character of man and woman may make it seem that a reconciliation should
be encouraged. A further question then arises: Shall the man return to
his home at once or first undergo a probationary period?

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

"The wholesale attempt to patch the tattered fabric of family life
in a series of hurried interviews held in the court room, and
without any information about the problem except what can be gained
from the two people concerned, can hardly be of permanent value in
most cases. It is natural that case workers, keenly aware as they
are of the slow and difficult processes involved in
character-rebuilding, look askance at the court-made
reconciliations. With the best will in the world, the people who
attempt this delicate service very often have neither the time nor
the facts about the particular case in question to give the skilful
and devoted personal service necessary to reconstruction. As a
result many weak-willed wrong-doers are encouraged to take a pledge
of good conduct which they will not, or cannot, keep; and other
individuals who feel themselves deeply wronged go away with an