Money Payments Act (continued for front page)
| DOI | 10.1177/026455053500200206 |
| Published date | 01 October 1935 |
| Date | 01 October 1935 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
28
My
answer
would
be:
Give
any
neglected
child,
from
whatever
source,
to
the
local
authority
to
care
for
at
its
discretion.
There
should,
in
my
opinion,
no
longer
be
any
question
of
bringing
neglected
chil-
dren
before
juvenile
Courts.
They
are
not
offenders
and
their
association
with
a
Court
of
law
is
surely
a
matter
to
be
dispensed
with
rather
than
to
be
con-
tinued,
even
though
a
juvenile
Court
may
appear
to
be
a
pleasant
place
to
&dquo;grown-ups&dquo;
like
you.
I
say
this
because
I
find
that
experience
of
appearance
in
juvenile
Court
remains
an
extremely
vivid
memory
with
a
child-and
not
a
happy
memory.
You
will
perhaps
say
that
the
Court
process
is
necessary
or
wise
if
the
child
is
to
be
removed
from
its
natural
parents
and
if
their
rights
and
powers
over
it
are
to
be
suspended
or
superseded.
My
answer
is
that
a
Court
order
is
not
necessary
in
the
case
of
a
child
who
has
come
within
the
purview
of
the
local
authority
under
the
poor
law.
Section
52
of
the
Poor
Law
Act,
1930,
provides
that
when
a
local
authority
is
maintaining
a
child
and
it
has
no
parents
or
it
has
no
worthy
parents
(the
phrase
is
my
own
summary
of
a
section
which
is
very
like
in
wording
to
Section
61
of
the
Children
Act),
the
Council
may
at
any
time
resolve
that
in
respect
of
that
child
all
the
rights
and
powers
of
the
parents
shall
vest
in
the
Council
and
the
child
becomes
the
ward
of
the
Coun-
cil
until
it
reaches
the
age
of
eighteen
years,
unless
the
Council
in
the
meantime
rescinds
its
own
resolu-
ton.
The
child
does
not
have
to
appear
in
any
Court.
The
authority
does
not
have
to
obtain
a
Court
order.
What
an
advantage
it
is
for
a
neglec-
ted
child
to
become
the
ward
of
an
authority
with
great
resources !
The
authority’s
methods
of
car-
ing
for
such
a
neglected
child
are
not
circumscribed
by
an
Act
of
Parliament
or
by
a
Court
decision.
It
can
care
for
the
child
in
any
way
which
seems
best
and,
what
is
very
important
indeed,
can
vary
its
methods
of
dealing
with
the
child
from
time
to
time.
There
are
special
arrangements
for
placing
them
in
employment
and
watching
over
ithem
there.
In
fact,
wherever
they
are,
all
the
resources
of
f
a
great
authority
are
bent
towards
their
good.
Surely
it
would
be
for
the
ultimate
benefit
of
all
neglected
children
that
they
should
be
dealt
with
in
the
way
that
public
assistance
children
are
dealt
with
at
present.
MONEY
PAYMENTS
ACT
(Continued
from
front
page).
of
persons
who
are
found
guilty
for
the
first
time
of
such
an
offence
as
sealing,
every
effort
is
made
to
avoid
passing
a
sentence
of
imprisonment
if
that
be
possible.
But
in
the
case
of
persons
who
have
been
ordered
to
pay
fines,
and
have
not
paid,
imprison-
ment
has
followed,
almost
as
a
matter
of
course.
One
of
the
results
of
the
new
Act
should
be
to
en-
sure
the
same
consideration
for
both
classes
of
offender,
and
in
respect
of
persons
under
2
1 our
per-
sons
over
that
age
who
are
considered
by
the
Courts
proper
subjects
for
supervision,
the
probation
officers
will
have
the
opportunity
of
avoiding
the
imprison-
ment
of
some
hundreds
of
young
people
for
this
cause.
No
doubt
in
busy
districts
it
may
be
thought
right
to
leave
this
class
of
case
to
the
assistant
probation
officers or
even to
voluntary
workers,
where
such
are
available.
But
however
that
may
be,
the
efforts
of
the
supervisor
will
be
directed
to
encourage
steady
application
to
work,
wise
spending
and
judicious
economy
of
wages
earned,
a
regular
weekly
payment
to
the
Court
(which
should
be
made
by
the
offender
himself,
either
personally
or
by
post)
and
generally
to
exert
a
steadying
influence
on
the
character
of
the
offender
so
as
to
make
a
repetition
of
the
offence
unlikely.
Wisely
exercised
the
association
cannot
but
do
good,
and
may
be
productive
of
untold
bene-
fit
in
some
cases.
But
in
any
case
it
may
keep
a
young
person
out
of
prison,
which
is
always
worth
while.
Every
effort
should
be
made
to
prevent
the
asso-
ciation
between
offender
and
supervisor
deteriorat-
ing
into
a
mere
question
of
collecting
a
fine.
The
supervisor
should
not
permit
himself
to
be
regarded
in
any
way
as
a
collector
of
the
fine.
Except
for
very
strong
reasons
it
will
be
much
better
that
he
should
not
handle
the
money
at
all
but
should
en-
courage
the
offender
to
make
his
own
payments.
In
dealing
with
imprisonments
for
non-payment
of
wife-maintenance
arrears,
the
Committee
recom-
mended
that
the
Courts
should
have
the
assistance
of
investigation
officers,
who
should
inquire
into
and
report
to
the
Courts
upon
the
means
and
circum-
stances
of
the
parties;
and
thus
help
the
Court
to
decide
how
far
a
default
in
payment
has
been
due
to
wilful
default
or
culpable
neglect,
and
to
what
ex-
tent
the
Court
should
exercise
its
new
powers
of
remission.
This
recommendation
so
far
has
not
been
adopted.
Possibly
the
Home
Office
Committee
now
consider-
ing
the
&dquo;social
service&dquo;
work
of
the
Courts
may
have
something
to
say
about
it.
But
in
the
meantime
there
would
seem
to
be
a
useful
opportunity
here
for
experiment,
in
districts
where
the
necessary
help
is
available,
on
the
lines
suggested
by
the
Committee,
and
it
may
be
that
probation
officers
may
be
able
to
help
in
this
direction.
Apart
from
the
difficulty
of
busy
probation
officers
finding
the
necessary
time,
there
is
a
further
legal
difficulty
in
making
the
inves-
tigator’s
report
available
to
the
Court.
It
would
seem
that
this
will
only
be
possible
by
the
consent
of
the
parties.
But
where
the
officer
concerned
has
ob-
tained
the
confidence
of
the
parties,
which
fortun-
ately
is
often
the
case,
this
should
not
be
difficult
to
obtain.
To continue reading
Request your trial