings in a
formally arranged court room, and all persons interested in cases to
ii Investigations in this court were condemned severely b y a committee appointed b y the bar associa­
tion to inquire into the legal status and activities of the investigators of the courts of domestic relations.
The reports of the investigators were criticized as including hearsay evidence, coming between attorneys
and clients, and assuming undue authority. It was stated that although the condition of the children
was inquired into, the investigations concerned m ainly the grounds for divorce. (See Report of Committee
Appointed to Inquire into the Legal Status and Activities of the Investigators of the Courts of Domestic
Relations, St. Louis Bar Association, Oct. 8, 1923.) Thereafter, although the practice of making investi­
gations continued, the investigators curtailed their work in certain directions; but b y 1929 the services
connected with the adjustment of domestic difficulties before filing of petitions had been resumed.
ia In the N ew York C ity court each case had two hearings, the first being conducted more formally
than the second.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

FAM ILY COURTS IN' ACTION

45

be heard during the session were present, as were spectators in some
instances. In these courts the cases involving especially difficult
testimony, such as illegitimacy cases, were sometimes heard in the
judge’s private office, and some of the court rooms were so arranged
that the spectators were at a distance from the bench and could not
hear proceedings conducted in low tones.
In one of the courts having jurisdiction over divorce cases the
divorce hearings were conducted in a small, informally arranged room
with few persons in attendance, and in another they were conducted
in a small uncrowded court room. In six courts they were con­
ducted in ordinary court rooms, the sessions of one part of one of
these courts being held in a large crowded room, under conditions no
better than those prevailing in divorce courts where no attempt at
special organization for domestic-relations work had been made. The
court that held public hearings under undesirable conditions had a
rule providing for chamber hearings in the discretion of the court,
with the consent of the parties; and reports of the proceedings in such
chamber hearings were not given to the public. The rule in this
court further provided for cooperative arrangements with the press
looking toward the elimination of newspaper publicity in divorce
cases, except for bare recital of filing of suits, grounds alleged, and
decrees granted.
The inadequacy of the resources for constructive supervision of
probationers at the disposal of most of the courts has been indicated
in the discussion of the probation staff. Facilities for caring for
children who had to be provided for outside^ their own homes usually
were inadequate in some respects, a situation prevailing in most
juvenile courts throughout the country.
The courts having jurisdiction over nonsupport used probation or
its equivalent13 in these cases, the defendants often being required to
give security for compliance with the order of the court. In a num­
ber of communities 50 cents or more a day was paid for the support
of families of defendants sentenced to the workhouse or to hard labor.
The highest payment per diem provided was in Norfolk and Rich­
mond, Va., where families of prisoners sentenced to labor on the roads
received from 50 cents to $1 a day for the wife and 25 cents additional
for each child, the maximum amount being $1.75.
In some courts— that in Chicago, for example— probation was not
used in illegitimacy cases, and no constructive supervision was given
except through cooperating private agencies. In Boston, on the other
hand, the procedure was criminal and probation could be ordered,
and constructive case work was done over long periods with defend­
ants and with mothers and children.
P R O B A T IO N A R Y SU PE R VISIO N

5.
A definite plan fo r constructive work, even though it be tentative,
should be made and recorded in each case and, should be checked up at least
monthly in conference with the chief probation officer or other supervisor.
Reporting, when rightly safeguarded, is a valuable part of supervision,
but it should never be made a substitute fo r more constructive methods of
case work. Freguent home visits are essential to effective supervision,
13 Sometimes the defendant was placed on parole under suspended sentence, sometimes simply under
court order to support.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

46

TH E

c h il d

,

the

f a m il y

,

and

the

cotjrt

knowledge of the assets and liabilities of the fam ily, and correction of
unfavorable conditions.
Reconstructive work with the fam ily should be undertaken whenever
necessary, either by the 'probation officer himself or in cooperation with
other social agencies. Whenever other agencies can meet particular needs
their services should be enlisted.
Provision should be made by the court fo r collection of orders in non­
support and illegitimacy cases, and fo r assistance, when necessary, in
the collection of alimony orders.
For the 21 courts with juvenile jurisdiction included in the study
information was obtained concerning methods of probationary super­
vision in children’s cases: In 4 of these courts little attempt was
made to give intensive supervision in these cases, though 1 selected a
few of the most urgent cases for probationary supervision, and in 2
of them it was not even possible to ascertain the number of active
cases on probation.14 In only a few of the courts was fairly intensive
work done in children’s cases, including the formulation of a plan
which was reviewed at intervals by the judge or a probation officer,
frequent home visits, and enlistment of the cooperation of outside
agencies to meet the needs of the children and their families. Some
of the courts were doing the most thorough case work possible in
view of the large numbers of cases under the supervision of each
probation officer. The reporting system was usually relied upon, at
least in boys’ cases. Nearly all the courts stated that the aim was to
make home visits monthly, and some of them attempted to visit
more often, but pressure of work prevented frequent visits in many
instances. Cooperation with social agencies was also enerally stated
to bje the practice.
Fourteen of the group of 19 courts exercising jurisdiction in non­
support and desertion cases attempted to give probationary super­
vision, though in many of them constructive case work was impossible
in the majority of cases because of the heavy case loads carried by
the probation officers. Five of these 14 formulated definite plans in
the beginning of the probation period, and usually required reports
from the probationers (one requiring them under exceptional cir­
cumstances only), made an effort to visit the families monthly, semi­
monthly, or more often, and enlisted the cooperation of social agencies
in meeting special needs.16 Nine of the 14 courts gave some proba­
tionary supervision but were unable to give much intensive service.
They made some home visits, referred the families to social or health
agencies if special problems existed, and kept in touch with proba­
tioners through reports, usually in connection with payment of orders
to support. In one court all such cases were supervised by a private
organization. The remaining courts in this group attempted prac­
tically no case work with the families of probationers, limiting their
, service mostly to collection of the amounts ordered.
The eight courts having divorce jurisdiction gave little or no
' follow-up supervision in divorce cases involving children. Such
supervision, given in some cases by one court, had been discontinued
for a time as a result of adverse criticism by the bar association, and
was later resumed to some extent.16
h Later information for two of these courts indicated some improvement.

« T w o of these courts, in Essex C ounty, N. J., were served by the same probation departmen t.
w See footnote 11, p. 44.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

FAM ILY COURTS IN ACTION"

47

Information on methods of collecting money ordered by the court
for the support of probationers’ families was obtained for the courts
studied that exercised jurisdiction in cases of nonsupport and deser­
tion. Payments were made through the cashier’s office, the clerk’s
office, a special auditing department, or the probation department;
and for one court through the overseers of the poor. Some courts
required the mothers to call in person for their money, and some
mailed the checks. In several courts a careful system of checking
the regularity of payments and sending notices to men delinquent in
payments had been developed; in others the initiative in following up
delinquent accounts rested with the mothers, assistance being given
by the courts when complaints were received. A collection fee of
about 10 cents a week was charged in one court.
Alimony ordered in divorce cases was paid through tne court or
probation office in five of the eight courts having divorce jurisdiction.
In a sixth the alimony usually was paid through the court, and a
seventh gave assistance in collecting delinquent accounts when com­
plaints were made. The eighth court gave no assistance whatever in
this matter; if payments were in "arrears, the wife had to employ a
lawyer to represent her in civil proceedings or to start a criminal
action for nonsupport in another court. In one court the payments
were made to a probation officer, who then sent out checks to the
women. This officer kept record of the accounts and followed up
delinquent accounts by letter.
Most of the eight courts dealing with illegitimacy cases 17 had the
payments ordered in such cases made through the court in the same
way in which payments were made in nonsupport cases. Case work
with mothers and children was attempted in three courts, though in
one the case load was extremely heavy; and a fourth had a compre­
hensive program for the care of children born out of wedlock through
aid to expectant and nursing mothers and other measures. In one
court the cases came through the overseers of the poor, and no socialservice work was attempted by the court. Except for reference to
social agencies and hospitals no case work in illegitimacy cases was
done in the remaining three courts.
RECORD SYSTEM

6.
Every court should have a record system which 'provides for the
necessary legal records and fo r social records covering the investigation
of the case and the work accomplished. The records of investigation
should include all the facts necessary to a constructive plan of treatment.
The records of supervision should show the constructive case work planned,
attempted, and accomplished, and should give a chronological history of
the supervisory work.
In the majority of the courts included in the study the social
records did not meet the standards specified in either juvenile or adult
cases. The records of supervision were as a rule less complete than
the records of investigation.
17 Excluding those dealing only with an occasional case, in one of which illegitimacy cases were included
in the general nonsupport jurisdiction of the court.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

48

TH E CHILD, TH E FAM ILY, AND TH E COURT
E X T E N T O F C O U R T S ’ C O N F O R M IT Y T O S T A N D A R D S

The extent to which the organization and procedure of the courts
included in the study conformed to the standards outlined may be
stated as follows:
1. In a majority of the communities whose courts were studied
the establishment of family courts brought cases involving family
problems to the consideration of judges who regarded this work as a
specialty and who were sincerely interested in developing better
standards. This situation did not exist, however, in some of the
courts, especially the domestic-relations courts without juvenile juris­
diction, in which the periods of the judges’ service were usually very
short.
2. In a majority of -the courts probation officers were appointed
from eligible lists established through competitive examinations.
Salaries were markedly inadequate in 13 of the 20 probation depart­
ments serving large cities included in the study for which information
on this point was obtained. Not many probation officers had ade­
quate preparatory training and experience, and the probation depart­
ments of all but five or six courts were so understaffed that the officers
were carrying excessively heavy case loads and could not give enough
attention to the cases intrusted to them. Officers supervising adults
were usually responsible for a much larger number of probationers
than were officers supervising juveniles.
3. In most of the courts considerable emphasis was placed on
unofficial adjustment in nonsupport and other domestic-relations
cases, as well as in juvenile cases; and a comprehensive technique
had been worked out in some courts. Conciliation service in divorce
cases had been relatively less developed. The majority of courts
made field investigations in some of or all the nonsupport and desertion
cases, and a few made thorough studies; husbands and wives involved
in nonsupport cases were not given physical or mental examinations
except in occasional instances or if the need for examination was
obvious. Field investigations were made in divorce cases in three of
the eight courts having divorce jurisdiction.
4. Court proceedings in nonsupport and desertion cases and other
domestic-relations cases (excluding divorce) were for the most part
simple and informal, and persons not concerned in the cases were not
usually present. In some courts, however, these conditions did not
prevail. Little improvement had been made in divorce hearings
except in two or three courts.
. . . . . .
5. In only a few of the courts having juvenile jurisdiction for which
information was obtained concerning probationary supervision in
children’s cases was even fairly intensive work done in these cases.
Methods of collecting money through the court in nonsupport and
desertion cases had been rather well developed, though in some
courts no follow-up of delinquent accounts was made as a matter of
routine. Probationary supervision was attempted by 14 of the 19
courts exercising jurisdiction in nonsupport and desertion cases, but
inadequate staff in most of them made intensive work difficult or
impossible. Little or no follow-up supervision was given in divorce
cases involving children, though assistance in collecting alimony was
usually available.
6. Social records in most courts did not give an adequate picture
of the problems involved and the work accomplished.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

FAM ILY COURTS IN ACTION

49

EFFECT OF FAMILY-COURT ORGANIZATION ON JUVENILE-COURT
W ORK

One of the questions frequently raised in discussions of the advis­
ability of consolidating in one court the jurisdiction over juvenile
cases and certain types of adult cases is the effect that such consol­
idation may haye upon the juvenile work of the court. It is argued
that the original purpose of the juvenile court was separation of
children’s cases from adult cases in order to avoid contacts between
children and adult offenders, to remove the stigma connected with
bringing children to a court which also deals with criminal cases,
and— of special importance— to permit the court to center all its atten­
tion on the juvenile problem. On the other hand, those advocating
the consolidation in one court of children’s cases, cases of adults offend­
ing against children, cases of nonsupport and desertion, and cases
of divorce are impressed with the desirability of enabling the court
dealing with children to dispose of related problems that closely
affect their welfare and to extend the safeguards of the juvenile court
to children who must appear as witnesses in cases against adults.
In the study of the Ohio courts special attention was given to these
considerations. So far as could be observed the only serious diffi­
culty involved in the exercise of the extensive jurisdiction that these
courts possessed was the overloading of the judge with divorce cases.
The proportion of the judge’s time devoted to divorce business was
naturally much greater than the proportion that the divorce cases
bore to the total number of cases dealt with, inasmuch as all divorce
cases were heard by the judge, whereas many of the other cases
(especially in* Hamilton County, Ohio) were handled unofficially by
the probation department. Contested divorce cases also occupied
a very much longer time than cases of any other type. Three of the
four Ohio courts studied were devoting three and a half or four of the
five and a half working days of the week to the divorce business of
the court, and the fourth (that in Mahoning County) was giving two
and a half days to it.
The organizing of the St. Louis domestic-relations court had prac­
tically no effect on the work of the juvenile court, as the juvenile
division was entirely separate from the domestic-relations division.
The juvenile court of Jefferson County (Birmingham), Ala., had been
weakened by the organizing of the domestic-relations court, as the
law provided for dual control by the two judges, but this situation
was corrected by making provision for a single judge. (See p. 36.)
The chief probation officer, acting as referee, heard some of the chil­
dren’s cases, but both the judge and the chief probation officer were
overburdened. Juvenile-court work in New York State and in
Virginia was greatly strengthened by the legislation that had been
enacted. As has been pointed out (p. 37), the New York children’s
courts were proceeding cautiously in the exercise of adult jurisdiction.
In most of the juvenile courts with broad jurisdiction the adult juris­
diction had developed gradually, and as a result there had been no
disorganization of the juvenile work. The adult jurisdiction of the
Philadelphia municipal court had little effect on the juvenile work, as
the juvenile work and the domestic-relations work were done by
separate divisions. The juvenile division had the services of the
medical department, the central record bureau, the statistical di­
vision, and other service divisions maintained by the court.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

50

TH E CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND TH E COURT

In courts in which the combined juvenile and adult business is not
too heavy for one judge and the juvenile work alone would not
occupy his full time, the combination of juvenile and adult jurisdic­
tion has enabled the judge to devote all his time to problems connected
with child and family welfare. With a few exceptions probation
officers already engaged in juvenile work have not been burdened
with adult cases as a result of the organization of family courts, the
juvenile case loads generally being lighter than the adult case loads,
as has been pointed out. But in many communities the juvenile
court was greatly in need of a larger, better-organized staff, and it
may be questioned whether the time, effort, and money devoted to
domestic-relations cases should not have been directed first of all
toward improving the service rendered in children’s cases. In some
communities juvenile-court work undoubtedly has been damaged
through the effect the family-court movement has had upon public
opinion. It is a mistake to regard the juvenile court as a task
accomplished, as a foundation upon which to rear the structure of a
family court; before the juvenile court has been given sufficient
attention and intelligent criticism to enable it to fulfill its aims


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE EXTENSION OF
THE NEW JUDICIAL TECHNIQUE
SAFEGUARDING THE JUVENILE COURT AND CONSOLIDATING THE
GAINS MADE

The family-court movement has been in large part an outgrowth
of the juvenile court. It has been the result of practical experience
which has demonstrated to judges, lawyers, and social workers that
problems of child welfare and of family welfare are inextricably
intertwined and that the new technique is needed in dealing with
certain types of family problems. Obviously the welfare of the child
is at stake not only in a delinquency or neglect proceeding but also in a
nonsupport proceeding against the father, in an action for the legal
separation or divorce of his parents, of in a proceeding to establish
the child’s paternity. The child, in fact, is the primary reason for the
concern of the public with the adults involved in such situations.
In developing the new judicial technique it is important to consol­
idate the gains made in dealing with certain aspects of the problem
which have been attacked first before attempting to cover other
sectors. The ideas underlying the juvenile court have been adopted
almost universally, but the fact that a legislative body has enacted a
principle does not mean that the principle has yet been put into
wholly effective operation. Many rural communities and small
towns throughout the country have no facilities for dealing with
children in need of the protection that a juvenile court can give. Even
in many of the larger cities the juvenile court still has an inade­
quate staff, lacks the means for intensive study of the child, and
obtains results chiefly through the method of trial and error instead of
through scientific study followed by treatment adapted to the needs
discovered.
The primary importance of children’s cases has been recognized by
the law itself, which has always been peculiarly interested in them.
The necessity of treating juvenile cases adequately is universally
recognized by legal thinkers, educators, and social economists. The
new judicial techniq ue is well adapted to the handling of juvenile cases,
and it has been shown that the juvenile court which is based upon
that technique can live up to the expectations of its founders.
Entirely apart from the relative importance of adult cases and of
juvenile cases, if the new machinery and the new technique are not
properly fulfilling their existing functions in children’s cases, it can
hardly be expected that new functions will be performed better.
If the personnel qualified to administer these delicate questions of
family relations is insufficient, either in caliber or in number, to
handle adults as well as children, questions of domestic relations
involving adults should not be allowed to interfere with the work of
the juvenile court. It is far better that justice be administered
properly and thoroughly in one field, particularly when that field is
very important, than that new courts try to do too much and as a
consequence do nothing well.
Hopes and aspirations should not be allowed to obscure facts.
The condition of the juvenile court is a fact, ascertainable in each
51

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

52

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AHD TH E COURT

jurisdiction in which it functions. The greatest service that can be
performed to-day by those interested in the administration of justice
in domestic relations is to see that the juvenile court in their
community is properly organized and is properly carrying on its
functions. For the most part, except in rural communities, the initial
effort of founding juvenile courts is past, but there remains to be done
the equally important work of making the juvenile court as stabilized
and as competent in its field as are most courts of common law.
That work should be given right of way.
This is not to say that the juvenile court necessarily must be con­
tinued as a separate court, nor that the extension of the new tech­
nique to cases of adults is necessarily inadvisable; but every question
of change of court organization or of court technique with respect to
domestic relations involving the juvenile court should be considered
first of all in the light of its probable effect upon the handling of
children’s cases.
FLEXIBILITY OF PROGRAM

The point of view indicated in the preceding section would lead to
different results in almost every jurisdiction. In some cases it would
lead to temporary abandonment of proposals to consolidate in one
court all cases of domestic relations and to revitalizing of interest in
the work of the juvenile court. In other cases, where the material
for the application of the new technique is better and more plentiful,
it might lead to the establishment of an omnibus court that, depend­
ing largely upon the volume of business, would operate either as a
unit or in two parts, one of which would deal with cases involving
adults and the other with cases involving children. In still other
cases it might lead to two separate courts— a domestic-relations court
and a juvenile court.
In none of the communities whose courts were studied has there
been developed a family court that exercises complete, exclusive,
original jurisdiction over cases of all types included in the study.
Attempts at consolidation have succeeded, here with reference to one
aspect of the problem and there with reference to another; but in a
number of communities the establishment of a family court has not
eliminated overlapping jurisdictions. For instance, two different
courts still hear nonsupport cases in some communities in which
family courts have been established. In such communities it is
possible without additional legislation to effect further consolidation
through court rule, agreement among prosecuting authorities, and
increasing public knowledge of the function of the family court.
One of the outstanding results of this study is the sharp realization
that there can be no nation-wide formula for the legal adjustment of
family problems. Local conditions vary, and the population of one
State differs in both number and character from the population of
another. Domestic relations themselves differ with geography. In
a seaport city with a large foreign population, for example, the
conflicts between parents raised in foreign lands and their children
brought up in new surroundings may crowd the court; in an agricul­
tural community conflicts may arise from dissatisfaction with rural
fife on the part of the younger generation. In one community there
may be an excellent judge and a large and efficient probation staff
supported by a group of lawyers and social workers who see that


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

FU ND AM ENTAL

c o n s id e r a t io n s

53

proper standards are maintained in domestic-relations courts; in
another these vital elements may be absent. Fifty years ago the people
of one State may have guessed better than the people of another as
to the kind of court structure that the constitution should impose
upon future generations; the court structure even of municipalities
is often embodied in the State constitution or entrenched behind the
ramparts of politics. All these variations and many more came to
light in this study. In evaluating the work of family courts it must
always be remembered, first, that generalizations are unsafe; second,
that the problem of the law, the family, and the court can never be
solved adequately unless local conditions are kept constantly in
mind.
ADEQUACY OF PERSONNEL

Most of the statements favoring the establishment of family courts
dwell on the advantages that should be derived from their foundation
or extension; comparatively little reference is made to the handicaps
under which such courts must labor without sufficient and adequately
trained personnel. Yet without such personnel a family court may
be worse than useless; instead of being an administrator of justice
in the light of modern conditions and scientific study it may degen­
erate into an unwarranted and harmful meddler in domestic affairs.
It is useless to talk about making the administration of justice a
process of social engineering if theTrst principle of both engineering
and the administration of justice is not observed— supplying the tools
with which the work must be done. It is futile to attempt to adapt
law to an industrialized society unless the instruments of law are
organized with the efficiency that industry itself has attained. One
probation worker can no more handle 150 cases of juvenile delinquency
adequately than a judge can adjudicate 150 points of law simultane­
ously. The new judicial technique, whatever advantages it may
have, does not possess the ability to cure by waving a magic wand.
A scientific attitude toward the administration of the law of domestic
relations implies recognition of the fact that most family courts are
poorly equipped to fulfill the purposes for which they were founded.
As quickly as possible the standards previously set forth for judges
and probation officers (see p. 38) should be reached in existing courts,
and enlarged powers should not be conferred nor new courts created
until careful plans for administration have been formulated.
UTILIZATION AND STIMULATION OF COM M UNITY RESOURCES

If it is to be successful a family court must utilize to the fullest
extent other social agencies in the community. Not only does a
large part of the work carried on by family courts belong function­
ally as much to these other agencies as it does to the courts, but in
many cases the outside groups are able to supply service that the
court is not equipped to give.
Of course the outside agencies may have the same shortcomings
as the family courts. They may not be properly oriented among
themselves, and as a consequence their work may overlap as much
as the old courts are accused of overlapping. Or, as this study dis­
closes, the family court and the outside organizations may themselves
overlap in their endeavors. Once more the difficulty of formulating
a general rule without reference to local conditions becomes apparent.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

54

TH E CHILD, THE FA M ILY, AND TH E COURT

If the resources of the community do not meet the needs discov­
ered it is the duty of the court to inform the public from time to
time and to cooperate to the fullest extent with other agencies in
obtaining more satisfactory provision.
For example, sufficient
resources for foster-home care and institutional care of children may
be lacking. Facilities for family-welfare service, including help in
budget planning and in adjusting various family difficulties, may be
inadequate. Provision for diagnosis and treatment of mothers and
fathers incapacitated by physical or mental disability may be insuf­
ficient. For obtaining these and many other items of an adequate
community program the court shares responsibility with other
organizations.
RESEARCH AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC M ETH ODS

Few courts of any type are equipped to do research work. Childguidance clinics working with juvenile courts in a number of commu­
nities have been accumulating information concerning the causes and
methods of treatment of delinquency which is invaluable as a basis
for developing programs of treatment and prevention.1 In the field
of marital maladjustments and other domestic difficulties research is
equally necessary, but as yet little has been attempted. Exceptions
are the studies of men and women involved in a selected number of
domestic-relations cases in the Detroit recorder’s court, made by the
psychopathic clinic of that court, and the intensive study and treat­
ment of a limited number of neglect cases by the psychopathic clinic
maintained in connection with the juvenile court of Detroit, also the
studies of causes of marital difficulties in a group of divorce cases
dealt with by the Cincinnati court.2 Some municipal courts (as in
Chicago and Philadelphia) have a psychopathic laboratory or neuro­
psychiatric division. However, few family courts or courts of domes­
tic relations can be expected under present conditions to be equipped
with facilities for scientific research.
As the child-guidance movement has been initiated and for the
most part carried on by private effort, so might nongovernmental
endeavor be directed toward the establishment of domestic-relations
clinics, possibly in connection with legal-aid bureaus. These clinics
should be equipped to render diagnostic service and unofficial assist­
ance in the medical, psychiatric, and social fields to those asking help
in solving difficulties connected with marital or other family relations
or referred by courts for such service. Such organizations, besides
being of immediate assistance to the families with which they came
in contact, would make available for the first time a factual basis for
programs of prevention and treatment and for measurement of the
efficiency of legal and nonlega! institutions as agencies dealing with
family maladjustments.3
* Io r example, the early w o.k of Dr. William Bea y and Dr. Augusta F . Bronner in connection w :th
the Chicago juvenile court and their present work in the Judge Baker Foundation in Boston, and the
work of other child-guidance clinics.
2 See One Hundred Domestic-Relations Problems, b y Helen Flinn and Arnold L. Jacoby (Mentals
Hygiene, vol. 10, No. 4 (October, 1926), pp. 732-742), and Sex Antagonism in Divorce, b y Hornell Hart
and M . E. McChristie (Proceedings of the National Probation Association, 1922, pp. 135-141).
a The tendency in the field of the physical sciences is also applicable to sciences dealing with human
behavior and social organization, though its development is naturally much more difficult in the latter
field. “ Experts recognize that the day of arbitrary opinion is passing, that experimental research and
service experience can best guide every item of the standard. . W ith great gaps in our precise knowledge
of the properties of matter and energy, empiricism still rules; but its domain narrows as research gives
us measured data based on scientific methods.” Standards Year Book, 1927, p. 6. U. S. Bureau of
Standards Miscellaneous Publication N o. 77. Washington, 1927.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPLICATION OF THE NEW TECHNIQUE TO SPECIFIED
TYPES OF CASES

In the review of various considerations applicable to the treatment
of cases of domestic relations when they come into contact with law
these cases in the main have been treated generically. At this point,
however, the law of domestic relations, apart from the treatment of
juvenile delinquency and dependency, which has already been consid­
ered, can be separated into its component parts. It is important to
ascertain how each group of cases relevant to this study is affected by
the possibilities and limitations of the new judicial technique and court
reorganization, to endeavor to fix some limits as to what courts can
and should hope to accomplish in these cases, and to orient their
treatment with the principle of safeguarding the juvenile court.
It is necessary in considering each type of case to bear in mind, as
has been emphasized in this report, that the program for a given com­
munity must be based upon careful analysis of local conditions and
adaptation of general principles to local needs. The family-court
movement is still in an experimental stage, and no final statement of
principles with reference to the scope of the new courts can yet be
made. In fact, in this stage of development it matters little what
aspects of the family problem are brought within the jurisdiction of
the new courts in various localities so long as effective standards of
dealing with the problems selected are developed.
In the opinion of the writers any attempt to judge the efficacy of
existing courts by a standardized outline of a so-called model court
would be actually detrimental. Experiments in the treatment of the
different types of cases coming within the general scope of this report
are greatly to be desired, and local situations must determine the
parts of the problem to be attacked first. It is extremely helpful to
the whole movement, for example, when a court in one locality under­
takes a demonstration of what socialized treatment of nonsupport
cases really involves, while a court in another community may be
developing such methods of cooperation with courts-having divorce
jurisdiction as will insure adequate treatment of matters affecting the
custody and welfare of the children involved.
In considering any particular type of case with reference to any
given local situation the first question to answer is “ How can ade­
quate administrative standards be developed best in this field?”
When careful study of existing conditions indicates that further
advance is possible in the direction of socialized treatment of family
problems certain general considerations applicable to the various
subjects coming within the jurisdiction of family courts in different
communities may be helpful. These will be suggested in the follow­
ing paragraphs.
OFFENSES AGAINST CHILDREN

Acts or omissions of adults in regard to children come under legal
cognizance in three classes of cases: Those in which an adult is


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

56

TH E

c h il e ,

the

f a m il y

,

ahd

the

court

accused of a crime against a minor, those in which the adult has failed
to fulfill a duty toward a minor, and those in which the adult is
accused of causing juvenile delinquency or dependency or of tending
to cause it.
Included in the first group of cases are certain types of offenses
against minors that clearly do not require thorough investigation of
environment or need for continuous treatment, as cases in which an
adult has stolen from a minor. In some jurisdictions all such cases
come under the family court, but it is obviously unnecessary for them
to be handled by a court whose main object is socialized treatment
of children. Certain other offenses are more closely analogous to
the third group of cases— those in which the adult is accused of
causing or attempting to cause juvenile delinquency. These cases
affect or have a bearing upon the child’s care and development and
should be considered from the social point of view. They include
not only cases of sex offenses against children but also certain other
types of cases covered by criminal law, such as the purchase of junk
from minors. Some of these types of cases are usually dealt with as
contributing to delinquency and can be treated very satisfactorily in
this manner. Whether serious sex crimes should be dealt with in the
juvenile court is a more difficult question. The children involved
need the protection given by the absence of the atmosphere of the
criminal court and of publicity, and they usually require careful study
and treatment in order that they may be helped to recover from the
effects of the exploitation they have suffered. Nevertheless the
accused is charged with a most serious crime and is entitled to all
the safeguards provided by the criminal law. In any event a method
of cooperation between the juvenile court and the prosecuting author­
ities such as has been developed in certain jurisdictions could be
adopted immediately,1and the criminal court could make it an inva­
riable practice to refer the minors involved to the juvenile court for
investigation and treatment.
The second group of cases, in which an adult has failed to fulfill a
duty toward a minor, is illustrated mainly by nonsupport and deser­
tion cases, which will be discussed in the following section. Failure
to comply with school-attendance laws or to furnish medical care,
and other types of failure to fulfill parental obligations are dealt with
sometimes under specific charges, sometimes under the general charge
of neglect, sometimes under the charge of contributing to delinquency
or dependency. These cases are closely related to the dependencyand-neglect jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and they should be
dealt with by the same tribunal and receive the same socialized
treatment.
The third group of cases can be taken as excluding crimes against
children and cases of desertion and nonsupport but including all
other cases in which the adult is accused of causing or tending to
cause juvenile delinquency or dependency. As a rule they are closely
related to some juvenile problem already before the court, and juris­
diction over them belongs properly to the juvenile or family court.
Their number is not usually so great as to place that court under
undue strain.
‘ See ^avenile Courts at W ork, pp. 221-224.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPLICATION OF N E W TECHNIQUE TO SPECIFIED TYPES OF CASES

57

NONSUPPORT AND DESERTION

Such offenses as nonsupport and desertion of course bear a direct
relation to juvenile delinquency and dependency. They are rarely
the result of a deliberate desire to violate either the law or the tradi­
tional obligations of the family. Rather they are caused by economic
conditions, poverty, and physical and mental limitations. In most
cases the old criminal treatment is inadequate. Nor are intermittent
police-court hearings and orders to pay money much more efficacious.
Nonsupport is usually an evidence of home conditions seriously detri­
mental to the welfare of the children. As a general rule, much more
than the enforcement of the payment of support orders is necessary.
Physical examination and psychiatric study of one or more members
of the family, medical care, and vocational and social adjustments
may be needed. In these cases of adults the new judicial technique
can be most helpful if properly administered. These also are the
cases in which jurisdiction is often most confused. In some localities
the police court, the criminal court, the juvenile court, the family
court, and a number of social agencies all attack the same family
problem.
The practical difficulties, however, of treating these cases in the
new way are great. The volume of such cases in the larger cities is
enormous. To unload them upon the juvenile court subjects it to
undue strain unless a reallocation of jurisdiction of this kind can be
accompanied by a proper supplementing of the juvenile-court staff.
The same comment applies to the family court having juvenile and
adult jurisdiction. Establishing a separate court of domestic relations
concerned mainly with nonsupport and desertion cases may be the
best solution in some communities, but in view of the close interrela­
tion between these cases and juvenile cases the absolute separation
of the two classes involves certain losses.
This class of cases exemplifies the necessity of trying to do one
thing well; or, if it is being done well, to assure its future before
attacking new problems with inadequate tools. It is true that chil­
dren’s cases often can not be treated adequately without proper
treatment of the adults involved, but it may be better to proceed
with this handicap than to undermine the quality of all the work
being done.
This of course is the negative side of the picture. Great need
exists for coordinating and improving the treatment of these cases,
which have so important a bearing on the preservation of the home
and the welfare of the children. As rapidly as the new technique
can be extended to embrace them without hampering the develop­
ment of the juvenile court such action should be taken. Whether
they should be placed in the juvenile court, a separate court of
domestic relations, or a family court of broad jurisdiction will depend
upon circumstances; but whenever the combined volume of work will
not be too great for a single court that organization appears to be
preferable. Within the organization specialization of service is desir­
able ; for example, certain probation officers should devote all their
time to the conduct problems of children, and others should special­
ize on family problems, including cases of neglect, contributing to
dependency, and nonsupport.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

58

TH E CHILD, TH E FAM ILY, AND TH E COURT

Some experiments have been made in the extension of equity pro­
cedure to nonsupport cases. The domestic-relations division of the
city court of Buffalo has been given equity powers (see p. 14), and the
New York State children’s court act provides for civil proceedings in
nonsupport cases and specifies that a judgment of “ disorderly person”
shall not be necessary in making an order.2 It has been noted that
in certain jurisdictions action to compel support is brought under a
contributing-to-dependency statute. Contributing to dependency
may be dealt with in Colorado either as a misdemeanor or under
equity procedure, and the Denver juvenile court used equity procedure,
in all except the most seriously contested or extradition cases of
nonsupport. Some provision for informal procedure in nonsupport
cases is greatly to be desired. This can be accomplished not only
by vesting the court with full equity powers but also by a provision
such as that existing in the Philadelphia municipal court, in which
voluntary agreements are confirmed by the judge without hearing
and have the force of official orders. In any event criminal proced­
ure should always be available for cases in which full justice can
not be done through voluntary agreements and for cases in which the
defendant is outside the court’s jurisdiction.
After the question of the court through which the new technique
is to be developed has been settled the relation between the court
and the other family-welfare, agencies of the community remains to
be considered. Here again whether intensive family rehabilitation
is to be undertaken by the staff of the court or by other familywelfare agencies must be determined in accordance with local
resources and local needs. Whatever division of service may be
adopted it is essential that the court include on its staff experienced
family-welfare workers who are able to make adequate investigations,
to carry on conciliation service, to formulate plans, and to utilize the
resources of the community in making them effective. Medical and
psychiatric clinics also must be available to the court if effective
work is to done in this field.
ESTABLISHMENT OF PATERNITY AND ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT
OF CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK

Proceedings to establish paternity and to enforce support of
children born out of wedlock have many problems in common with
cases of nonsupport and desertion, involving as they do the determi­
nation of the amount of support that should be ordered and the
collection of support orders. They are complicated by the difficulty
of establishing paternity, the necessity for testimony of a most
intimate and embarassing nature, and the urgent need for social
service that will help the mother to reestablish herself in the com­
munity.
They are closely allied with juvenile-court problems,
inasmuch as very young mothers or fathers may be already under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court as delinquent or may need the guid­
ance that the juvenile court can give.3 All the safeguards that can
be thrown around the proceeding— such as exclusion of the general
public and protection of the mother from revolting cross-examination—
8
The 1933 law establishing the domestic-relations court for N ew York C ity provides for both equity
and criminal procedure and eliminates the “ disorderly” charge.
8 In various studies it has been found that one-ninth to nearly one-fourth of the unmarried mothers were
under 18 years of age, and one-eighth to more than one-fourth of the fathers were under 21. See Case
W ork with Unmarried Parents and Their Children, b y Katharine F. Lenroot (Hospital Social Service,
ypl. 12. No. 2 (August, 1925), p. 70).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPLICATION OF N E W TECHNIQUE TO SPECIFIED TYPES OF CASES

59

are greatly to be desired. Except in the largest cities, the number of
cases is not so considerable as greatly to overload the juvenile or
family court. As rapidly as possible jurisdiction over these cases
should be placed in a socialized court having jurisdiction of juvenile
cases, or cases of nonsupport and desertion, or both. An added
reason for combining nonsupport and illegitimacy jurisdiction is the
fact that in more than one-third of the States the father of a child
born out of wedlock is liable under the general nonsupport and
desertion law.
DIVORCE AND ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE
G E N E R A L C O N S ID E R A T IO N S

As far as judicial treatment is concerned divorce cases may be
divided into two parts: The determination whether or not a divorce
should be granted and the proceedings after this question has been
settled, including alimony and custody of children.
Some confusion of thought exists between what the substantive
law of divorce should be and how the law should be administered;
and one school of thought believes that, whatever the law may be,
the court should go beyond its strictly judicial functions and try to
reconcile the difference between the parties.
Hearings in uncontested divorce cases are perfunctory in many
jurisdictions. The real cause of disagreement often is not given in
such cases, and sometimes it is not even realized by the parties.
Frequently evidence is taken before a master in equity. Doubtless
collusion between the parties is common. In contested cases the
evidence adduced is more reliable, and a greater array of facts is
presented than in uncontested cases; but even in these cases the
real difficulty may not be ascertained. A correct diagnosis of marital
difficulties is often more a matter for doctors and psychiatrists than
for lawyers. The element of sexual maladjustment is coming to be
more and more recognized. This element the parties either do not
comprehend or will not testify to. In most States it does not of itself
constitute a ground for divorce.
. .
Whether divorces should be made easier or harder to obtain is
outside the scope of this study. It is for the legislature of each State
to determine that question. No court, whether a court of equity or
a family court, can or should depart from the requirements which
the legislature has laid down. In other words, much of the agitation
on this subject should be directed toward the substantive law and
not toward the method of its administration.
It is a real question how far the new judicial technique is applicable
to cases of divorce. In theory the granting or refusing of a divorce
involves only one judicial act, not continuous jurisdiction; but this
could be said too, in theory, of juvenile delinquency and dependency.
The new method of treatment of cases by the courts is frankly, in
some respects, interstitial judicial legislation. Moreover, in two
respects— alimony and custody of children— divorce cases do come
before the court recurrently.
Determining whether or not a divorce should be granted does not
involve the exercise of magisterial discretion that juvenile cases require.
181443°—33----- 5


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

60

THE CHILD, TH E FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

Public opinion— as reflected to some degree in the statutes—has
conceded that there should be no hard and fast rules in children's
cases; but with respect to the granting of divorces the statutes and
the common law speak too plainly to permit doubt. Divorces are
to be granted only in certain well-defined cases and under certain
conditions. The court, of course, should safeguard itself as much as
possible from fraud and collusion, and in many jurisdictions reform
is greatly needed. The social investigator in some jurisdictions has
been called upon to make field investigations to determine whether
fraud exists; but in general, until the existing rules of substantive
law are changed, it would seem that the new technique can not and
should not be applied to the question of severing marital relations
unless the welfare of children is involved.
What has been said with respect to divorce applies also to cases
where annulment of marriage is sought. Here, too, the question is
chiefly one of substantive law.
A L IM O N Y

The awarding of alimony after a divorce has been granted involves
different considerations. Here there is much more scope for judicial
discretion. Several alimony hearings in the same case are usual,
sometimes spread over a number of years, and the system of rotation
of judges in effect in many courts of equity is not conducive to the
most satisfactory handling of such cases. The allowance of alimony
after determination that one of the parties is entitled to it, is really
a separate matter from the granting of the divorce, and the
method of treatment is different. In short, alimony hearings are
much more closely allied to hearings for nonsupport and desertion
than to divorce proceedings, and the new technique is intrinsically
applicable to both.4
J
C U S T O D Y O F C H IL D R E N

When children are involved in a divorce case their custody and
welfare become the most important aspect of the whole proceeding
from the standpoint of the State; and 38 per cent of the divorces
reported m the United States in 1931 involved children.6 Here cer­
tainly the new technique not only is in order but is required for
proper determination of the interests involved. Divorce proceedings
conducted according to the old rules of evidence are not calculated
o bring out the various considerations that should be regarded in
determining custody. The problems here are closely allied to the
work of the court handling juvenile cases. Indeed if they are not
brought to the juvenile court in their inception they may end there
in cases of juvenile dependency or delinquency. Divorce cases also
are allied closely to cases of nonsupport and desertion because courts
dealing with nonsupport cases deal with many families involved later
m divorce proceedings. (See p. 27.)
J U R I S D I C T IO N

Jurisdiction over cases of divorce generally is given to-day to the
equity courts. Although a number of students of the problem
4 See the Michigan law providing for a “ friend of the court” to oversee the collection and A*™nditnm

5 Marriage and Divorce, 1931, pp. 47, 48.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

U. S. Bureau of the Census.

Washington, 1932.

APPLICATION OP N E W TECHNIQUE TO SPECIFIED TYPES OF CASES

61

believe that the same judge, or at least the same court, should pass
upon all aspects of divorce questions and that this judge or court
should be the one having jurisdiction in children’s cases and other
family cases, all the objections to this omnibus treatment that were
mentioned in discussion of desertion and nonsupport can be made in
this connection also. The volume of divorce cases is very large, and
some of the work of the court would be likely to suffer under present
conditions. Observations of some courts where the experiment is
being tried confirms this statement. (See p. 49.)
Can jurisdiction in divorce cases be split? As a general rule, it is
hard to see why it should not be when practical circumstances make
it inadvisable to give full jurisdiction to a family court.6 The juvenile
court, for example, could determine custody after an equity court had
granted the divorce, or the equity court could send the question of
custody to the juvenile court for determination, just as it sometimes
sends a question to a court of law to be determined by a jury. At
the present time some divorce cases are referred informally to the
juvenile court for investigation as to the interests of the children.7
In the absence of special legislation the practice of such informal
reference by the divorce court to the juvenile court should be extended.
Wherever jurisdiction is placed the court should be required to have
evidence as to the number, ages, and whereabouts of the children
entered upon the records before a decree is granted. In 5 per cent
of the 182,203 divorces in 1931 no information was available as to
whether children were involved.8
Alimony cases involving the support of children might be heard by
the juvenile court or by a socialized court dealing with cases of non­
support and desertion, provided it was able to handle the increased
Volume of business. Where a court of general civil and criminal
jurisdiction, including divorce, has a juvenile or family division, as in
some Ohio counties and in Iowa and Nebraska, it might be desirable
to assign to the juvenile or family division entire responsibility for
divorce cases involving children, leaving other divorce cases in the
general equity or chancery division. Such an arrangement in Hamil­
ton County, Ohio, for example, would relieve the family-court judge
of a large volume of work not involving children at all. Of course
local statutory and constitutional provisions in each jurisdiction
would have to be taken into account. If possible, the court determin­
ing custody and alimony for the support of the children should have
6Ip this connection it is of interest to note a comment made b y the executive secretary of the Pennsyl­
vania Children’s Commission: “ Differing from m any States, Pennsylvania has a system of separating
entirely the process for hearing and granting divorces from the process of awarding custody of thci children.
In all divorce cases the master appointed to hear the evidence ascertains the number, ages, and where­
abouts of the children of the couple, and this information undoubtedly influences his recommendation to
the court with regard to the granting or refusing of the petition. Questions of custody are settled,
however, b y a different process. Parents are expected to make a private arrangement and decide ques­
tions with regard to the care of their children. If either parent wishes to secure the custody of a child or
to make a new arrangement to which the other parent does not acquiesce, the case comes into the commonpleas court on a writ of habeas corpus, and the judge awards the custody in accordance with what the
evidence indicates will ,be in the best interests of the child. T he consideration of custody apart from
divorce decrees is thought to have advantages over the system of awarding custody in connection with
the decree. It tends to keep the issues in the divorce case more clearly defined and prevents the bitterness
and recrimination characteristic of divorce cases in which both parents are eager to secure the custody of
the child or children.” Child Welfare Conditions and Resources in Seven Pennsylvania Counties, b y
N eva R . Deardorff, p. 258. U. S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o. 176. Washington, 1927. (Available
only b y purchase from the Government Printing Office.)
J As in Denver, Colo., where divorce cases in which children were involved were generally referred to
the juvenile court for mvestigation.
•Marriage and Divorce, 1931, pp. 47, 48.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

62

TH E CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

continuing jurisdiction that would permit modifications of orders
from time to time as changed conditions might make such modifica­
tions necessary or desirable.
It can be argued that such a subdivision of functions would only
increase the confusion of jurisdictional alignment that already exists.
But if such a subdivision would result in a better handling of the
cases, particularly with respect to the important question of custody
of the children, that should be sufficient reason for it. An apparent
conflict in theory should not obstruct an actual accomplishment.
ADOPTION AND GUARDIANSHIP

Adoption legislation is departing from the purely legal point of
view— according to which adoption may be consummated by no­
tarial act or the court is expected merely to sanction a relationship
as a justice of the peace solemnizes a wedding— toward the con­
ception of adoption as essentially a process in social case work.
Thus the newer laws provide for social investigation and for a trial
period in the foster home before a decree is granted, the aim being
to insure the welfare of the child and to avoid unnecessary severance
of natural family ties.9
For the administration of these modern statutes facilities for social
investigation are essential, and the judge should have a sound knowl­
edge of the general principles of child-welfare work. The number
of such cases to be disposed of during a year is usually small, and in
most jurisdictions it would seem desirable to assign them to the
juvenile court.10
Guardianship may be either of the person or of property. Guard­
ianship of the person of infants, when not created by will or deed, is
akin to adoption. Proceedings for the appointment of children's
personal guardians and for their removal on the ground of unfitness
can best be determined by the juvenile court with its facilities for
investigation, although jurisdiction in these cases is generally given
to the equity courts.
Guardianship of property involves no considerations that could
make the new technique applicable. Property rights of children
have always been protected by the common law, supplemented by
equity, and there is no reason to disturb the situation. The new
courts have enough to do, and generally more than enough, in trying
to adjust the more intangible problems of personality.
C O M M ITM E N T OF MENTALLY DEFECTIVE AND INSANE CHILDREN

It is no longer believed that all feeble-minded persons (to the extent
to which society is able to provide for their care) should be segregat ed
9 See Adoption Laws in the United States, especially pp. 17-18, 20, 25-26 (U. S. Children’s Bureau Pub­
lication N o. 148, Washington, 1925; exhausted; available only in libraries); also Jurisdictional and Social
Aspects of Adoption, b y Joseph W . Newbold (Minnesota Law Review, vol. 11, N o. 7 (June, 1927), pp.
605-623). The last States to discontinue adoption b y notarial act and to require court action were Texas
and Louisiana. (Tex., act of M a y 21, 1931, ch. 177, Laws of 1931, p. 300; La., act of July 7, 1932, No. 46,
Laws of 1932, p. 239.)
10 Reporting on the adoption of children in Philadelphia County, Pa., the Pennsylvania Commission
Appointed to Study and Revise the Statutes of Pennsylvania Relating to Children made the following
recommendations: “ The annual number of adoptions is so small that if properly placed in the judicial
system the administration of this service would present none of the difficulties growing out of a great volume
of work in which standards of performance must be temporarily, at least, sacrificed in the interests of serving
great numbers of people. It should be possible for a community of the size of Philadelphia to give adequate
attention to the three or four adoptions which occur in a week. Smaller communities which have a pro­
portionately smaller number likewise can give the matter the requisite time to do a thorough piece of work.”
The commission did not recommend that adoptions be placed under the juvenile court, but the need for
social investigation was emphasized. Report to the General Assembly Meeting in 1925, pt. 1, pp. 133-134.
Harrisburg, 1925.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPLICATION- OP N E W TECHNIQUE TO SPECIFIED TYPES OF CASES

63

in institutions. The question of commitment of a mentally defective
child to an institution involves consideration of his home conditions,
his own behavior, the special educational facilities available to him,
and the possibility of supervision in the community that will safe­
guard his own interests and those of the public. Obviously the mere
determination of the grade of mental defect is not sufficient; the
process involves social investigation as well as psychological and
psychiatric study. Moreover, feeble-minded children often come
before the juvenile court as delinquents or dependents, and the court
should have power to select the type of care best adapted to each
child’s needs. Hence it is desirable to give the juvenile court juris­
diction over these cases, which are comparatively few in number,
and over the very few cases of insane children. Already juvenile
courts in 9 States and in parts of 6 others have been given exclusive
or concurrent jurisdiction over at least certain classes of mentally
handicapped children. In 4 States and in part of 1 other the juvenile
court has jurisdiction over such children if they are already before
the court on another charge. A tendency may be noted also to
extend the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to minors who are in
need of special care because of physical handicap.11
PUBLIC AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN IN THEIR OW N H OM ES

Chiefly because the movement for granting public aid to dependent
children in their own homes (the so-called mothers’ pension movement)
was in the beginning an outgrowth of the juvenile-court movement, a
number of States have placed administration of this aid in the court
having juvenile jurisdiction. This function is primarily administra­
tive and not judicial, and logically it should be vested in a properly
equipped public department rather than in a court. Here again local
conditions may modify this generalization.
» For example, N ew York and Ohio legislation of 1925 (N. Y ., act of Apr. 1, 1925, ch. 227, Laws of 1925,
pp. 461-470; Ohio, act of Apr. 6, 1925, Laws of 1925, pp. 106-107, Code, 1930, secs. 7803, 7803-1).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CONCLUSIONS

In this examination of the child, the family, and the court certain
facts have been set forth and certain opinions of the writers based
upon these facts expressed. The problem is extremely complicated,
and often the same set of facts may be interpreted in different ways.
The general conclusions growing out of the study, as viewed by those
who have had it in charge, may be stated as follows:
1. In considering the attitude of the law toward
domestic relations, two factors must be kept constantly
in mind: First, that law is a process of social engineering,
that the organization of the society with which it deals
is changing, and that it must discover and perfect new
tools to fulfill its functions; second, that it is necessary
to ascertain and deal with the facts, that sentimentalism
is as dangerous as ignorance, and that changes in legal
processes should be conditioned upon practicability.
2. Great need exists for extending the new judicial
technique as rapidly as possible to matters bearing upon
family relations that come within the scope of this
report. This technique includes informal adjustment of
cases not requiring official court action, thorough social
investigation, physical and psychiatric examinations when
necessary, informal hearings conducted with a minimum
of publicity, and constructive supervision of probationers.
Without doubt the ideals of justice can be achieved
more nearly by these methods properly administered
than by wholly legalistic methods of dealing with these
cases.
3. Because of variation in local conditions a nation­
wide formula for the adjustment of family problems
coming before the courts is impossible. Wide differences
exist not only in constitutional provisions and court
systems but also in the degree of public interest in a
social approach to legal problems involving child welfare
and family life. Nevertheless, efforts of all interested
groups should be directed toward the establishment and
maintenance of tribunals that will have broad powers to
deal with family problems.
4. The proper treatment of children’s cases must be
assured. If the resources of a community are inadequate
to meet the needs discovered in day-by-day contact with
juvenile problems it is the duty of the judge and execu­
tive officers of the staff to call public attention to the
deficiencies disclosed and to cooperate with other agencies
in obtaining the facilities required. The juvenile court
requires continuing study, constructive criticism, and
constant support by the public, whether it continues to
exist as a separate court or becomes part of a court of
broader jurisdiction. In general, where juvenile courts
have been established they should be brought to a high
standard of efficiency before an attempt is made to
extend their jurisdiction further. It may be, however,
that in a given situation it would be easier to obtain
64

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CONCLUSIONS

65

adequate administrative machinery for the juvenile court
if it were absorbed into a new court with broad jurisdic­
tion, but the plan for administration should always be
worked out carefully in advance.
5. The new judicial technique seems particularly appli­
cable to nonsupport and desertion, the support of children
born out of wedlock,1 and certain offenses against chil­
dren, especially contributing to dependency and delin­
quency. Some of the new methods, especially investi­
gation, should be extended also to cases of adoption,
guardianship of the person of children, and commitment
of mentally defective children.
Divorce cases present special problems. Only a minor­
ity of divorce cases (somewhat more than one-third)
involve children. Where children are concerned three
questions must be decided: Severance of marital rela­
tionships, custody of children, and alimony.
#The problem of ascertaining the real causes of marital
difficulties and of adjusting them without resort to
divorce procedure is of the most delicate nature, and at
least under present conditions it is not one which courts
are equipped or can reasonably be expected to become
equipped to solve. The question whether or not a
divorce should be granted is governed by well-defined
rules of substantive law, and the new methods of pro­
cedure developed in juvenile courts do not apply.
Moreover, the addition of divorce jurisdiction to the
family court tends to overload it with cases not involving
children.
Alimony and custody are subject to the continuing
jurisdiction of the court, and the new technique of inves­
tigation and supervision is required in order to safeguard
the interests involved. The possibility of vesting in the
juvenile or family court jurisdiction as to divorce cases
involving children, or as to custody of children and ali­
mony for the support of children, merits careful study
and experimentation.
6. Depending upon local conditions, social treatment
of the cases mentioned may be developed in one unified
court having also juvenile jurisdiction, in one court with
separate branches for juvenile and domestic-relations
work, or in separate juvenile and domestic-relations
courts. Unified jurisdiction is desirable when it can be
obtained without the sacrifice of more important ends.
7. Wherever jurisdiction over domestic-relations cases
can be centered in one court by some working agreement
on the part of the several judges such action appears to
be more desirable than appeal to a legislative body, pro­
vided an adequate social-service staff can be maintained.
This plan lacks the dramatic quality of the establishment
of a new court, but it has the advantage of ease of
accomplishment and flexibility.
A d ju stm en t without official court hearing should not be permitted in illegitimacy cases unies»
paternity is acknowledged and the settlement approved b y the court as making adequate provision for


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

66

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COUKT

8. Attempts to obtain the passage of legislation provid­
ing for the establishment of family courts or courts of
domestic relations invariably should be preceded by careful study of the constitutional and statutory provisions
of the State regarding courts and court systems, study
of existing methods of dealing with juvenile cases and
adult cases involving family problems in the locality
which the proposed court would serve, and education of
the public as to the need for socialized treatment of juve­
nile and family problems, its cost and its value.
9. Whatever jurisdiction is vested in a juvenile court,
a family court, or a court of domestic relations, the fol­
lowing conditions are essential if it is to develop into an
efficient instrument of social justice:
(a) Freedom from political influence and selection
of judges and probation staff based on qualifica­
tions for the work to be performed.
(b) Ample financial support, permitting the
employment at adequate salaries of a staff suffi­
ciently large to render all the service required in
each case.
(c) Recognition of the fact that the socialized
treatment which the court is intended to give can
be performed only by men and women fitted by
nature, education, and experience to carry on the
delicate tasks intrusted to them. _ The services of
the social case worker, the physician, the psycholo­
gist, and the psychiatrist, all are necessary to the
proper development of this new legal institution.
10. To supplement the work of the new courts and
also to render services in courts organized along the old
lines, pending the extension of the new technique, the
work of legal-aid bureaus and other social agencies should
be strengthened and extended.2 The staffs of these
organizations should have a proper understanding of
the functions and methods of the new courts and should
maintain close cooperation with them.
A valuable contribution could be made toward the
understanding and solution of marital difficulties and
other domestic-relations problems if funds were made
available for the development in selected communities
of domestic-relations clinics, staffed by psychiatrists,
psychologists, and social investigators. These clinics
should be available to any person desiring help in adjust­
ing troubles growing out of the marital relation.
11. Finally, there emerge from this study, the signifi­
cant facts of overlapping jurisdictions, inadequacy of
treatment, and other failures of law to meet the familyproblems coming within its scope. Public responsi­
bility for the correction of these conditions must be
fulfilled, though the types of organization selected for
dealing with them may vary.
»See Report of Joint Committee for the Study of Legal Aid, b y the Association of the Bar of the C ity
of New York and Welfare Council of N ew York C ity (Brooklyn, 1928), and Growth of Legal A id W ork
in the United States.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Sr

0

<

Appendix A — FAMILY COURTS AND COURTS OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
EXCLUSIVE OF JUVENILE COURTS OF BROAD JURISDICTION

Legislation authorizing
court

Alabama:1
Juvenile and domestic-rela­
tions court of Jefferson
County.

Acts of 1927, No. 225,
amended b y Acts of
1931, N o. 451.

Juvenile and domestic-rela­
tions court of M ontgom ­
ery County.
Hawaii:
Division of domestic rela­
tions, first circuit court of
Hawaii.

Massachusetts:
Municipal court of Boston,
domestic-relations sessions.
District court of Springfield,
juvenile and domestic-rela­
tions sessions.

T yp e of court

Territory covered b y
court

Jurisdiction conferred b y law or rule of court

Independent .

Jefferson County (in­ Delinquent, dependent, neglected, and mentally defective
children; contributing to delinquency or dependency; deser­
cludes city of Bir­
tion or nonsupport; child-labor and school-attendance case
mingham) .
assault and battery on husband, wife, or children.

Acts of 1927, N o. 201,
amended b y Acts of
1931, N o. 70.

___ d o .—

M ontgom ery Coun­
ty (includes city
of M ontgom ery).

Delinquent, dependent, neglected, and mentally defective chil­
dren; contributing to delinquency or dependency;.desertion or
nonsupport.
.

Laws of 1921, ch. 183
(R ev. Laws 1925, secs.
2236, 2237).

Branch of circuit
court.

Honolulu County
(includes city of
H onolulu).

Delinquent and dependent children; contributing to delinquency
or dependency; desertion or nonsupport; bastardy; divOTce,
separation, separate maintenance, annulment of marriage;
guardianship.

Branch of munici­
pal court.

C ity of Chicago -

Contributing to delinquency or dependency; desertion or non­
support; establishment of paternity; misdemeanor offenses
against minors; certain sex offenses.

Branch of district
court.3

Polk County (in­
cludes city of Des
Moines).

Delinquent, dependent, neglected, and mentally defective chil­
dren; contributing to delinquency or dependency; divorce;
guardianship; adoption; mothers’ aid.

Branch of munici­
pal court.

Central district of
Boston (10 wards).

Stubborn children 17 to 21 years of age; desertion or nonsupport;
assault and battery on husband, wife, or children; establishment
of paternity; school-attendance cases.
Delinquent, neglected, and wayward children; stubborn children
under 21 years of age; contributing to delinquency; desertion or
nonsupport; assault and battery and drunkenness involving
husband and wife or children; establishment of paternity;
school-attendance cases.

Illinois:
Domestic-relations branch of
the municipal court of Chi­
cago.
Iowa:
Juvenile court and court of
domestic relations of Polk
County.

Date of
establish­
ment of
court

'1923

1911

Code 1931, ch. 179_

1912

-do-

C ity of Springfield,
also West Spring
field and 5 other
towns.

i A n Alabama law of 1931 (N o. 401) creating a court of domestic relations for M obile County was held unconstitutional.
! î h e 1 u v ^ l UÆ


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPEN DIX A

State and Territory, and name
of court

See footnote 23, p. 17.

ef f i u g h technically an independent court, is in fact a branch of the district court, presided over b y district-court judges.

05

<1

FAMILY COURTS AND COURTS OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES— Continued

State and Territory, and name
of court

Legislation authorizing
court

Missouri:
Court of domestic relations
of St. Louis.

Laws of 1921, p. 225
(Supp. 1927, sec. 2634a).

Juvenile and domestic-rela­
tions courts throughout
the State.
New York:
Domestic-relations court of
the city of New Y ork.

Domestic-relations court of
Buffalo.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T yp e of court

Territory covered by
court

Jurisdiction conferred b y law or rule of court

1921

Branch of circuit
court.

C ity of St. Louis___

Delinquent, neglected, and mentally defective children; certain
offenses of minors over 17; adoption; divorce, separate mainte­
nance, annulment of marriage; civil actions relating to eare,
custody, or control of children not connected or associated with
divorce or separate maintenance; child-labor and school-attend­
ance cases.

1921

Branch of district
court.

Douglas County (in­
cludes
city
of
Omaha).

Delinquent, neglected, dependent, and mentally defective chil­
dren; desertion or nonsupport; divorce, separate maintenance
custody of children involved in divorce; mothers’ aid.

Laws of 1921, ch. 327,
amended b y Laws of
1924, ch. 252 (Cum.
Supp. 1911-1924, sees.
160-213).

1921

Independent_____

C ity of Newark____

Contributing to delinquency or dependency; desertion or non­
support; misdemeanor offenses against children; preliminary
hearing of assault and battery involving husband and wife;
fornication and adultery in cases in which indictment and jury
trial are waived; establishment of paternity

Laws of 1929, ch. 157___

1929

Independent____

Each county in State
(2 or more counties
m ay combine after
special election).

Delinquent, dependent, neglected, mentally defective, and
truant children; contributing, to delinquency or dependency;
desertion or nonsupport; establishment of paternity; schoolattendance cases; mothers’ aid.

Laws of 1933, ch. 482____

* 1933

____ do.____ ______

The 5 boroughs of
Greater Ne w Y ork.

Laws of 1924, ch. 424____

5 1910

Delinquent, neglected, and mentally defective children, also con­
tributing to the delinquency or dependency of such children
and children held as material witnesses and their adoption
and guardianship; physically handicapped minors; truants;
wayward minors; desertion or nonsupport; misdemeanor
offenses against children; orders of protection (in effect limited
separation) where children are involved.
W ayward minors 16 to 21 years of age; desertion or nonsupport;
disorderly persons; all criminal business related to domestic
relations or family affairs.

Nebraska:
Juvenile court and court of
domestic relations of Doug­
las County.
New Jersey:
Family court of Newark____

Date of
establish­
ment of
court

Branch
court.

of

city

C ity of Buffalo_____

os
00

♦

North C arolina:6
Domestic-relations court of
Mecklenburg County.

Ohio:
Franklin County court of
common pleas, division of
domestic relations.

1929

Independent.

Mecklenburg Coun­
ty (includes city
of Charlotte).

Laws of
(Code
1352-7).

1927, p. 58
1930,
sec.

1929

Branch of court of
com m on pleas.

Franklin
County
(includes city of
Columbus).

Laws of 1914, first special
session, p. 176 (Code
1930, sec. 1639), amend­
ed b y Laws of 1931, p.
50.
Laws of 1923, p. 157
(Code 1930, sec. 15326).
Laws of 1917, p. 721
(Code 1930, sec. 15324)
.
Laws of 1915, p. 424
(Code 1930, sec. 1532-

1914

.do.

Hamilton County
(includes city of
Cincinnati).

Laws of 1927, p. 95 (Code
1930, sec. 1532-8).

1929

____ d o____________ Lucas C ounty (in­
cludes city of T o ­
ledo).
____ d o ._ ............ — Mahoning C ounty
(includes city of
Youngstown).
____ d o ______ 1____ M ontgom ery Coun­
ty (includes city
of D a yton ).
____ d o____________ Stark County (in­

Laws of 1917, p. 703
(Code 1930, sec. 15325)
.

1919

Canton).
____ d o ____________ Summit County (in­

Code 1930, secs. 28-845
through 28-855, 33-601
through 33-616.

8 1929

1).

1924
1918
1917

cludes

city

of

cludes

city

of

Delinquent, dependent, and neglected children; mentally defec­
tive children who are delinquent, dependent, or neglected;
contributing to delinquency or dependency; misdemeanor
offenses against children; desertion or nonsupport; establish­
ment of paternity; school-attendance cases; also preliminary
investigation and recommendation in adoption cases and in
divorce cases involving children.

Delinquent, neglected, dependent, and crippled children; men­
tally defective children who are delinquent, dependent, or
neglected; contributing to delinquency or dependency; deser­
tion or nonsupport; misdemeanor offenses against children;
establishment of paternity; divorce; child-labor and schoolattendance cases; mothers’ aid.
(The jurisdiction in these 7 Ohio courts is the same except that
divorce is not specifically granted to the Summit County
division of domestic relations but is assigned to this division b y
the court of common pleas; the Lucas County division of
domestic relations has exclusive jurisdiction over bastardy
proceedings; and the M ontgom ery County division of domestic
relations has concurrent jurisdiction over all criminal matters.)

Akron).

Oklahoma T;
Oregon:
Department of domestic re­
lations in the circuit court
for Multnomah County.

Branch of circuit
court.

Multnomah County
(includes city of
Portland).

Delinquent, neglected, dependent, and mentally defective chil­
dren; contributing to delinquency or dependency; nonsupport;
adoption; divorce; provision of medical and surgical treatment
for sick or deformed indigent children.

4 Formerly the independent children’s court of New York C ity and the N ew York C ity family courts (branches of the magistrates' courts). See footnote 7, p. 33.
6 Established b y rule of court in 1910.
6 A law of 1931 authorized a domestic-relations court in Forsyth County, N . C., which includes the city of Winston-Salem, but no such court had been established b y 1933.
See footnote 15, p. 15.
7 A law of 1925 (ch. 128) applicable to Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties, Okla., authorized the creation of family courts, but no such courts had been established b y 1933. See foot­
note 23, p. 17.
8 Formerly an independent court of domestic relations. See p. 15.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APP EN D IX A

Hamilton County court of
common pleas, division of
domestic relations, juve­
nile court, and marital
relations.
Lucas County court of com ­
mon pleas, division of
domestic relations.
Mahoning County court of
common pleas, division of
domestic relations.
M ontgomery County court
of common pleas, division
of domestic relations.
Stark County court of com ­
mon pleas, division of
domestic relations.
Summit County court of
common pleas, division of
domestic relations.

Laws of 1929, ch. 343____

<

FAMILY COURTS AND COURTS OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES— Continued

State and Territory, and name
of court

Legislation authorizing
court

T yp e of court

1914

Branch of munici­
pal court.

C ity of Philadelphia- Desertion or nonsupport.

Independent_____

Each county and Delinquent, dependent, neglected, and mentally defective chil­
dren; contributing to delinquency or dependency; desertion or
each city (may
nonsupport; misdemeanor offenses against children; misde­
com bine b y special
meanor offenses of one member of family against another; per­
agreement).
sons who knowingly contribute to marital disruption of home;
child-labor and school-attendance cases.

Virginia:
Juvenile and domestic-rela­
tions courts throughout the
State.

Laws of 1922, chs. 481,
482, 483, (Code 1924,
secs. 1945, 1953-a).

io 1922

"West V irginia:11
Domestic-relations court of
Cabell County.

Acts of 1921, ch. 168____

1921

Territory covered b y
court

____ d o .................. — Cabell County (in­
cludes city ofHuntington).

Jurisdiction conferred b y law or rule of court

Delinquent, dependent, neglected, and mentally defective chil­
dren; contributing to delinquency or dependency; desertion or
nonsupport; misdemeanor offenses against children; divorce,
separate maintenance, annulment of marriage; adoption; schoolattendance cases.

» A juvenile and domestic-relations court was authorized in Hamilton County, Term, (which includes the city of Chattanooga), b y a law of 1929, which was declared uncon­
stitutional in 1930. See footnote 14, p . 15.
10 Such courts were established in Norfolk and Richm ond in 1915 under a Virginia law of 1914 (ch. 57) .
_
'
.
n A domestic-relations court was established in Monongalia County. W . Va., in 1923 and went out of existence Jan. 1,1929, in accordance with a law of 1927. See footnote 15, p. 15.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
> Louis
Federal Reserve Bank of St.

♦ «

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

Pennsylvania:
Domestic-relations division
of the municipal court of
Philadelphia.

Date of
establish­
ment of
court

g

Appendix B.— STUDY OF FAMILIES DEALT W ITH IN JUVE­
NILE AND DOMESTIC-RELATIONS CASES IN HAMILTON
COUNTY, OHIO, AND PHILADELPHIA, PA.
A statistical study was made by the United States Children’s Bureau in Hamil­
ton County, Ohio (in which the city of Cincinnati is situated), in regard to the
families dealt with in one year in juvenile and domestic-relations cases by the
courts and the Ohio Humane Society, which gives the courts considerable assistance
in dealing with family problems. The year chosen for the study was 1923. A
similar study was made of the families dealt with by the municipal court of
Philadelphia, Pa., in a single month— October, 1923— and of a group of divorce
cases dealt with by the court of common pleas. The number of juvenile and
domestic-relations cases dealt with in one month in the Philadelphia municipal
court is larger than the yearly total in Hamilton County. (For the method of
the study and a summary of the findings see p. 26 and for the jurisdiction of the
courts see Appendix A, p. 67.)
FAMILIES DEALT W ITH IN JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC-RELATIONS
CASES IN HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
N U M B E R O F F A M IL I E S D E A L T W I T H A N D T Y P E S O F G A S E S

In 1923 the family court, the probate court, and the humane society (with or
without court action) dealt with 5,286 families in cases of the types included in
the study. These families represented 4 per cent of the 129,020 families in
Hamilton County as enumerated in the 1920 census. An additional group of
359 families, with which the only contact during 1923 consisted in the payment of
a support order through the cashier of the family court, were not included in the
statistical study because of the lack of complete information concerning them.
If the families with which payment of support orders was the only contact are
included with the 5,286 families, the total dealt with (5,645), is somewhat more
than 4 per cent of the number of families enumerated in the census.1
The general types of cases in which the 5,286 families were dealt with by the
family court, the probate court, and the humane society (with or without court
action in the municipal or other court) were as follows:
1.
Juvenile cases (2,699), including delinquency, mothers’ aid,
dependency or neglect, adoption, guardianship, feeble-mindedness
or epilepsy, crippled children.
i Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920, vol. 3, Population, pp. 11, 778. Washington, 1922. The
census, however, in 1920 defined a family as “ a group of persons, whether related b y blood or not, who live
together as one household, usually sharing the same table.” One person living alone was thus counted as
a family, and the occupants of a hotel or institution, however numerous, were counted as a single family.
The 1930 census affords information on number of private families, excluding institutions, hotels, boarding
houses, and other quasi-family groups. Assuming that there had been no actual change in size of family
in the 10-year period, it is estimated that the number of private families in Hamilton County in 1920 was
132,282. On this basis the percentage of the total number of families represented b y the families included in
the study would still have been 4. In the present study “ fam ily” was defined as follows: A unit consisting
of father, mother, and minor child or children, or one parent and child or children, or prospective mother
(if living away from her parental home) and her unborn child. Accordingly, groups consisting of more than
one such unit, each maintaining a separate home and dealt with as a separate family, were entered on two
schedules as tw o families. If the two units were dealt with as one—for example, if a married daughter and
her child lived with her parents—they' were counted as one unit. A dopted and foster children but not
grandchildren were included in the term “ children.” The term “ families dealt w ith ” therefore includes
any family thus defined with which there was any contact (other than mere payment of support order)
during the specified period in a case coming under one or more of the following heads: Delinquency; depend­
ency or neglect; mothers’ aid; desertion or nonsupport; divorce; support of illegitimate child; other domesticrelations cases (as quarreling, abuse, unfaithfulness); offenses against children; school-excuse and em ploy­
ment-certificate cases; adoption; guardianship of the person of minors; commitment o f feeble-minded or
epileptic children. Families of which any member was under supervision in cases of these types were
included whether or not the family had been dealt with on new charges or complaints during the period
covered. Desertion and nonsupport cases not involving children were not included unless the wife was
known to be pregnant. Divorce cases not involving minor children were not included, and 93 families
were excluded because of uncertainty as to whether any of the children was under the age of 21 years. Of
the 359 families with which the only contact was payment of a support order, 258 were receiving payments in
cases of divorce and alimony, 92 in cases of nonsupport or desertion, 7 in both divorce and nonsupport eases,
and 2 in illegitimacy cases.

71


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

72

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

2. Domestic-relations cases (2,210), including desertion or non­
support, contributing to dependency, divorce cases involving
children, support of illegitimate children, any other case involving
domestic relations.
3. Juvenile cases and domestic-relations cases (256), including
combinations of the types listed in paragraphs 1 and 2.
4. Offenses against children (102), including cases of offenses
against children alone (64), and cases in which families dealt with
in other cases were involved (38). Cases of contributing to de­
linquency are included here.
5. School-excuse and employment-certificate cases (19), includ­
ing families dealt with in cases of other types also (10).
D IS T R I B U T IO N O F C A S E S A M O N G A G E N C IE S D E A L I N G W I T H T H E F A M IL IE S

The family court dealt with 3,574 families (68 per cent of all the families in this
county included in the study). Of these families, 350 were known also to other
courts or to the Ohio Humane Society.
The humane society dealt with T,638 families, of which 1,116 were handled by
that organization without reference to courts, 247 were dealt with by the humane
society and the municipal court (57 also by the family court), 245 by the hu­
mane society and the family court (8 by other courts also), and 30 by the
humane society and other courts.
The probate court dealt with 432 families, of which 56 were known to the
family court or to the humane society or to both.
Of the 5,286 families 4,906 (93 per cent) were dealt with by one court or by the
humane society alone or with the municipal court and 380 were dealt with by
more than one court or by the humane society and a court other than the munici­
pal court.
Table 1 shows the agencies dealing with the family and the general types of
cases.
T

able

1 . — General typ e o f case; fa m ilies dealt with in ju ven ile and dom estic-relations

cases hy one or more o f specified agencies in 1928, H am ilton County
Families dealt with
B y more than 1 court or h y humane so­
ciety with 1 or more courts other than
municipal court

Humane
society

Family court and—

176
376 82
883 174
167
56
1

13
3

8

31

2

120
9

84
3

22
3

5
i

2

1

1

42

Other court

57

34
115

Probate court

W ith probate
or other court

Total_____ _________ 5,286 4,906 3,224 1,116 190 376 380. „237
Juvenile cases, __________ 2,699 2,617 2,065
Domestic-relations cases. 2,210 2,043
986
Juvenile cases and domestic-relations cases_______
256
136
67
Offenses against children 2__ 102
93
89
School-excuse and employment-certificate cases 3__.
19
17
17

W ith munici­
pal court

Alone

Probate court

H un lane society

Total

[W it h m u n ic ipal court

Alone

Family court

Total

Total

General type of case

6

Humane society and pro­
bate or other co u rt1

B y 1 court or b y humane
society alone or with
municipal court

30

40
19
2

1 Includes cases in municipal court also.
.* Includes 34 also dealt with in juvenile cases, 3 dealt with in domestic-relations cases, and 1 dealt with in
a juvenile case and a domestic-relations ease.
3 Includes 7 also dealt with in juvenile cases, 1 dealt with in a domestic-relations case, and 2 dealt with
in a juvenile case and a domestic-relations case.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

73

APP EN D IX B

Bnth the family court and the humane society were dealing with dependency
a n ! neglect c a S ft h e famUy court alone dealing with only half the families known
in Qiirh
and. not in casos of othor typos.
.
,
i, _
It appeared to be the policy of the court and the social agencies to keep at a
minimum the number of dependency cases referred for court action. The Om
cinnati Associated Charities rarely referred a dependency case to the family court,
and other agencies dealing with dependent families seidom referred such case^
Of the families known only m desertion or nonsupport cases, 86 per cent w
dealt with by the humane society alone or by courts other than the family_court,
and 90 per cent of the families known only m illegitimacy cases were so dea t
with The family court dealt with all the families known only m divorce cases
and with 60 per cent of the families dealt with in family-relationship cases such
as quarreling or abuse. All but 2 of the 64 families known only m cases of offenses
a erainst. children were dealt with by the family court alone.
.
,
gTable 2 shows the type of case and the contact of the family court and the
humane society with the families dealt with in Hamilton County.
T able 2 — T ype o f case; fa m ilies dealt with in ju ven ile and domeshc-refoimns
cases by the fa m ily court, by the humane society, and by both agencies m 1923,
H am ilton County
Families dealt with

N um ­
ber

Domestic-relations cases.

.

Desertion or nonsupport-------------------------------D ivorce---------------------- ----------------------------------Support of illegitimate child-------- - ---------- - - - Quarreling, abuse, or other domestic trouble..
Desertion or nonsupport and divorce------------Desertion or nonsupport and other cases-------Divorce and other cases--------------------------------Juvenile cases and domestic-relations cases.
Offenses against children---------------------------Alone-----------------W ith other cases.
School-excuse and employment-certificate cases------

N um ­
ber

Per
cent

Per
cent

27

302

6

2,109

91

180

8

34

1

1,218
199
613
4
75

99
51
100
0)
83

3
173

44

23

6

4

5

11

12

986

45

1,076

49

148

7

116
688
13
104
39
6
20

12
100
8
60
27
9
(')

817

86

21

2

140
66

90
38

53

82

2
4
105
6
10

1
2
73
9

256
102

69
91

27
89

76
4

30
4

111
7

64

62
29

97
(5)

1
3

2

1
6

(5 )

19

17

(«)

2

(»)

1,221
396
613
4
90

Delinquency---------------Dependency or neglect.
M others’ aid---------------Crippled child------------M ore than 1 type---------

N um ­
ber
1,336

2,323

Juvenile cases.

Per
cent
67

3 4,910

Total___

B y family
court and hu­
mane s o cie ty 1

B y humane
so cie ty2

B y family
co u rt1

T yp e of case

3,272

2,210
954
688
155
174
144
65
30

«

(s)

(*)
43
7
2

i W ith or without other courts.
.
* W ith or without courts other than the family court.
s Excludes 376 families dealt with b y the probate court only.
* Less than 1 per cent.
.
s N 0t shown because number of families was less than ou.

On December 31, 1923, the family court or the humane society
of the
5 286 families included in the study under supervision. Of these families 801
(69 per cent) were supervised by the probation department of the family court,
550 by the humane society, and 7 by both organizations.
*«■
It is evident that the comprehensive jurisdiction conferred by law on the
familv court of Hamilton County (see Appendix A, p. 69) was being only partly
exercised in 1923, and that in dependency cases and domestic-relations cases other
than divorce much still remained to be accomplished if the degree of consolidation
which family courts are designed to secure was to become a reality.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

74

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT
F A M IL I E S W I T H P R E V IO U S C O U R T A N D H U M A N E -S O C I E T Y R E C O R D S

Table 3 shows the agency dealing with the family in 1923 and the court or
humane-society record of the family before that year.
Information concerning court or humane-society record prior to 1923 was
obtained for all families (except the 376 dealt with only by the probate court)
through the case histories of the organizations dealing with the families in 1923.
As the families known to the humane society in 1923 were not cleared through the
family-court records for cases prior to 1923, nor the reverse process followed, it is
probable that the information on previous court record is not entirely complete.
If the case dealt with in 1923 had been carried over from the previous year, it was
not counted as a previous record. For example, dependency cases in which the
children had been temporarily committed to institutions before 1923 and recom­
mitted in 1923 were considered pending cases. Courts outside the county were
included if noted in the case history.
T a b l e 3.— Previous court or hum ane-society record; fa m ilies dealt with in ju ven ile
and dom estic-relations cases by one or more o f specified agencies in 1923, H am ilton
County
Families dealt with
B y family court or b y
humane society alone
or with municipal
court

Court or humane-society
record of family prior to
19231

T o ta l......... ......... .

B y more than 1 court or b y humane society with 1 or more courts other than
municipal court

Humane
society
Total

Family court and—
Hu-

socie­
Humane society
ty
Famand
Total iiy
W ith Total
pro­
court
W
ith
mu­
Pro­
bate
W ith
Alone nici­
pro­ bate Other or
mu­
court
pal
other
Alone nici­ bate court
court
or
court8
pal other
court
court

84,910 4,530 3,224 1,116

190

380

237

57

8

42

6

30

879

367

80

215

135

27

8

23

2

20

839
819
3

304
32
255

64
3
6(T

142
53
87

86
26
59

21
4
16

2
1
1

21
21

193

2

163

28

53

35

8

1

125

1

92

32

34

24

8

35

17

17

1

2

1

1

107

, 35

58

14

71

49

6

6

2

2

15

15

1

1

2

. 1

28

1

23

4

26

23

2

31

4

21

6

27

20

2

4

1

33
12

15
5

14
5

4
2

2
11
2

1
5

1

1

1
4
2

N o previous court record
reported______________ _ 3,369 3,204 2,345

749

110

165

102

30

Previous court record____ 1,541 1,326
1 court or h u m a n e
society_________ 1,349 li 207
854
Family court_____
907
405
318
Humane society...
246
W ith munici­
159
pal court___
1 Other court or
court
outside
county____ ____ , 37
M ore than i icourt, or
humane society with
specified courts_____
178
Family court with
20
Humane society
with—
54
Family court..
Family court
and munici' pal court___
58
Family court
and
other
2
44
Other cou rts..
Court not reported___
14

5

1 N ot including cases carried over into 1923 from previous year.
8 Includes cases in municipal court also.
8 Excludes 376 families dealt with b y the probate court only.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

12
1
11
9
2

6

1

19

4

10

75

APPENDIX B

Thirty-one per cent of the 4,910 families dealt with in 1923 by the family court
or humane society or both were found to have been known previously to courts
or to the humane society in cases of the types included in the study.
Of the families known in 1923 to the family court alone, 27 per cent had pre­
vious court or humane-society records. The proportion with previous records
was somewhat higher for those dealt with in 1923 by the humane society, 34 per
cent having such records. In each group the percentage with a previous record
in the same organization was far higher than the percentage with a previous record
in another organization. Of the families known in 1923 to the family court only,
25 per cent had previous records with the same organization alone and only 2
per cent with another organization. The corresponding percentages for families
known only to the humane society or to that agency and the municipal court in
1923 were 24 known to the same organization only and 10 known to other courts.
More than half the families (57 per cent) dealt with in 1923 by more than one
court or by the humane society and a court other than the municipal court had
records prior to 1923.
Table 4 shows the number of families dealt with in cases of specified types in
1923 and the number and percentage that had previous court records.
T a b l e 4.— T ype o f case and previous court or hum ane-society record; fa m ilies dealt
with in ju ven ile and dom estic-relations cases in 1923, H am ilton County
Families dealt with

T yp e of case

;

Having previous
court or humane
society record

Total
?
Number

N o pre­
vious
court or
humanesociety
record
Per cent
reported

Total—. _____________ ______ _______ ____________________

i 4,910

1,541

31

3,369

Juvenile c a s e s - ..______ _____ _______ ______ _________________

2,323

625

27

1,698

1*290
623
395
15

377
91
148
9

29
15
37

913
532
247
6

Domestic-relations cases...______ _____________________________

2,210

728

33

1,482

Desertion or nonsupport with divorce_____________________
Desertion or nonsupport alone and with other cases (except
divorce)____ _____ _______ _______ __________ . . . ...............
Divorce alone and with other cases (except desertion or
nonsupport)_______________________ ;_______________ ____
Support of illegitimate child............................................... .......
Other cases______________________ ____________ ___________

144

78

54

66

1,019

361

35

658

718
155
174

230
25
34

32
16
20

488
130
140

256
102
19

143
34
11

56
33

113
68
8

Delinquency alone and with other cases...................... ............
Mothers’ aid alone and with other cases (.except delinquency).
Dependency or neglect_____________ ____ _______ _________
Other cases and other combinations_______________________

Juvenile cases and domestic-relations cases____ _______________
Offenses against children______________________ . . ___________
School-excuse and employment-certificate cases........... ..................

0

0

1Excludes 376 families dealt with b y the probate court only.
‘ N ot shown because number of families was less than 50.

Most of the families dealt with in juvenile cases in 1923 who had previous
records had been known to the courts or .the humane society in juvenile cases;
likewise the families dealt with in domestic-relations cases had been known
previously chiefly in domestic-relations cases. Of the families known only in
juvenile cases in 1923, however, 7 per cent had been known previously in domesticrelations cases alone or in cases of other types also. The same proportion
(7 per cent) of families dealt with only in domestic-relations cases in 1923 had
been previously dealt with in juvenile cases. More than half the families dealt
with in both juvenile cases and domestic-relations cases in 1923 had been dealt
with previously in one or both of these types of cases. (Table 5.)
181443°—33-----6


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

76

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

T a b l e 5.— General type o f case and type o f previous court or hum ane-society record;
fa m ilies dealt with in ju ven ile and, dom estic-relations cases in 1923, H am ilton
County
Families dealt with
Having previous court or humane-society
record prior to 1923
General type of case
Total
Total

Juve­
nile
cases

Domes- Juvenile
cases and Offenses
ticdomestic- against
relations
relations children
cases
cases

N o pre­
vious
court or
humanesociety
record
reported

T o ta l... ___________ 1__________

i 4,910

1,541

576

699

225

41

3,369

Juvenile cases________________________
Domestic-relations cases______________
Juvenile cases and domestic-relations
cases______________________ ________
Offenses against children--------------------School-excuse and employment-cer-

2,323
2,210

625
728

446
67

73
566

86
80

20
15

1,698
1,482

256
102

143
34

31
23

55
4

53
5

4
2

113
68

19

11

9

1

1

8

i Excludes 376 cases dealt with b y the probate court only;

The number of families dealt with in divorce cases during 1923 (not including
those known in juvenile cases as well) was 862, many of them also being dealt with
in domestic-relations cases of other types. Six per cent of these families had
been known previously in juvenile cases (offenses against children in combina­
tion with juvenile cases included), 25 per cent in domestic-relations cases (11 per
cent in cases of desertion or nonsupport), and 5 per cent in both juvenile and
domestic-relations cases. Fourteen per cent of the families had been involved in
a divorce proceeding prior to that pending in 1923.
Of the 1,163 families dealt with in 1923 in desertion or nonsupport cases, alone
or in combination with donjestic-relations cases of other types, 2 per cent had been
dealt with previously in juvenile cases, 32 per cent in domestic-relations cases (8
per cent in divorce cases), and 4 per cent in both juvenile cases and domesticrelations cases.
IN T E R R E L A T IO N O P C A SE S IN T H E Y E A R C O V E R E D B Y T H E S T U D Y

One-eighth of the 5,286 families (13 per cent) were dealt with in more than one
type of case during 1923.
Table 6 shows the number of families appearing before the courts or the
humane society in specified types of juvenile and domestic-relations cases and
also dealt with in other cases of these types within the year.
Among the juvenile cases dependency or neglect was most likely to occur in
combination with other types of cases, 41 per cent of the families known in depend­
ency or neglect cases being also known in cases of other types, usually domesticrelations cases. Almost one-third (31 per cent) of the families dealt with in cases
of feeble-mindedness or epilepsy were also dealt with in cases of other types,
usually juvenile cases. Among the families dealt with in cases of desertion or non­
support 28 per cent were also dealt with in cases of other types, for the most part
either juvenile cases or divorce cases; and almost as high a percentage (26) of the
families dealt with in divorce cases were known in cases of other types, chiefly
cases of desertion or nonsupport. A very high percentage (45) of the families
known in such domestic-relations cases as abuse, quarreling, and other domestic
difficulty were dealt with also in cases of other types, chiefly desertion or non­
support and juvenile cases. Only 13 per cent of the families dealt with in illegiti­
macy cases were known in cases of other types, in most instances juvenile cases.
The percentage of families dealt with in cases of offenses against children known
in other types of cases, chiefly delinquency cases, was 36. Ten of the 19 families
dealt with in school-excuse and employment-certificate cases were dealt with in
cases of other types.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

77

APPEN DIX B

T a b l e 6.— T yp e o f ca se and interrelation o f cases; fa m ilies dealt with in ju ven ile and
dom estic-relations cases in 1923, H am ilton County

Families dealt with
In 1 type
of case

| Per cent

Alone

Alone or with domes­
tic - relations cases
except desertion or
nonsupport
W ith desertion or non­
support cases

Desertion or nonsupport cases

191

14

87

8 21

10

4

28

6

> 27

48

59
92

41
8

27

16

91
2

40
1

8 12
71

«2
72

7
8

66
44
3
6
13

8 23

93
92

277
50
3
8
16

81
81

1

1

75

69

34

31

27

»2

2

954
688

72
74

375
241

28
26

128
37

1« 31
» 27

144

li 4
M3

u3

155
174
64

87

23
144
38

13
45
36

14
42
33

u2
i* 13
17 2

1
29

7

8O

9

63

10

Offenses against children

domestic-rela­
tions cases
W ith

j Total

Divorce
cases

School - excuse and employ­
ment-certificate cases

| Per cent
86

395
601
4
105
195

Juvenile
cases

Number

Number
1,203

Total
T yp e of case1

Juvenile cases:
Delinquency_________ 1,394
Dependency or neg­
672
lect________________
651
Mothers’ aid_________
7
Crippled child_______
113
A doption____________
Guardianship________
211
Feeble - mindedness
109
and epilepsy_______
Domestic-relations cases:
Desertion or nonsup­
port_______________ Ï, 329
929
D ivorce....... ........... .....
Support of illegiti­
178
mate child_________
318
Other cases..................
102
Offenses against children.
School-excuse and em­
ployment - certificate
19
cases-----------------------------

Other domestic-relations cases

In more than 1 type of case

1
1

2

144

65
30

6
59

1
1

2
J

I M any families were dealt with in more than 1 type of case.
8 Includes 1 divorce, 11 desertion or nonsupport, 2 nonsupport and divorce, with or without other domes­
tic-relations cases.
8 Includes 5 other juvenile cases, 1 nonsupport case.
4 Includes 2 other juvenile cases and nonsupport, 1 other juvenile case.
s Includes 4 other juvenile cases, 1 divorce and nonsupport.
• Both nonsupport.
11ncludes 1 other juvenile case.
8 Nonsupport.
* Includes 1 nonsupport case.
i° Includes 23 divorce cases.
II Includes 2 divorce also, 1 divorce and juvenile case, and 1 juvenile case.
18 Includes 2 juvenile cases.
18 Includes 23 desertion or nonsupport cases.
14 Includes 2 nonsupport cases, 1 nonsupport and juvenile case.
i* 1 nonsupport, 1 divorce.
is Includes 7 nonsupport cases, 3 divorce, 3 nonsupport and divorce.
u 1 nonsupport case, 1 divorce and nonsupport.

The figures for delinquency, dependency or neglect, desertion or nonsupport,
and divorce are of especial interest. Of the 1,394 families dealt with in delin­
quency cases, 115 (8 per cent) were dealt with in other types of juvenile cases.
Seventeen families (1 per cent) were dealt with in divorce cases, 48 families (3 per
cent) in cases of desertion or nonsupport, and 27 (2 per cent) in cases of offenses
against children.
Among 672 families dealt with in dependency or neglect cases, 93 (14 per cent)
were also dealt with in juvenile cases of other types. Forty-seven families (7 per
cent) were dealt with in divorce cases, and 123 families (18 per cent) were dealt
with in cases of desertion or nonsupport.
Of the 1,329 families dealt with in cases of desertion or nonsupport 163 (12 per
cent) were dealt with in juvenile cases, and 170 (13 per cent) were dealt with in
divorce cases.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

78

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

Of the 929 families dealt with in divorce cases, 64 (7 per cent) were dealt with in
juvenile cases, and 170 (18 per cent) were dealt with in cases of desertion or non­
support.
The most overlapping appeared to exist between dependency or neglect and
desertion or nonsupport, and between divorce and desertion or nonsupport.
The analysis of interrelation of cases dealt with in 1923 and of previous court
records has shown that problems of divorce and desertion or nonsupport occur in
the same family in many instances and that two or more problems o ' other types
included in this study are also present in considerable numbers of families. The
following case histories (in which fictitious names have been used) illustrate this
overlapping of problems:
The Newton family was known to both the family court and the
humane society in 1923 and had been known the previous year to the
humane society. Mr. and Mrs. Newton, aged 22 and 23 years,
respectively, were separated, and the three children 1, 2, and 3 years
of age were with Mrs. Newton. She had come to the humane society
in 1922 for assistance in obtaining support from the father, and he
had complained that Mrs. Newton was neglecting the children and
failing to provide a proper home for them. An agreement to support
was obtained, and the humane society was supervising on January 1,
1923. On the 5th of that month complaint against the mother was
again made by Mr. Newton, and the society referred the case to the
family court, which placed the children under care of a private
agency. A little later a divorce complaint was filed, and the divorce
case was still pending at the end of the year. In August the chil­
dren were living with Mrs. Newton, and the father renewed his com­
plaint that the home was improper. The family court ordered the
children placed in a foster home by the private agency to which they
were committed. The Newton family was known to a familywelfare agency.
Mr. Thompson, aged 22, and Mrs. Thompson, aged 23, were
separated. A young daughter was living with Mr. Thompson, and
a baby 1 year of age was in a boarding home. In May, 1923, Mrs.
Thompson brought a charge of nonsupport. The case was handled
by the humane society and the municipal court, and Mr. Thompson
was ordered to support. The following month Mrs. Thompson
filed a petition for divorce in the family court, and Mr. Thompson
filed a cross petition alleging neglect. A divorce was granted to the
wife. In the meantime the family court had dealt unofficially with
the children as dependent and had arranged for their placement in a
boarding home. The Thompson family had been known to a hospital
and to a child-caring agency.
Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, who were separated, had two grown
daughters and three sons, James, Jonas, and Paul, aged 18,17, and 15
years. The boys were living with their mother. In January, 1923,
a divorce was pending in the family court, but no action on this case
was taken during the year. In July Jonas was charged with theft
and was placed on probation, to live in his own home. A few days
later Mrs. Andrews brought a nonsupport charge against the father
in the family court. The case was dealt with unofficially, and Mr.
Andrews agreed to support. The following month the same court
dealt with James on an illegitimacy complaint and James married
the girl involved. Jonas had been dealt with eight times before 1923
on delinquency charges ranging from truancy to immorality and
robbery, and he had been for some time in the State institution for
delinquent boys. James had been dealt with five times as a delin­
quent prior to 1923, and he also had been committed to the State
institution. Paul had been before the court three times as a delin­
quent and had been on probation. The family had been dealt with
by the family court three times prior to 1923 on nonsupport charges.
In 1920 a divorce complaint had been filed by Mrs. Andrews, charg­
ing adultery and neglect, but the case was dismissed. The Andrews
family had been known to the humane society and to a free dental
clinic.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPEN DIX B

79

In the Donnelly family the father, aged 47, had seven children
by a previous marriage, the younger children aged 18, 13, and 11
years. Mrs. Donnelly had three children by a former marriage, the
youngest 20 years of age. Mr. and Mrs. Donnelly were separated.
Mr. Donnelly’s two youngest children were living with him, and
Mrs. Donnelly’s oldest son was with her. Mrs. Donnelly’s 23-yearold daughter had been married and divorced. In October, 1923, Mr.
Donnelly filed a divorce complaint, charging neglect. The com­
plaint was dismissed. His 20-year-old and 18-year-old daughters
had been on probation to the family court since 1920, on charges of
theft and immorality. They had previously been dealt with as de­
linquents and for a time had been in a city institution for delinquent
girls. Their older brother had been on probation as a delinquent.
In 1916 Mr. Donnelly had been charged with contributing to the
delinquency of one of his older daughters, then 17 years of age, but
the case against him had been dismissed, though the daughter had
been adjudged delinquent and committed to a State institution. In
1916 Mrs. Donnelly’s daughter had also been adjudged delinquent
and had been placed in a city institution. Mrs. Donnelly’s three
children had been before the juvenile court as dependents in 1909.
The family had been known to family-welfare, medical, and health
agencies.
Mr. and Mrs. Otto, aged 40 and 37 years, were separated. Their
one child, Kate, who was 12 years old, was living with Mrs. Otto.
In October, 1923, Mrs. Otto filed a divorce petition, charging
cruelty and neglect. The ease was dismissed. A little later Kate
ran away from home and was brought before the court as a runaway.
The case was pending at the close of the year. The Otto family had
been known to family-welfare and child-welfare agencies and to
the humane society.
Mr. and Mrs. Raymond, both 29 years of age, were separated.
Two children, Randolph, aged 10, and Elizabeth, aged 7, were
living with their mother. Randolph had been born out of wedlock
before his mother’s marriage to Mr. Raymond. In 1921 and 1922
the humane society, the municipal court, and the court of common
pleas had dealt with the family on nonsupport charges, and Mr.
Raymond had been ordered to support his wife and the children.
In 1923 he agreed to support, but in June he was brought again
before the court of common pleas, served a jail sentence, and was re­
leased under an order to support his family. In the meantime
Randolph had been arrested for vagrancy; his case was investigated
by the family court, but no action was deemed necessary. Three
months later Mrs. Raymond complained to the court that Randolph
was stealing from persons in the home. This case also was handled
unofficially. The Raymond family had been known to familywelfare, medical, and health agencies.
S O C I A L A G E N C IE S D E A L I N G W I T H T H E F A M IL I E S

More than half (53 per cent) of the 5,286 families dealt with by the family
court, the humane society, or the probate court in 1923 were reported by the
Cincinnati social-service exchange as known to Hamilton County agencies other
than these organizations, or as known to the family court or the humane society
in cases of other types than those included in the study. One-third (33 per cent)
were known to more than one agency. If the humane society had dealt with a
family in 1923 or earlier in cases included in the study, it was not listed among
the registered agencies; otherwise it was included. As the probate court did not
register cases with the social-service exchange, and the family court in 1923 did
not register minor behavior cases, all cases not already registered (except mothers’
aid cases) were cleared through the social-service exchange as a preliminary to
calculating the numbers of cases dealt with by these courts and other social
agencies. The juvenile division of the family court was registered in some humanesociety cases in which no detailed information was available concerning the date
of the court record or the nature of the case. The court was counted as a regis­
tering agency if it was not dealing with the family in 1933 and had not dealt with

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

80

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

the family before 1923 in a case for which information concerning its nature was
available but was entered on the records of the social-service exchange.
Table 7 shows the number and per cent distribution of families according to
the number of social agencies reported as having known the families during and
before 1923. Table 8 shows the types of cases in which they came to the attention
of the courts and the humane society, according to the number of social agencies
reported.
T a b l e 7.— Num ber o f social agencies to which fa m ily was know n; fa m ilies dealt
with in ju ven ile and dom estic-relations cases in 1928, H am ilton County
Families ïealt with
Reported number of social agen­
cies to which family was known
prior to and in 1923

Total______________________
N one_______________ ___________
1 agency________________________
2 agencies.......................................
3 agencies.......................................4 agencies__ _____________ _____ _
5 agencies_______________________
6 or more agencies_________ _____

T

Per cent
distribution

Number

5,286

100

2,478
1,083
654
401
260
163
247

47
20
12
8
5
3
5

8 .— T ype o f case and number o f social agencies to which fa m ily was know n;
fa m ilies dealt with in ju ven ile and dom estic-relations cases in 1928, H am ilton
County

able

Families dealt with
Reported as known to social agencies
prior to and in 1923
T yp e of case
Total

N ot re­
Number of social agencies to ported as
known
which family was known
to social
agencies
Total
1

2 or 3

4 or 5

6 or
more

5,286

2,808

1,083

1,055

423

247

2,478

2,699
1,203
87
601

1,481
595
75
416

533
239
14
148

550
195
25
169

241
107
17
66

157
54
19
33

1,218
608
12
185

22
395

20
252

5
86

14
101

1
33

32

2
143

i 376
15

109
14

37
4

40
6

15
2

17
2

267
1

2,210
1,163
954
144
65

1,051
620
501
80
39

467 .
257
220
28
9

402
247
183
41
23

. 131
80
66
8
6

51
36
32
3
1

1,159
543
453
64
26

Divorce __________________________ A lone________- -- ______________________

718
688
30

256
238
18

125
118
7

91
83
8

33
30
3

7
7

462
450
12

Support of illegitimate child_____________ . .
Quarreling or other domestic trouble_________
A buse_________________________ ____________

155
82
64
14
14

90
31
39
8
7

41
17
20
3
4

40
6
11
4
3

8
5
4
1

1
3
4

65
51
25
6
7

Total________________________________ ____
Juvenile cases____________________________ ______
Delinquency ______________ ______________
Delinquency and other cases________________
Mothers’ aid ------- ------------------------------------Mothers’ aid and other cases (except delinDependency or neglect- ____________________
Adoption, guardianship, feeble-mindedness,
epilepsy------------------------------------------ -----------Other cases and other combinations__________
Domestic-relations cases____ ____________________
Desertion or nonsupport_____________ _______
Alone _________________ _____ _______
W ith divorce________ ______ ______ ____
W ith other cases________
_____________

Other cases__________________________________

1 Includes 105 dealt with in adoption cases only, of which 14 were known to social agencies; 195 in guardian­
ship cases only, of which 44 were known to social agencies; and 75 dealt with in cases of feeble-mindedness
and epilepsy only, of which 51 were known to social agencies.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

81

APP EN D IX B
T

8 .— T ype o f case and number o f social agencies to which fa m ily was kn ow n ;
fa m ilies dealt with in ju ven ile and dom estic-relations cases in 1928, H am ilton
County — Continued

able

Families dealt with
Eeporl ed as known to social agencies
prior to and in 1923
T yp e of case
Total

N ot re­
Number of social agencies to ported as
known
which family was known
to social
Total
agencies
1

2 or 3 4 or 5

6 or
more

Juvenile cases and domestic-relations cases_______

256

191

53

75

40

23

65

Dependency or n e g le c t.......................................

174

131

44

52

25

10

43

W ith desertion or nonsupport___________
W ith divorce___________ _________ ______
W ith other cases or other com binations...

87
26
61

67
17
47

17
7
20

28
8
16

15
1
9

7
1
2

20
9
14

Delinquency and domestic-relations cases____
Other combinations_________________________

48
34

34
26

5
4

14
9

11
4

4
9

14
8

Offenses against children________________________

102

67

26

20

9

12

35

64
38

36
31

14
12

13
7

4
5

5
7

28
7

19

18

4

8

2

4

1

Alone_______________________________________
W ith other cases_____________________________
School-excuse and employment-certificate cases
8 W ith or without other cases.

More than half (55 per cent) of the families dealt with in juvenile cases, nearly
half (48 per cent) of those dealt with in domestic-relations cases, three-fourths
(75 per cent) of those dealt with in both juvenile cases and domestic-relations
cases, and two-thirds (67 per cent) of those dealt with in cases of offenses against
children were reported as known to social agencies. More than half (51 per cent)
of the families dealt with in delinquency cases and nearly two-thirds (64 per cent)
of those dealt with in dependency or neglect cases only were known to social
agencies, not including families that were dealt with also in domestic-relations
cases, cases of offenses against children, or school-excuse and employmentcertificate cases. Families dealt with in adoption and guardianship cases only
were known to social agencies less frequently (13 per cent and 23 per cent,
respectively), but two-thirds (68 per cent) of the families dealt with in cases of
feeble-mindedness and epilepsy and not in cases of other types had social-agency
records. Of the families dealt with by the probate court alone nearly threetenths (29 per cent) were known to social agencies and nearly one-fifth (19 per
cent) to more than one such agency. More than half of the families dealt with in
"desertion or nonsupport cases (53 per cent), more than one-third of those dealt
with in divorce cases (36 per cent), and almost three-fifths of those dealt with in
cases for the support of children born out of wedlock (58 per cent) had socialagency records. Those dealt with in desertion or nonsupport cases do not include
those also dealt with in juvenile cases, cases of offenses against children, or schoolexcuse and employment-certificate cases; and those dealt with in divorce cases
do not include those also dealt with in cases of the types specified or in desertion or
nonsupport cases.
Table 9 shows the number and percentage of families known to family-welfare
agencies, medical and health agencies, and agencies dealing with delinquency, the
prevention of delinquency, and the protection of children. Thè last group
includes the Central Mental Hygiene Clinic, Big Brother and Big Sister organiza­
tions, and the Juvenile Protective League, also the humane society and the
family court so far as they dealt with cases other than those included in the
study.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

82

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

T a b l e 9.— General type o f case and number and per cent o f cases known to social
agencies o f specified typ e; fa m ilies dealt with in ju ven ile and domestic-relations
cases in 1923, H am ilton County
Families 1 dealt with who were reported as known to
specified social agencies prior to and in 1923

General type of case

Families
dealt with
in all cases

Family-welfare
agencies

Medical and
health agencies

Agencies dealing
with delinquency,
prevention of de­
linquency, and
protection of
children

Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent

T otal_______________________

Juvenile cases and domestic-relaSchool-excuse

and

employment-

5,286

1,782

34

. 1,609

30

829

16

2,699
2,210

1,015
579

38
26

832
615

31
28

460
275

17
12

256
102

132
44

52
43

120
33

47
32

57
29

22
28

19

12

(J)

9

0)

8

(?)

i M any families were known to more than 1 type of agency,
s N ot shown because number of families was less than 50.

Family-welfare agencies had dealt with the most families (34 per cent); medical
and health agencies were second (dealing with 30 per cent) , and agencies dealing
with delinquency, the prevention of delinquency, and the protection of children
were third (dealing with 16 per cent). Two per cent of the families not dealt with
by agencies of the types specified and a number of families known to such agencies
were known to children’s institutions, child-placing agencies, the department of
education, and other agencies.
The individual agency registering the largest number of families m the group
studied was the Associated Charities, which registered 1,207 families. The
Bureau of Catholic Charities (which combines family-welfare service, a health
center, institutions for children, and Big Brother and Big Sister work) was next,
561 families being reported as known to this agency. The vocational bureau
and other divisions of the school department, including the attendance depart­
ment and placement office, registered 453 families, and the humane society
registered 401 families (in addition to families dealt with by this society in 1923
or earlier in cases of the types included in the study and entered under court
record or previous court record.) Hospitals, dispensaries, and clinics, the Bureau
for Prevention of Tuberculosis, and the Babies Milk Fund Association registered
1 609 families. The Children’s Home, a private institution for dependent children
which also places children, registered 161 families. Seventeen of these families
and 91 others were registered with the Boarding Home Bureau, which was then
an independent agency.2 The Juvenile Protective Association registered 153
families, the Central Mental Hygiene Clinic (not established until January,
1923) registered 104, and the Federation of Churches (which does Big Brother
and Big Sister work) registered 93.
.
,
.
Among the 5,286 families the number which were registered in the socialservice exchange in 1923 for the first time was 1,223 (23 per cent), as compared
with 2,808 (53 per cent) registered at any time. Of these 1,223 families 803
(66 per cent) had been registered with only 1 agency in 1923; 260 (21 per cent)
had been registered with 2 agencies; 117 (10 per cent) had been registered with
3 agencies; and 43 (4 per cent) had been registered with 4 agencies or more.
Medical and health agencies registered 620 families in 1923; family-welfare
agencies registered 403 families; and agencies dealing with delinquency, the pre­
vention of delinquency, and the protection of children registered 270 families.
The family court depended upon social agencies for assistance in probation
work to a considerable .extent; both the court and the humane society frequently
referred families for services of various kinds.
2 Boarding-out work was divided later among the Children’s Home, the Bureau of Cathplie Charities,
and the United Jewish Charities.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

83

A P P E N D IX b
C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F T H E F A M IL I E S

Race and age of mother and age of parents.
Information concerning the race of the mother was obtained for 4,525 of the
5 286 families dealt with. The mother was white in 3,645 (81 per cent) of these
families and colored in 880 families (19 per cent). The percentage of colored
mothers was almost three times as high as the percentage of colored in the whole
population (7 per cent in 1920).3 The percentage of colored mothers was very
low (6 and 9, respectively) in mothers’ aid and divorce cases and very high in
illegitimacy cases, in more than half (56 per cent) of which the mother was colored.
For other cases the percentage of colored mothers ranged from 15 to 25 . (Iable
10.)
T

able

10.— T ype o f case and race o f m other; fa m ilies dealt with in ju ven ile and
domestic-relations cases in 1923, H am ilton County
Families dealt with
Race of mother reported
T yp e of case
Total

TotalJuvenile cases Delinauency alone and with other cases-----------Mothers' aid alone and with other cases (except
delinquency)— ----------- ---------------------- ---------Dependency or neglect------- -----------------------------A doption-------------------------- -------------------------------Guardianship------------------------------ --------------------Feeble-mindedness or epilepsy--------- ---------------Other cases or other combinations--------------------Domestic-relations cases.
Desertion or nonsupport alone and with other
Divorce alone and with other cases (except deser­
tion or nonsupport)_________________________
Support of illegitimate child...... ................... .........
Other domestic-relations cases--------------------------Juvenile cases and domestic-relations cases.
Dependency or neglect and domestic-relations
Delinquency and domestic-relations cases.
Other combinations---------------------------------Offenses against children alone and with other cases.
and with other cases.

*.

Colored

White

Total

N um ­
ber

Per
cent

N um ­
ber

Per
cent

Race
of
mother
not re­
ported

5,286

4,525

3,645

81

880

19

761

2,699

2,302

1,863

81

439

19

397

1,290

1,231

926

75

305

25

59

623
395

617
365

582
288

94
79

35
77

6
21

75
16

73
16

56
11

77

17
5

23

6
30
105
195
2

2,210

1,866

1,489

80

377

20

344

1,163

1,050

828

79

222

21

113

718
155
174

579
151
86

524
67
70

91
44
81

55
84
16

9
56
19

139
4
88

256

243

200

82

43

18

13

174
48
34

167
45
31

142
31
27

85

25
14
4

15

7
3
3

102

96

77

80

19

20

6

18

16

19

0)

(9
(9
0)

2

(9

(9
(9

(9

1

1 N ot shown because number of families was less than 50.

In 3,169 of the 5,286 families dealt with the mother was living and her age was
ascertained. Eleven per cent of the mothers were under 21 years of age and oZ
per cent were between 21 and 29 years of age. Less than one-fourth of the mot
ers (23 per cent) had reached the age of 40.
,
.
f
Table 11 shows the age of the mother in all reported cases and for four groups of
cases: Dependency or neglect, mothers’ aid, divorce, and desertion or nonsupport
As the mother’s age was reported for less than 25 per cent of the families dealt with
in delinquency cases, this group and the groups in which the numbers of cases are
small are not shown separately.
» Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920, vol. 3, Population, p. 778.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Washington, 1922.

84

THE CHILD, THE FAMILY, AND THE COURT

T a b l e 11.-— A g e o f mother; fa m ilies dealt with in all types and in selected types o f
ju ven ile and dom estic-relations cases in 1928, H am ilton County
Families 1 dealt with in selected types of cases
Families
dealt with in
all cases
Age of mother

Dependency
or neglect

M others’ aid

Desertion or
nonsupport

Divorce

Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
N um ­ cent N um ­ cent N um ­ cent N um ­ cent N um ­ cent
distri­
distri­
distri­
distri­
ber
ber distri­ ber
ber
ber
bu­
bu­
bu­
bu­
bu­
tion
tion
tion
tion
tion
T otal__________________

5,286

Age of mother reported______

3,169

100

672
388

100

Under 18 years__________
18 years, under 21________
21 years, under 30________
30 years, under 40________
40 years, under 50 ______
50 years or over__________

67
270
1,013
1,095
565
159

2
9
32
35
18
5

6
29
165
135
44
9

2
7
43
35
11
2

Age of mother not reported or
mother dead_______________

2,117

651

284

929

637

100

757

8
43
39
10

5
46
310
279
81
36

48
277
248
64
14

1,329
100

1,109

100

28
148
516
303
93
21

3
13
47
27
8
2

(2)
6
41
37
11
5

172

1 M any families were dealt with in more than 1 type of case.

220

* Less than 1 per cent.

T a b l e 12.— A g e o f mother and fa th er; fa m ilies dealt with in all types and in selected
types o f ju ven ile and dom estic-relations cases in 1923, H am ilton County

Age of mother and father

Families
dealt
with in
all cases

Famil ies1 dealt ¡vith in
select ed types o : cases
Depend­
ency or
neglect

Divorce

Desertion
or nonsupport

Total______________________________ ____________________

5,286

672

929

1,329

Age of mother reported_______________________________________

3,169

388

757

1,109

M other under 21 years___________ ________________________

337

35

51

176

Father under 21 years_____________________________ . .
Father 21 years, under 30_______________________
Father 30 years and over_____________________
Father’s age not reported or father dead
M other 21 years, under 3 0 ............................... .
..... ........

56
205
22
54
1,013

3
18
4
10
165

6
37
5
3
310

29
127
10
10
516

8
496
351
44
114

52
70
9
34

1
156
130
21
2

4
306
171
19
16

1,095

135

279

303

42
435
295
323

6
63
40
26

17
174
86
2

19
167
102
15

724

53

117

114

35
350
339

7
31
15

11
106

10
95
9

2,117

284

172

220

Father under 21 years______________________________
Father 21 years, under 30-............. — ...........................
Father 30 years, under 40-_____ _______________ ____
Father 40 years and over_______________
Father’s age not reported or father dead______________
M other 30 years, under 40_____________ _________ _________
Father under 30 years_______________________
Father 30 years, under 40_______ __________ - ________
Father 40 years and over________________________
Father’s age not reported or father dead
M other 40 years or over_____

____________________

Father under 40 years________________________
Father 40 years and o v e r .._____ _________
Father’s age not reported or father dead__________
Age of mother not reported or mother d e a d . ______ ;_______
>M any families were dealt with in more than 1 type of case.

One of the striking facts brought out by the figures in Table 11 is the youth of
the mothers involved in desertion or nonsupport cases. Almost one-sixth (16

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

85

APPENDIX B

per cent) were under the age of 21 years and more than three-fifths (62 per cent)
were under 30. These were not childless wives but were women bringing action
against their husbands for the support of themselves and their children. Almost
half the mothers involved in divorce cases (48 per cent) were under the age of 30,
and 7 per cent were under the age of 21. On the other hand, 91 per cent of the
mothers applying for mothers’ aid were 30 years of age or older.
Table 12 shows the ages of the parents in the families dealt with.
In 2 per cent of the families in which the parents were living and their ages
known both the mother and the father were under 21 years of age. In 21 per cent
both were 21 and under 30 years of age; in another 15 per cent the mother was 21
and under 30 and the father was 30 and under 40; thus in 36 per cent of the
families the mother was between 21 and 30 and the father between 21 and 40.
Families in which the mother was 30 but under 40 years of age and the father 30
or over comprised 31 per cent of the total for which age of mother and father
was reported. Both parents were 21 and under 30 years of age in 17 per cent of
the families dealt with in dependency or neglect cases, 21 per cent of those dealt
with in divorce cases, and 29 per cent of those dealt with in desertion or nonsup­
port cases. The mother was of this age and the father 30 but under 40 years of
age in 23 per cent of the families dealt with in dependency or neglect cases, 17
per cent of those dealt with in divorce cases, and 16 per cent of those dealt with in
desertion or nonsupport cases.
Number and ages of the children.
For 4,589 families the number of minor children was reported. (Table 13.)
In more than two-fifths of the families (41 per cent, including families in which
there was only an unborn child) there was but one minor child. Two children
were reported for 1,056 families (23 per cent), and three or more children for
1,638 families (36 per cent). Excluding unborn children, the total number of
minor children in the 4,477 families who had living children was 10,681, an aver­
age of 2.4 per family.
Of the 4,508 families in which the numbers and ages of the children were re­
ported, 112 (2 per cent) had an unborn child only, 3,197 (71 per cent) were
families in which all the children were under the age of 16 years, 893 (20 per cent)
were families in which some of the children were under 16 and some were be­
tween 16 and 21 years, and 306 (7 per cent) were families in which all the chil­
dren were between the ages of 16 and 21 years.
T

able

13.— N um ber o f m inor children in fa m ily by age grou ps; fa m ilies dealt with
in ju ven ile and dom estic-relations cases in 1923, H am ilton County
Families dealt with
Ages of minor children

N um ber of minor children in family
Total
All un­
der 16

Some un­
der 16,
All 16 but N ot re­ Child
some 16 under 21
ported unborn
but un­
der 21

Total ---------------------------------------------------

5,286

3,197

893

306

778

112

N um ber of minor children in family reported11
____________ _______ ________ ______
2 ________ ________ _______________ ______
3 ______ _______ ________________ _______
4
_ _ _ _ _ ___ ________
5
______ ______ _____ __________
6
_ ________________ ________
7
_________________ __________
8
_ ________________________
9
_______ _____ _________
10
11

4,589
1,783
1,056
724
412
248
133
68
33
14
4
2
112

3,197
1,534
811
447
224
113
37
21
6
3
1

893

306
234
59
12
1

81
15
17
17
13
9
5
3
2

112

Number of minor children in family not re697

169
248
174
1-6
91
44
25
11
3
2

112
697

i The number with 1 child only is probably somewhat overstated. Of the 324 families dealt with b y
the probate court only in which the ages of the children were reported, 234 (72 per cent) appeared to have
only 1 child. The information concerning children in the families dealt with b y the family court or the
humane society was incomplete in a number of cases.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

86

THE CHILD, THE FAMILY, AND THE COURT

Table 14 shows the number of children of specified ages in the families dealt
with by the courts or the humane society in cases of various types.
Of the 896 families (with minor children) dealt with in divorce cases, for which
numbers and ages of children were reported, 54 per cent had children under 7
years of age and 21 per cent had children under 3 years of age. The correspond­
ing percentages for the 1,273 families with numbers and ages of children reported
which were dealt with in cases of desertion or nonsupport were 73 having chil­
dren under 7 years of age and 47 having children under 3 years. Of the group
of families dealt with in desertion or nonsupport cases, 18 per cent had children
under 1 year of age. Of all the families included in the study for which numbers
and ages of children were reported, 53 per cent had children under the age of 7
years and 28 per cent had children under the age of 3 years.
T a b l e 14.— Num ber o f m inor children in fa m ily, by age grou ps: fa m ilies dealt
with in all types and in selected types o f jhvenile and domestic-relations cases in
1928, H am ilton County

Familie
Number of children of specified ages in
family

Total

____________________________

Number of children under 21 years:
1_________________ _____________________________________
2______________ ________ ____________ ______
3___________________ ________ __________
4______________________________________________________
. 5_____ ________________ ___________ __________
6_____________________ __________ __________ _
7 or m ore _______________ _________________________
N ot reported. _____ __________________________
Number of children under 16 years:
None 2_____ __________________ .
1

_

............................. .......................... .....................................

2................................................................ .................. ................
3.................................. .................. ..........................
4_______________ _______ _________ ________
5 . . . ....................................................... ...................................
6. ______ ________ _______________________ ________ _
7 or m ore _______________ _______ _____________
N ot reported ___________________________________
Number of children under 7 years:
None 2______ ________ ______________ _______ ________
1................... ................................................................................
2 . . .............................................................................................
3.......................................................................
4. ____________ _________________________
5 . . . ...................................................................
N ot r e p o rte d ......................................................
Number of children under 3 years:
None 2 _____________ _______________
1 ____________ _________________________
2..................... ..................... .. ............................. .............
3 ............................................................. .....................................
N ot reported ____________________________________
Number of children under 1 year:
None 2____________________________________________
1_________________ _____________ _____________ __________
2 ............. ............ ........................................................................
N ot reported ___________ __ ______________________

Families
dealt
with in
all cases

Delin­
quency

1

dealt w ith in sele 3tcd types of cases

Depend­
ency or Mothers’ Divorce
aid
neglect

Desertion
or non­
support

5,286

1,387

672

651

929

1,329

1,783
1,056
724
412
248
133
121
112
697

243
180
154
105
88
54
64
4
495

179
160
108
70
35
24
22
3
71

37
159
199
101
73
35
24

497
220
107
49
20
8
1
9
18

551
324
159
112
47
18
19

418
1,794
1,061
606
332
177
66
54
778

133
256
170
120
82
67
25
26
508

18
192
154
96
59
30
15
8
100

1
89
202
177
87
46
15
10
24

114
448
211
79
32
9
3

71
573
323
148
98
38
10

33

56

2,136
h 511
614
201
41
5
778

646
119
73
32
9

341
147
104
29
6

412
385
81
17
1

348
566
258
83
17

508

230
162
118
50
11
1
100

24

33

56

3, 234
1,081
185
8
778

777
88
13
1
508

381
147
41
3
100

539
73
15

708
177
11

670
494
105

24

33

56

4,026
473
9
778

847
32

511
56
5
100

606
20
1
24

848
48

1,045
225
3
56

508

23

33

37

1 M any families were dealt with in more than 1 type of case.
2 Includes families with no children under the age specified but with unborn children.

Composition of family and whereabouts of the children and the parents.
The number of families dealt with by the courts or the humane society in 1923,
excluding those dealt with only by the probate court— concerning which informa­
tion was incomplete— and those in which there was only an unborn child, was
4,718. These included unmarried mothers and their children, as well as legally
constituted family groups; and adopted children were considered as own children.
In 625 families (13 per cent) there were stepchildren. One-third of these families
(208) included children of husband and wife and stepchildren also. (Table 15.)

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

87

APPEN DIX B

In only 1,039 (28 per cent) of the 3,694 families for which whereabouts of all
the living children was reported were all the children with both parents (including
step-parents). In 1,933 cases (52 per cent) they were all with one parent. In
290 families (8 per cent) the children were separated, some of them being with
one or both parents; arid in 432 families (12 per cent) none of the children was
with either parent. In only 859 families (23 per cent) were there no stepchildren
and were all children living with both parents.
T a b l e 15.— Com position o f fa m ily and whereabouts o f children; fa m ilies dealt with
in ju ven ile and dom estic-relations cases in 1923 , H am ilton County
Families dealt with
Whereabouts of children reported
Composition of fam ily3

Where­
abouts
of chil­
dren
not re­
ported
or
child
un­
born

Total

All
with
both
par­
ents

Sepa­
All
None rated,
with
with some
1 par­ either with
ent
parent parent
or par­
ents

3,694

1,039

1,933

432

290

1,216

3,681
3,226
455

1,033
859
174

1,930
1,805
125

430
360
70

288
202
86

1,037
867
170

150
58
218
29
13

55
19
94
6
6

35
11
74
5
3

13
23
33
1
2

47
5
17
17
2

58
38
67
7
67
112

Total

Total__________________ ______________________ «4,910
Composition reported—families with children______

4,718
N o stepchildren in family 3_______________ _____ 4,093
Stepchildren in family__________________________
625
Stepchildren and children of husband and
wife______________________________________
208
Children of husband only__________________
96
Children of wife o n l y ..____ ________________
285
Children of each_______________________ ____
36
Composition not reported............ ............ .......................
80
112
1 Adopted children are considered as own children.
2 Excludes 376 families dealt with b y the probate court only.
3 Includes unmarried mothers and their children.

Table 16 shows the composition of the families dealt with in 1923 by the family
court or the humane society in relation to cases of various types. Stepchildren
were reported in 21 per cent of the families dealt with in divorce cases and in 10
per cent of those dealt with in desertion or nonsupport cases. The percentage
with stepchildren was higher in families dealt with in dependency and neglect
cases (20) than in those dealt with in delinquency cases (15).
T a b l e 16.— Com position o f fa m ily ; fa m ilies dealt with in all types 1 and in selected
types o f ju ven ile and dom estic-relations cases in 1923, H am ilton County
Families 2 dealt with in selected types of cases
Delinquen­
cy

Dependen­
cy or neg
lect

Mothers’
aid

Divorce

Desertion
or non­
support

‘ 4,910
Composition r e p o r t e d —
families with children____ 4,718
N o stepchildren in family---------------------------- 4,093
Stepchildren in fam ily..
625
Composition of family not
192
reported, or child unborn.

672

1,387

929

1,329

Per cent dis­
tribution

Number

Per cent dis­
tribution

Number

Per cent dis­
tribution

Number
651

100 1,325

100

657

100

650

100

914

100 1,263

100

87 1,127
13
198

85
15

523
134

80
20

639
11

98
2

724
190

79 1,136
21
127

90
10

15

66

- 62

15

1 Excludes 370 families dealt with b y the probate court only.
3M any families were dealt with in more than 1 type of case.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Per cent dis­
tribution

Number

Per cent dis­
tribution

Number

Number

Composition of family

Per cent dis­
tribution

I

Families
dealt with
in all cases

1

88

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

It has been noted that in 12 per cent of the families for which the whereabouts
of the children was reported, none of the children was living with either parent.
The percentages for the various types of cases ranged from 10 per cent in families
dealt with in delinquency cases to 27 per cent in families dealt with in dependency
or neglect cases. Among families dealt with in divorce cases with children whose
whereabouts was reported, 16 per cent— about one family in every six— had al­
ready been so disintegrated at the time the divorce petition was filed that none
of the children was living with either parent. All the children were with the
mother only in 50 per cent of all the families, but in only 3 per cent were they all
with the father only. The percentage in which the children were with the mother
only was lowest in families dealt with in delinquency (18 per cent) and highest
in those dealt with in mothers’ aid cases (90 per cent).
Table 17 shows the whereabouts of children in families dealt with in 1923 by
the family court or the humane society in cases of various types.
T

17.— W hereabouts o f children; fa m ilies dealt with in all types 1 and in selected
types o f ju ven ile and domestic-relations cases in 1928, H am ilton County

able

Families 2 dealt with in selected types of cases
Families
dealt with
in all cases

Delinquen­ Dependen­
cy or neg­
cy
lect

Mothers’
aid

Divorce

Desertion
or non­
support

3,694

All with both parents
or step-parents----------- 1,039
All with m o t h e r ._____ 1,833
100
Separated, some with
290
parent or parents----432
None with either parent.
Whereabouts of children
not reported, or child un1,216

929

1,329

100 1,180

Per cent dis­
tribution

Number

Per cent dis­
tribution

Number

Per cent dis­
tribution

Number

Number

Per cent dis­
tribution

Per cent dis­
tribution

651

672

1,387

14,910
Families with c h i l d r e n
whose whereabouts was
reported______ ____ _____

Number

Per cent dis­
tribution

Number

Whereabouts, of children

100

770

100

559

100

603

100

680

28
50
3

456
142
33

59
18
4

152
148
30

27
26
5

12
540

2
90

27
441
26

4
65
4

311
652
13

26
55
1

8
12

59
80

8
10

79
150

14
27

45
6

7
1

75
111

11
16

71
133

6
11

617

113

48

249

100

149

l Excludes 376 families dealt with b y the probate court only.
« M any families were dealt with in more than 1 type of case.
FA M ILIES D E A L T W IT H B Y T H E P R O B A T E C O U R T

Cases of adoption.
The probate court dealt with 113 families in adoption cases in 1923. The
adoption of more than one child was sought in 6 of these families. In 74 fami­
lies the child or children whose adoption was sought were of legitimate birth;
in 39 families the child was of illegitimate birth. Information concerning the
status of the child’s parents had been recorded for only 38 of the 74 families in
which the children were of legitimate birth and for 23 of the 39 children born out
of wedlock. In only 3 of the former families was the child known to be a full
orphan; in 21 it was known that 1 parent was dead; in 9 both parents were known
to be living, and in 5 families 1 parent was living and the status of the other
was unknown. The mothers of 23 of the 39 children born out of wedlock were
known to be living, and the status of 16 was not reported.
In 21 of the 113 families the child was a juvenile-court ward, and in 7 families
the child was a ward of the court as a result of a divorce proceeding. In 65
families consent to adoption was given by a social agency, in 5 by both parents,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

89

APPENDIX B

in 38 by 1 parent, in 4 by an individual not the parent; in 1 instance the person
giving consent was not reported.4
In 20 families the child was under 1 year of age, in 38 the child or children were
1 year old but less than 3 years old, and in 55 families the child was 3 years of age
or older.
e
The law specifies that no decree of adoption shall be made until the child has
resided in the home of the petitioner at least six months, “ unless the court for
some special reason which shall be entered in the record deems it best to waive
this requirement. 6 However, in 55 of the 99 families in which adoption was
granted, the child had been in the adoptive home less than one year. In 42
families the child had lived in the home one year or longer, and in 2 the time in
the home was not reported.
It was known that investigations had been made in respect to 57 of the 99
families in which adoption was granted. No investigation appeared to have been
made in 39 instances, and in 3 it was not known whether or not there had been an
investigation. Among the persons and agencies making investigations were the
State department of public welfare, the Bureau of Catholic Charities, various
child-placing agencies and children’s institutions, probation officers, and
attorneys.6
Petitions for adoption were granted in 99 families. In 12 families adoption
cases were pending at the end of the year. In two families the disposition of the
adoption cases was not reported. No petition was reported as denied.

Cases of guardianship.
The probate court dealt with 211 families in which guardianship of children
was petitioned, including 208 in which guardianship of both person and estate
was sought, and with 3 in^ which only guardianship of the person was desired.
Guardianship was granted in 186 cases, 24 cases were pending at the close of thé
year, and the disposition of 1 case was not reported. No instance of denial of
the petition for guardianship was reported. The number of children in these
families whose guardianship was petitioned for was as follows:
Num bér of
families

Total families______________________

_

211

1 child______________________ ______ __________________
2 children___________________________________________ I I I I I I I ”
3 children___________________ ___________________________~
4 children_____________________________________________ I I I I ' I "
5 children___________________________________________ 5
6 children____________________________________________ I I I ' I
7 children_____________________________ ________________ ~

124
47
22
9
3
j

Cases of mentally defective children.
Provision for mentally defective children was difficult because the State insti­
tution was overcrowded, and children had to remain on the waiting lists for
extended periods. The number of families dealt with in this type of case in 1923
was 109 (98 with feeble-minded children, 10 with epileptic children, and 1 with
both feeble-minded and epileptic children). The application for admission was
^The law requires consent to adoption as follows: (1) B y the child if over 13 years of age; (2) b v each of the
living pju-ents or b y the mother of a child of illegitimate birth except (a) b y one of the6parents if the other
has failed or refused to support the child for two consecutive years, ( 6 ) b y the juvenile court if both the par­
ents have failed or refused to support the child for two consecutive years, (c) b y the parent or person to whom
a juvenile court has awarded legal custody and guardianship because of dependency or because of the
mental, moral, or other unfitness of one or both parents, subject to the approval of the juvenile court (d) b v
person awarded custody by«a decree of divorce, subject to the approval of the divorce
logal guardian if the parents are dead or their residence has been unknown at least a year
l.uv®u^®.court has deprived them of legal custody and guardianship because of their unfitness
b y an institution or agency having legally acquired custody and control of the child if the SUtedepart-

Z lln ,

mstltUtion or agency as approved- <
0hio>Code w£ sec.
sec- 10512-20 (added b y Laws of 1931, p. 475).
^ SrouP on adoptions the Cleveland Conference on Illegitimacy made a study of the 311
S
“ Cuyahoga C ounty (in which Cleveland is situated) b e t ™ July ?
1 9 2 3* The following statement was made m an article b y the chairman of the committee
reporting this study: In Ohio the intent of the law is clearly that the court shall have specific information
afndKChlJd ^ rou g h investigation. It was intended, although the law says
rusy, that the State board of chanties [now the department of public welfare], county home, or some
J
' geDtCiy SKi°Ulid makÌÌ,h5 investigation and verify the allegations in the petition. H ow­
ever, in practice, frequently blanks are filled m b y the attorney of the foster parents, some court attaché
at aU;, ° $ L 2 9 £ ports in the 6 6 cases studied were found filed. In 37 case™noreports
HnJe*af i w ? ! d h ? record. Of the 29 reports 27 were b y agencies, 1 b y the next friend, and 1 not given ”
See A Study of Adoptions in Cuyahoga County, b y Lawrence C. Cole (The Family, voi. 6 , No. 9, p.259).
added

b7irws o fl9 ? l p e4^2Sr

• Si?*0’


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

90

THE CHILD, THE FAM ILY, AND THE COURT

made for 1 child by 99 families, for 2 children by 9 families, and for 3 children by
1 family. More than two-thirds of the children were between the ages of 7 and
16 years. The petition was signed by the parents m the case of 86 of the 1U9
families, bv courts in the case of 15 families, by social agencies in the case of
3 families, and by other persons or agencies m the case of 5 families.
Children from only 50 of the 109 families were admitted to institutions m 1923.
In 16 families admission was applied for and in 43 the children were committed
to the care of an individual or agency pending admission.
FAMILIES DEALT WITH IN JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC-RELATIONS
CASES IN PHILADELPHIA, PA.

The Philadelphia study included juvenile and domestic-relations cases brought
before the municipal court of Philadelphia in October, 1923, and a group of divorce
cases in which there were children under 18 years of age. (These latter cases,
which were dealt with by the court of common pleas, were cleared through the
central registration bureau of the municipal court; see p. 93.)
N U M B E R OP F A M IL IE S D E A L T W I T H A N D T Y P E S O F C A SE S

In October, 1923, the municipal court dealt-with 6,728 families in cases of the
types included in the study. The general types of cases in which these families
were dealt with were as follows:
1. Juvenile cases (2,902), including delinquency, incorrigible and
runaway children 16 to 21 years of age, dependency, neglect, and
cases of mentally defective children.
"
2. Domestic-relations cases (3,535), including desertion or non­
support, illegitimacy, and friendly-service cases dealt with by the
domestic-relations division.
'
,
3. Juvenile and domestic-relations cases (291), including com­
binations of the types listed in paragraphs 1 and 2.
The 6,728 families dealt with during the month of October, 1923, represent 2
ner cent of the 402,946 families enumerated for Philadelphia in the 1920 census.
It wiU be noted that cases of adoption, guardianship, and contributing to the
delinquency of children and neglect of children (adult cases), which were included
in the study of interrelation of cases made in Hamilton County, Ohio were
not included in the study made in Philadelphia. In 1923 the juvenile division o
the municipal court of Philadelphia disposed of 145 new official adult cases, hold­
ing them to the grand jury or otherwise disposing of them.
Six per cent of the 6,728 families included in the inquiry were dealt with in
more than one type of case during October, 1923. Table 18 shows hhe number and
per cent of families dealt with in each type of case that were also dealt with m
cases of other types. The percentages ranged from 9 in desertion or nonsupport
and delinquency to 29 in dependency or neglect cases. In the inquiry in Hamil­
ton County, Ohio, the percentage of families dealt with m more than one type of
case was 13, as has been stated, that for desertion or nonsupport cases was 28,
and that for cases of dependency or neglect was 41. (See p. 76.) It must be
remembered, however, that the figures for Hamilton County cover an entire
year and include divorce and certain other types of cases not incffided m the
Philadelphia study. Among the juvenile cases in Philadelphia, as m Hamilton
County, dependency or neglect was found to occur most frequently in combina­
tion with cases of other types.
The numbers of families dealt with in juvenile cases, desertion or nonsupport,
or illegitimacy cases in October, 1923, which.had been dealt with m other types of
cases included in the study at any time during the year ended October 3 1 , 1 9 2 3 ,
were also ascertained. (Table 19.)
__________
7 Fnnrtpenth Census of the United States, 1920, vol. 3, Population, p. 864. For definition of the family
in the census and as used in this study see fo9tnote 1’.P- P -jJ S fr £ ^ 4 2 8 7 2 1 ^ u t the1 p e r c ^ ^
1920 calculated on the basis of the 1930 definition of private f a m i l y 428,721, but the percentage wouia
have remained the same. The figures given in this section refer to children u n d e r Zl years¡of^age>ana ur
_ nt over lfi veers’) not married nor living outside the city, whereas the figures for Hamilton L-ounty, yn io,
were based on the total number of minor children whether those between 16 and 2 1 were married and living
outside the city or not.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

91

APPENDIX B

T a b l e 18.— -T ype o f cases and interrelation o f cases; fa m ilies dealt with in ju v en ile
and dom estic-relations cases by the m unicipal court in October, 1928, Philadelphia
Families dealt with
In 1 type
of case

In more than 1 type of case

Juvenile cases
T ypo of case 1
Total

Alone

Juvenile cases:
Delinquency or incorrigi­
bility 1...... ................... 2,501
727
Dependency or neglect...
Mentally defective chil­
dren____________ ____
51
Desertion or nonsupport cases. 3,080
Illegitimacy cases__________
778

Deser­
tion or
non­
support
cases

W ith
deser­
W ith
tion or illegiti­
non­
m acy
support cases
cases

2,272
516

Illegiti­
macy
cases

4 107
« 115

41
2,818
690

27

1 M any families were dealt with in more than 1 type of case.
1Includes cases of incorrigible, disorderly, and runaway children 16 to 2 1 years of age.
! Less than 1 per cent.
4 Includes 3 families also dealt with in illegitimacy cases.
1Includes 2 families also dealt with in illegitimacy cases.

T a b l e 19.— General type o f case; fa m ilies dealt with by the m unicipal court during
October, 1928, and num ber and per cent dealt with in cases o f other types during
the year ended October 31, 1923, Philadelphia
Families dealt with

General type of caw
Total

Juvenile casesJ___________
Desertion or nonsupport cases...............
Illegitimacy cases...... ..........................

3,193
3,080
778

In specified type of
case only, during
year ended Oct.
31, 1923

In cases of other
types during year
e n d e d Oct. 31,
1923

Number

Per cent

Num ber

2,750
2,662
624

86
86

443
418
154

80

Per cent
14
14

20

1 M any families were dealt with in more than 1 type of case.
* Includes cases of delinquency, dependency, or neglect, and mentally defective children and of incorri­
gible, disorderly, and runaway children 1 6 to 2 1 years of age.
D IS T R IB U T IO N O F C A SE S A M O N G T H E D IV IS IO N S O F T H E C O U R T ’S P R O B A T IO N
DEPARTM ENT

Families dealt with by more than one division.
Cases of the types with which this study is concerned were dealt with by five
divisions of the probation department (not including the medical department
which supervised persons on probation from all the divisions). These were thé
juvenile, domestic-relations, women’s criminal, men’s misdemeanants, and
women’s misdemeanants divisions. For the purpose of the study the two
misdemeanants divisions, which handled incorrigible boys and girls, have been
treated as one division. Juvenile cases (including cases of children under 16
181443°—33-----7


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

92

THE CHILD, THE FAMILY, AND THE COURT

and of incorrigible children 16 to 21 years of age) were dealt with by the juvenile
and misdemeanants divisions, desertion or nonsupport cases by the domesticrelations division, and illegitimacy cases by the women’s criminal division.
Of the 6,728 families, 377 (6 per cent) were dealt with by two or three divisions
in October, 1923, in cases of the types included in the study. The divisions
dealing with the family in that month were as follows:
N um ber of
families

Total families________________________________________ 6, 728
Families dealt with by only 1 division of the court’s proba­
tion department----------------------------------------------------------------- 6, 361
Juvenile division-------------------------------------------------------------2, 216
Misdemeanants division------------------------------------------------627
Domestic-relations division-------------------- ----------------------- 2, 818
Women’s criminal division--------------------------------------------690
Families dealt with by 2 divisions-----------------------------------------

362

Juvenile and misdemeanants divisions--------------------------Juvenile and domestic-relations divisions---------------------Juvenile and women’s criminal divisions. _ _ _ --------------Misdemeanants and domestic-relations divisions----------Misdemeanants and women’s criminal divisions— _—
Domestic-relations and women’s criminal divisions^-----

69
200
36
22
18
27

Families dealt with by three divisions------------------------------ ■

15

Juvenile, misdemeanants, and domestic-relations
divisions_________________________________ ■ -------- r- Juvenile, misdemeanants, and women’s criminal divi­
sions_________________________________________________
Juvenile, domestic-relations, and women’s criminal
divisions_____________________________________________

8
2
5

Table 20 shows the total number of families dealt with by each division of the
court’s probation department in October, 1923, and the numbers and percentages
of families dealt with during that month by other divisions in cases of the types
included in the study.
T a b l e 20.— Distribution o f cases by divisions o f probation departm ent; number and
percentage o f fa m ilies dealt with by one and by more than one division o f the
probation department o f the m unicipal court in October, 192S, Philadelphia
Families dealt with

Division of probation department
Total

Juvenile division........ — ..................................- .........—
Misdemeanants division------------------------------------------Domestic-relations division-------------------------------------W om en’s criminal division_________________________

2,626
736
3,080
778

B y 1 division of
p r o b a t i o n de­
partment

B y more than 1
division of pro­
bation depart­
ment

Number

Per cent

Number

2,216
627
2,818
690

88

310
109
262

85
91
89

88

Per cent

12

15
9

11

Of especial interest in considering the amount of overlapping in the work of
the several divisions is the extent to which different divisions were giving proba­
tionary supervision to the same family at the same time. Of the 6,728 families
included in the study, 4,363 (65 per cent) were under probationary supervision on
October 31, 1923, including a few under supervision in cases of types with which
the study was not concerned. Excluding 59 families that were under super­
vision of the medical department only, the total was 4,304, and 164 (4 per cent)
of these families were under the supervision of more than one division (not in-


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

93

APPENDIX B

eluding those under supervision of the medical department and one other divi­
sion). Thirteen families were under the supervision of three divisions. The most
frequent combinations were the juvenile and domestic-relations divisions (60
families), the juvenile and men’s misdemeanants (17 families), the juvenile and
women’s criminal (17 families), the juvenile and women’s misdemeanants (14
families), the women’s misdemeanants and women’s criminal (13 families), and
the women’s misdemeanants and domestic relations (11 families).
F A M IL IE S W I T H P R E V IO U S C O U R T R E C O R D S

Of the 6,728 families dealt with by the municipal court in October, 1923, in
cases included in the study, 1,255 (19 per cent) had previously been known in
such cases to one or more divisions other than those dealing with the family in
that month.
Table 21 shows the number of families dealt with in October _that had been
dealt with previously by one division and by two or more divisions, and the
divisions dealing with these families.
T

21.— P revious court record in divisions o f the probation department other
than that dealing with fa m ily in October , 1 923; fa m ilies dealt with by one or more
specified divisions o f the probation department o f the m unicipal court in October ,
1923, Philadelphia

able

Families dealt with

377

5,182

59

Domestic - r e l a t i o n s
and
w o m e n ’s
criminal

690

a
o

Q

Other
com­
binations

Total

2,818

JO

W om en’ s
criminal

W om en’s criminal

2,843

321

Dom esticrelations

Juvenile or misde­
meanants

6,351

N ot known previously to
other divisions-------------------- 5,473
Known previously to 1 other
division___________________ 1,079
Known previously to 2 or
176
more other divisions_______

3
O

Juvenile and misde­
meanants

Total

6,728

Court record in other divi­
sions of probation depart­
ment prior to October, 19231

Total__________________

B y more than 1 division of probation
department

Total

B y 1 division of probation
department

222

54

15

27

Juvenile or misde­
meanants and—

2,245

2,398

539

291

43

185

36

* 13

14

1,0 0 1'

515

376

110

78

15

31

18

32

12

168

83

44

41

8

1

6

1

1 Previous court record in the same division as that dealing with the family in October, 1923, not included
nor court record in type of case not covered b y the study.
j Includes 8 dealt with b y the juvenile, misdemeanants, and domestic-relations divisions; 2 dealt with b y
the juvenile, misdemeanants, and wom en’s criminal divisions; and 3 dealt with b y the juvenile, domesticrelations, and wom en’s criminal divisions.
3 Dealt with b y juvenile, domestic-relations, and wom en’s criminal divisions.

Of the 3,193 families dealt with by the juvenile and misdemeanants division!
21 per cent had been previously dealt with in juvenile or family cases by some
other division than that dealing with the family in the period covered by the study.
Of the 3,080 families dealt with by the domestic-relations division, 15 per cent
had been previously dealt with by other divisions. Of the 778 families dealt
with by the women’s criminal division, 24 per cent had been dealt with previously.
A relation between desertion or nonsupport and delinquency is suggested by
the fact that of the 3,080 families dealt with in desertion or nonsupport cases
1,323 (43 per cent) had children between the ages of 10 and 21 years, and in 230
of these families (17 per cent) one or more of the children had been known to the
juvenile, misdemeanants, or criminal divisions because of delinquency or crime.
More than one child (including a few children under 10 years of age) had been
delinquent in 74 families.
IN T E R R E L A T IO N O F D IV O R C E W I T H T H E M U N IC IP A L -C O U R T C A SE S C O V E R E D B Y
TH E STUD Y

The Philadelphia municipal court does not have jurisdiction over divorce,
Records were obtained for 284 families with children under 18 years of age to
which divorce decrees had been granted by the court of common pleas before


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

94

THE CHILD, THE FAMILY, AND THE COURT

June 30, 1924, the petitions having been filed between January 1 and August,
1923.8
The 284 families included in the study represented 18 per cent of the total
number of Philadelphia families to which divorces were granted in 1923.® Infor­
mation regarding the number of children under the age of 18 years was obtained
for 276 of the 284 families. Eight families were known to have children under
this age, but the number of children was not reported. The 276 families had
385 children, an average of 1.4 per family, as compared with an average of 1.8
for the State as a whole for families with children of all ages.10
Of the 276 families reporting ages of children, 35 (13 per cent) were reported
as having children under the age of 3 years and 141 (50 per cent) as having chil­
dren under the age of 7 years. Two-thirds of the families (67 per cent) had
only one child under the age of 18.
Thirty-six of the 284 families (13 per cent) were known to the municipal court
in the year ended October 31, 1923, the year in which the divorce petitions were
filed. Ninety-seven additional families had been known to the municipal court
previously, making almost half the families (47 per cent) known to the municipal
court at some time prior to the end of the fiscal year.
The major cause for divorce among the 284 families was desertion, this being
the only cause stated for 135 families and one of the causes for 33 others. These
168 families represented three-fifths of the group. Eighty of the families in
which desertion was the sole alleged cause or one of the alleged causes of divorce
had been known to the municipal court during or before the year specified—
almost exactly the same proportion as for the whole group (48 per cent as com­
pared with 47 per cent). Approximately the same percentage (47) among the
families in which cruelty and indignities, but not desertion, were alleged were
known to the municipal court.
Table 22 shows the cause alleged for divorce in the Philadelphia divorce cases
involving children, and the municipal-court record.
T a b l e 22.— Alleged cause o f divorce and m unicipal-court record; fa m ilies with
children under 18 dealt with hy the com m on-pleas court in divorce cases fro m Janu ­
ary to A ugust, 1928, ° Philadelphia
Families dealt with in divorce cases
Known to municipal court
N ot
After
known
Before
In fiscal
fiscal
fiscal
to
munic­
year in
ipal
year in
year in
which
which
which
court
petition petition petition
was filed was field was filed

Alleged cause for divorce
Total
Total

Total.

284

140

36

97

7

144

Desertion—.

168

81

14

66

1

87

A lon e.—.................................
W ith cruelty or indignities 1
W ith other cases___________
Cruelty or indignities 6 ....... .

135
* 26
<* 7
98

63
16

10

53

50

18

28

96

49

17

9

4

Alone...... ..............
W ith adultery___
A d u ltery.....................
Commission of crim e.

2

17

1

2

1

3

1

1

12
1

1

72

10

4

5
48

28

4

47

3

2

1
8
1

* Includes only cases in which the decree was granted before July 1, 1924.
* Includes 1 or both causes.
« Includes 1 case of adultery also.
* Includes 5 cases of adultery and 2 of commission of crime.

8 Only so m any of the August cases were included as were necessary to bring to 300 the number of divorce
cases included. Later exclusions reduced the total number of divorce cases to 284. (The Hamilton County
study included cases in which petitions for divorce had been filed as well as those in which they had been
^ A c c o r d in g to the census 1,578 divorces were granted. See Marriage and Divorce, 1923, p. 54 (U . S.
Bureau of the Census, Washington, 1925). B ut the census figures relate to the calendar year 1923, whereas
the figures here given represent families in which divorce petitions were filed during approximately the first
seven months of 1923 and decrees were granted prior to June, 1924.
w Marriage and Divorce, 1923, p. 40.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

9&

APPENDIX B

Fifty of the one hundred and forty families in divorce cases that had been known
to the municipal court had been dealt with by that court in unofficial cases only.
All but 5 of the 140 had been known to the domestic-relations division and 121
had been known to that division only. Twelve had been known to the juvenile
and domestic-relations divisions, 2 to the domestic-relations division and other
divisions, 3 to the juvenile division only, and 2 to the misdemeanants or criminal
divisions. The number of families known to the domestic-relations division
comprised 48 per cent of the total number (284) for which information was
obtained. Thus almost half of this group of divorce cases involving children
under the age of 18 years had been known to the domestic-relations division of
the municipal court of Philadelphia.
Many of these families had come to the attention of the municipal court more
than once, as follows:
Number of
families

Total families^_________________________________________
Dealt
Dealt
Dealt
Dealt
Dealt

with
with
with
with
with

140

68

once__
twice. _
3 times
4 times
5 times

30
.17

8
17

The types of complaints made to the municipal court with regard to these 140
families were as follows:
Num ber of
families

Total families
Domestic-relations cases
Desertion or nonsupport__________________________________
Desertion or nonsupport with abuse, quarreling, improper
home, or other charge 11________________________________
Desertion or nonsupport with juvenile cases or cases of
offenses against children----------------------------------------------Abuse, quarreling, improper home, custody of child, and
other charge 11----------------------------------------------------Other cases..------------

140
135
67
33
6
29
5

SO C IA L A G E N C IE S D E A L IN G W I T H T H E F A M IL IE S

As the municipal court of Philadelphia registered with the social-service
exchange nearly all the types of cases with which this study is concerned, it was
possible to ascertain approximately the extent to which families dealt with by
the court were known to social agencies of various types.12
More than half the families included in the study (58 per cent) were reported as
known to social agencies at soihe time, and more than one-third (36 per cent)
were known to more than one agency. The corresponding percentages found in
Hamilton County, Ohio, were 53 and 33, but the Hamilton County cases included
divorce, adoption, and guardianship, which were not included in Philadelphia
(for other differences in method see p. 79) and covered the entire year of 1923.
Eighteen Philadelphia families had been known to 15 or more agencies, one to 20
agencies, and two to 24 agencies.
Table 23 shows the per cent distribution of the total number of families accord­
ing to the number of agencies to which the families were known. Table 24 shows
the numbers and percentages of families known to social agencies, by type of case
and by type of social agency.
11 Including a few families also dealt with in children’s cases. _ These cases included some “ friendly serv­
ice” cases dealt with unofficially b y the domestic-relations division.
.
. . .
12 Of the 6,728 families included in the municipal-court study, 627 were dealt with by the misdemeanants
division only. The tw o branches of this division were not registering cases with the social-service exchange
when the study was made. A number of families in this group, however, were reported as known to social
agencies, though the percentage was smaller than in any other group. (See Table 24, p. 96.)


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

96

THE CHILD, THE FAMILY, AND THE COURT

T a b l e 23.— N um ber o f social agencies to which fa m ilies were know n; fa m ilies dealt
with in ju ven ile ana dom estic-relations cases by the m unicipal court in October,
1923, Philadelphia
Families dealt with
Reported number of social agencies to which
family was known prior to and in Octo­
ber, 1923

Number

Per cent
distribution

6,728

100

2,840
1,463
766
519
335
246
182
377

42

22
11
8

5
4
3

6

T a b l e 24.— T ype o f case and number and percentage o f cases known to social agen ­
cies o f all types and o f specified typ es; fa m ilies dealt with in ju ven ile and dom esticrelation cases by the m unicipal court in October, 1923, Philadelphia
Families 1 dealt with who were reported as known to social agencies
prior to and in October, 1923

T yp e of case

Fami­
lies
dealt
with
in all
cases

All
agencies

u
©

fc
T otal__________

6,728

3,888

865
1,599
Delinquency.............
Dependency or neg440
515
lect..............................
M entally
defective
35
41
child_____ _________
Incorrigible, runaway,
170
627
or disorderly ch ild .. .
Desertion or nonsupport________________ 2,818 1,463
526
690
Illegitimacy-.................
M ore than 1 type of
438
389
case..................- ........

O
©
Pi

Familywelfare
agencies

t©
-4
rû

1

a
¡25

S
M
©
P

Medical
and
health
agencies

Agencies
dealing
with de­
Child­ linquency, Settle­
caring
preven­
ments
Other
agencies
tion of
and rec­ agencies
and insti­
delin­
reational
tutions
quency, agencies
and pro­
tection of
children

©
fO

Ö

8

U
©
X>

S
£

©
P

¡z;

a

4-5
a
©
©
S
©-i
P

U
©

4-5

U
©

fl

8

I
©
PM

¡z¡

1

1
-4
©

XI

4-»

tí

8

©
P

©
Pi

58 1,606

24 2,949

44 1 , 1 1 2

17 1,027

15

267

4

714

54

343

21

667

42

250

16

254

16

78

5

181

ll

85

265

51

339

66

263

49

194

38

63

12

68

13

«

19

(’)

32

(s)

7

(’ )

3

(3)

1

(J)

4

27

42

7

90

14

45

7

45

7

7

1

24

4

52
76

618
77

2 2 1,045
11
471

37

68

253
126

9
18

288
67

10
10

73
4

3

1

237
90

8

13

89

242

55

70

178

41

176

40

41

9

110

25

305

11

(3)

1

M any families were known to more than 1 type of agency.
* N ot shown because number of families was less than 50.

Nearly nine-tenths (89 per cent) of the families dealt with in more than one
type of case by the court had been known to social agencies. The percentages
known to agencies of all types correspond rather closely to the similar figures for
Hamilton County, Ohio, except that the Philadelphia figures for families dealt
with in cases of dependency or neglect and of illegitimacy and known to social
agencies were considerably higher (85 per cent as compared with 64 per cent for
dependency and neglect and 76 per cent as compared with 58 per cent for illegiti­
macy cases; see p. 81.)
Forty-four per cent of the families had been known to medical and health
agencies, including hospitals, dispensaries and clinics, the visiting nurse society,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPENDIX B

97

child-health centers, End other heElth agencies. The corresponding percentage
e
aniilton County was 30. Family-welfare agencies ranked next, 24 per cent
of the families being reported as known to them, whereas in Hamilton County
the family-welfare agencies dealt with the largest proportion of families (34
per cent). A surprisingly large group of families (17 per cent) had been known to
child-carmg agencies and institutions. In Hamilton County the proportion of
families known to such agencies was much smaller.13 Fifteen per cent of the
Philadelphia families and 16 per cent of the Hamilton County families were
to agencies dealing with delinquency, the prevention of delinquency, and
child protection. (Table 9.) In view of the importance of wholesome recreation
m the prevention of juvenile delinquency, it is interesting to note that only
4 per cent of all the Philadelphia families and only 5 per cent of those dealt with
m delinquency cases had been known to settlements and recreational agencies.
Doubtless, however, registration with the social-service exchange by agencies of
this type was much less complete than registration by most of the other types of
social agencies.
The individual agency registering the largest number of families was the
society to Protect Children from Cruelty, 970 families having been known to
this agency. The Society for Organizing Charity (now the Family Society) was
next, registering 947 families. Almost a third of the families known to the former
agency (308) were dealt with in nonsupport or desertion cases and in no other
type of case, the next largest number (222) having been dealt with in delinquency
cases. Of the 947 families known to the Society for Organizing Charity, 354
were involved in desertion or nonsupport cases and 219 in delinquency cases.
Each of these agencies was reported for more than twice as many families as
any other single agency. The Philadelphia Children’s Bureau was reported as
knowing 428 families; the Catholic Children’s Bureau, 365; the department of
public health and charities, 301; the Jewish Welfare Society, 168; the Jewish
Children s Aid Society, 162; and the White-Williams Foundation (an organiza­
tion doing vocational counseling and visiting-teacher work in the public schools),
146. Six other agencies were reported as having known as many as 100 families.
(For the agencies most frequently registering the families in Hamilton County.
Ohio, see p. 82.)
C H A R A C T E R IS T IC S O F T H E F A M IL IE S

Number and ages of the children.
Information on the number of minor children in the family was obtained for
6,017 families (not including 690 families dealt with only in illegitimacy cases
and 21 other families for which information on composition of family was not
reported). In nearly one-third of these families (32 percent) there was but one
minor child (including families in which there was only an unborn child or in
which the child had died and the father was paying arrears on a support order or
on funeral and confinement expenses). The corresponding percentage for Hamil­
ton County, Ohio, was 41; but the Hamilton County figures included certain
groups not represented in the Philadelphia figures (families dealt with only in
illegitimacy cases and cases of divorce, adoption, and guardianship).14 In 21
per cent of the families there were two children, and 47 per cent had three or more.
Excluding unborn children, the total number of minor children in the 6,017
families was 17,143, an average of 2.8 per family, as compared with an average
of 2.4 per family in Hamilton County.
Table 25 shows the number of minor children in families by age groups. In 63
per cent of the families all the children were under 16 years of age. This per­
centage was somewhat smaller than that in Hamilton County (71). Families
in which all the children were between 16 and 21 years represented 7 per cent of
the total in Philadelphia.
18
51 iffer®I4ces ^
Pr°P °rtlons known to family-welfare and to children's agencies are partly accouirted for b y the f^;t that family-welfare agencies in Hamilton County included the child-caring work and
the Big Brother and Big Sister work of the Bureau of Catholic Charities and the United Jewish Social
Agencies.
14 T he probate (»u rt in Hamilton C ounty, which deals with adoption, guardianship, and commitment
of mentally defective children, had only very incomplete social data. Doubtless a number of famiii»* with
only one child recorded had in reality more than one child.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

98

THE CHILD, THE FAMILY, AND THE COURT

T a b l e 25.— Num ber o f m inor children in fa m ily by age groups; fa m ilies dealt
with in ju ven ile and in desertion or nonsupport cases by the m unicipal court in
October, 1923, Philadelphia
Families dealt with in juvenile and in desertion or nonsupport
cases
Ages of minor children
Number of minor children in family
Total •

Some
under 16,
All 16
All under
some
16 but under
16
but un­
21
der 2 1

T otal_________________________ ____

6,038

3,782

1,757

418

Num ber of minor children in family re­
ported__________________ _______ ______

6,017

3,782

1,757

418

1,907
1,270
937
651
501
321
206

1,631
911
541
315
189

1 ............................_.......................... ..........
2 ........................................................ ..........
3............... ...................................................
4______________
6 ____ ______________________________
A _____ ____________________________
7________ ____________________________
8 _______ _____________________________
9 . . . _____ ____________________ ____ _
1 0 ______ _____________________ . ______
1 1 ___________ ________________________
1 2 . _________ _________________________
Num ber of minor children in family not
reported_____________ _______ _________

101

41
15
3
4
60

110

49
14
19

2
1

N ot re­
ported

21

Child
unborn
or dead

60
60

276
114

245
374
330
312

22
6

211

157'
87

22

13
3
3
‘ 60

21

21

1
Includes some families in which the father was paying arrears on a support order or funeral or confine­
ment expenses.

Table 26 shows the numbers of children of specified ages in families dealt with
in cases of desertion or nonsupport and in juvenile cases (including delinquent,
dependent, neglected, and mentally defective children, and incorrigible, disor­
derly, and runaway children between the ages of 16 and 21 years).
T a b l e 26.— Num ber o f m inor children in fa m ily by age grou ps; fa m ilies dealt with
in ju ven ile and in desertion or n onsupport cases by the m unicipal court in October,
1923, Philadelphia
Fam ilies 1 dealt with in juvenile and
in desertion or nonsupport cases
Number of children of specified ages in family
Juvenile
casess

Total

Num ber of children under 21 years:
1 .................................................................................................................
2 ____
3........................................................................................... . .................
4.................................................................... ...................... .................. .
5
fi
....................
N ot reported__________________________________________________

1

Desertion
or nonsup­
port cases

6,038

3,193

3,080

1,907
1,270
937
651
501
321
370
60

808
487
527
414
368
248
305

1,138
’ 822
460
269
164
96
83
43
5

21

20

16

Some families were dealt with in both juvenile and desertion or nonsupport cases.
* Includes cases of delinquent, dependent, neglected, and mentally defective children and incorrigible,
disorderly, and runaway children 16 to 2 1 years of age.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

99

APPENDIX B

26.— N um ber o f m inor children in fa m ily by age groups ; fa m ilies dealt with
in ju ven ile and in desertion or nonsupport cases by the m unicipal court in October,
1928, P hiladelphia — Continued

T

able

Families dealt with in juvenile and
in desertion or nonsupport cases
Num ber of children of specified ages in family
Juvenile
cases

Total

Number of children under 16 years:
N o n e 3___________________________
1........................................................... ..

2.................................

3
........................................
4
........................................................................
6.............................................................

6...................................

7 or more____________ ___________
N o t reported............................... ..
Num ber of children under 7 years:
N o n e 3___________________________

1_________ _________
2....... .........................

3
.. .....................................
4
........................................
6.............................................................
6_______ ___________________ ______
N ot reported____________________
Num ber of children under 3 years:
N o n e 3___________________________
1.......... *___________________________

2__________

________

3
______________________
4
_______________________________________
N ot reported_____________________
Num ber of children under 1 year:
N o n e 3____________________________

1___________________
2__________________
N ot reported.___ ________________

3

Desertion
or nonsup­
port cases

446
2,072
1,305
872
580
356
225
149
33

631
471
387
257
177
125
28

2,900
1,687
956
339
85
13

1,881
604
422
179
49
9

56

47

9

4,356
1,309
288

2,526
501

5
60

1,979
873
205
13

4
51

2

20

5,431
535

10

62

329

888

2

100
11

2,938
196
5
54

128
1,233
816
451
233
119
62
33
5
1,098
1,155
583
187
42

6

1

9
2,697
368
7

8

Includes families with no children under the age specified but with unborn or dead children.

In 9 per cent of all the families dealt with in juvenile cases and cases of desertion
or nonsupport there were known to be living children under 1 year of age (not
including unborn children); 27 per cent had children under the age of 3 years; 62
per cent had children under 7 years; 93 per cent had children under 16. Among
families dealt with in desertion or nonsupport cases 36 per cent had children
under 3 years of age and 64 per cent had children under 7 years of age. The
corresponding percentages in desertion or nonsupport cases in Hamilton County
were 47 and 73.

Whereabouts of the children and the parents.
Some or all of the children were living with one or both parents or with step­
parents in 87 per cent of the 5,927 families dealt with in juvenile cases and cases
of desertion or nonsupport for which whereabouts of children was reported. In
13 per cent the children were not with the parents. The percentages of families
dealt with in various types of cases in which none of the children was with either
parent were as follows: In cases of delinquency and incorrigibility, 15; of depend­
ency or neglect, 34; of desertion or nonsupport, 7. (The corresponding percent­
ages for Hamilton County were delinquency, 10; dependency or neglect, 27;
desertion or nonsupport, 11.)


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

100

THE CHILD, THE FAMILY, AND THE COURT

In 24 per cent of the families dealt with in juvenile cases and in cases of deser­
tion or nonsupport some or all of the children were not living with either parent.
The whereabouts of the children not living with their parents was as follows:
Number of
families

Total families_____________________________________—

lj 427

Children living with relatives-----------------Children married____________________________________________
Children living or working away from home------------------------Children in foster or adoptive home---------------------r 11----------Children in institution----------------------------------- — — -----------Children separated, some infoster homes or institutions------Children elsewhere__________________________
Whereabouts not reported_________ __________ — — ----------

457
1517
1693
202
392
170
45
51

Table 27 shows the whereabouts of the children in families dealt with in juvenile
cases and in cases of desertion or nonsupport.
T

27.— W hereabouts o f children and typ e o f case; fa m ilies dealt with in ju ven ile
and in desertion or nonsupport cases by the m unicipal court in October, 1928,
Philadelphia

able

r

Families
dealt with
in juvenile
and in de­
sertion or
or nonsup­
port cases

Whereabouts of children

Fam ilies 1 dealt with in selected
types of cases

727

3,080

2,446

724

3,022

2,073

467

2,808

2,414
2,286
405
3 34

1,448
455
162

161
223
81

8

2

869
1,729
186
24

788

373

257

214

111

55

3

58

Total............................... - -------------------------------------

6,038

2,501

Families with children whose whereabouts was re­
ported_______________________ ___________ __________

5,927

Some or all children with one or both parents--------

5,139

W ith both parents (or parent and step-parent).
W ith mother o n l y ................ ...............................
W ith father on ly_____________________________
Parent not reported................... .................... .......
Children not with either parent_________ _____ _
Whereabouts of children not reported, or child unborn.

Desertion
or nonsup­
port

Delinquen­ Depen­
cy or incor-. dency or
neglect
rigibility

i M any families were dealt w itb in more than 1 type of case.
i Includes 29 families in which the parents were divorced or separated and 5 in which the parental
status was not reported.

Both own parents or step-parents were in the home in 41 per cent of the families
in which whereabouts of children was reported. In a very few cases a stepfather
and stepmother were in the home, both own parents being absent. Only the
mother was in the home in 38 per cent of the families and only the father in 7
per cent. The percentage of families in which both parents were in the home
was considerably higher in Philadelphia (41) than in Hamilton County, Ohio (28),
This difference is due in part at least to the inclusion of mothers’ aid cases and
divorce cases in the Hamilton County figures.
is in 7 other families some of the children were married and living away from home.
m Including children in boarding schools and in the A rm y or the N avy.

o


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis