This last question is after all the most important one of the foregoing series. It is one which the social case worker must never be content to leave unanswered. FOOTNOTES: [6] All names of deserters given throughout the text are pseudonyms. [7] For an excellent discussion of the process of rationalization see The Psychology of Insanity, Bernard Hart, Cambridge University Press, 1914. [8] For a thoughtful discussion of this point see Eubank, E.E.: A Study of Family Desertion. Chicago Department of Public Welfare, 1916. [9] Brandt, Lilian: Family Desertion. The Charity Organization Society of New York City, 1905. [10] For a fuller discussion of forced marriages, see p. 92 sq. [11] See also p. 98. [12] See also p. 154. [13] Two books may be suggested: Forel on The Sexual Question and Havelock Ellis on Sex in Relation to Society (Vol. VI of Studies in the Psychology of Sex). [14] See p. 70 sq. for a discussion of collusive desertion. III CHANGES OF EMPHASIS IN TREATMENT Unconsciously and imperceptibly, the point of view about the treatment of desertion has been changing during the past fifteen years. The case worker's attention used to be focussed on the danger of increasing the desertion rate by a policy of too sympathetic care for deserters' families. Little study was made of individual causes, and in so far as there was a general policy of treatment it was to insist, wherever a desertion law existed, that the deserted wife go at once to court and institute proceedings against her husband. He was often not seen by the social worker until he appeared in court. The policy toward the family meantime was to reduce its size by commitment of the children until their mother could support herself unaided; or, if relief was given, to give smaller amounts than to a widow or the wife of a man in hospital. As soon as the man had been placed under court order or had returned home, old records generally show that the social worker's efforts were relaxed, and often the final entry is, "Case closed--family self-supporting."