IV. If children are removed because of their own incorrigible conduct, the expense of their maintenance in a disciplinary institution should be borne by their parents, and the period of their detention should be as short as is consistent with the objects in view when commitment is made. This involves the principle of an indeterminate sentence, since the temporary guardians will be the best judges as to when the conduct of the child is sufficiently improved to warrant his return to his parents. Neither incorrigible conduct nor improper guardianship, however, should be used as a mere cloak to enable parents to shift the burden of caring for their children upon the city ; nor should a child committed as ungovernable be retained merely because the parents are believed to be unfit guar dians. If, when the question of discharging the child arises, the unfitness of parents to care for their children is called into question, this should be definitely passed upon by a court, and if they are unfit, because of viciousness or im morality, appropriate action should be taken upon this basis.
V. Orphans, abandoned children, the whereabouts of whose parents are unknown, and others who for any exceptional reason may be treated without regard to their parents or other relatives, do not raise auy question as to the breaking up of a family, and, as in the case of children whose parents are pronounced unfit guardians, they may be cared for by whatever methods are believed to be best for themselves. If, however, there are older children able to make a home for their younger brothers and sisters, it may be, and often is, expedient to keep the family together, as in the case of parents of good character.
VI. The children of destitute parents for whom no adequate private assistance is forthcoming, in a com munity which has no public outdoor relief, must neces sarily be cared for either in institutions where they may be placed by their parents, or by a system of boarding in private families, without legal adoption or other transfer of guardianship from the parents. The latter have done nothing to sacrifice their claim upon the children, and yet the children cannot be permitted to suffer. Theoretically this is the class of children for whose sake chiefly the great institutional system of New York City has grown up. The managers of those institutions, having in mind children of this class, indignantly and with some justification deny that their institutions have a tendency to break up families.
In their eyes the institution is like a hospital, in that it provides temporary care for one who will shortly be restored to the family, but for whom proper provision can not at the moment be made. As the children of the well to-do are sent to the boarding school, so the children of the poor are sent to the only place where corresponding oppor tunities are provided by the city for the poor.
There is a definite place for the institution in the care of some of the children of this class as well as in the care of children who are ungovernable, and for the temporary care of children whose parents are unfit guardians, and who should eventually be placed in foster-homes so far as good homes can be provided. Private charity should re duce the number of children committed solely for desti tution as far as possible, and only the remainder, who for exceptional reasons cannot be aided at home, should be come public charges. The commitment of children for destitution does sometimes lead to the breaking up of the family, and it should be avoided whenever the defi ciency in family income can be made good without injury to parents or children. There are instances in which the temporary care of children in institutions during a period of illness or other misfortune really has the effect in the long run of keeping the family intact, and full recognition of this public service should be made. The danger, how ever, that the separation will be extended beyond the period for which it is justified, and the disadvantages of even a brief separation of children from their parents and their reception into a large institution where their indi viduality is lost sight of, should also be recognized. The breaking up of families by the removal of children for insufficient reasons, the accompanying loss of a sense of responsibility on the part of parents, failure on the part of parents to make even reasonable efforts to care for offspring, the desertion of families in order to secure the commitment of children, the refusal of near relatives other than parents to play their part in the carrying of burdens of this kind, and the easy-going complaisance of public officials in accepting as public charges those for whom other provisions should be made — these are serious evils, constituting a public menace, which in many communities a few courageous, high-minded, public-spirited citizens are vigorously and effectively combating.