the household going, and, when the faint chance of her husband's
supporting her appeared, she took it" is the explanation given by a case
worker of one unpromising reconciliation, and she goes on to say of this
and another similar story: "With both of these it seems that enough
money put into the household to enable these mothers to be with their
children more and to keep up a reasonable standard of health for
themselves might have resulted in their refusing to take back their
husbands.... Our records seem to show that inadequate relief, making
life fairly hard for the deserted mother, does not tend to keep the man
from returning or others from deserting."

The story of Mrs. Francis shows the effect of adequate relief in
strengthening her decision not to take her husband back. He had been
a chronic deserter for years, had drank heavily, been foul-mouthed
and abusive, while failing to support the family when at home, so
that Mrs. Francis had only a little harder time when he was away.
His last desertion took place when she was near confinement. Owing
to her condition, the church and a family agency co-operated in an
unusually generous relief policy. This was in a state which gave
mother's aid to deserted wives. After about a year this was secured
for her, and the health of woman and children was built up and the
home improved. Then Mr. Francis sent ambassadors in the form of
relatives, with whom Mrs. Francis refused to treat. He later
appeared himself, but she would not consider taking him back. He
escaped before he could be brought into court. As he has now been
gone over two years, it seems that her stand is a genuine one.

On the other hand, when the man has been found and interviewed, he may
show signs of repentance, and the earlier history, together with the
opinion which the social worker has been able to form about the