Sause v. Sause
| Decision Date | 08 December 1949 |
| Docket Number | 39. |
| Citation | 69 A.2d 811,194 Md. 76 |
| Parties | SAUSE v. SAUSE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Ida Black Sause sued John Henry Sause, III, for divorce a mensa et thoro.
The Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, Joseph Sherbow, J., on remand from Court of Appeals which affirmed action of court in refusing to grant plaintiff a divorce a mensa et thoro and remanded case for purpose of awarding support and maintenance of child of the parties if warranted by circumstances, ordered defendant to pay $9 weekly for care and custody of the child, and defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Delaplaine, J., affirmed the order, holding that the award was not excessive.
J. Calvin Carney, Jr., Baltimore (J. Calvin Carney Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Hyman Ginsberg, Baltimore (Manuel E Lefko and Ginsberg & Ginsberg Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
John Henry Sause III is appealing here from an order of the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City granting his wife, Ida Black Sause, the care and custody of her infant daughter Sandra Jane Sause, and ordering him to pay $9 a week for the support and maintenance of the child.
The parties were married in October, 1942. Appellant served in the United States Navy from February, 1942, until August, 1945, and after his discharge he lived with his wife at 204 South Washington Street in Baltimore. Their daughter was born in March, 1946. In July, 1947, appellant was examined by a psychiatrist at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. On August 1, 1947, appellant told his wife he was through with her, and two weeks later he left her and went back to his parental home. His father sent him to a psychiatrist, who advised him to enter Seton Institute for treatment.
This is the second time the parties have been here on appeal. On January 13, 1949, the Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the Court below in refusing to grant the wife a divorce a mensa et thoro, but reversed the dismissal of her bill of complaint. We held that she should have been awarded the care and custody of the infant child, for which she had prayed in her bill, and that jurisdiction of the case should be retained by the Court below for the purpose of awarding support and maintenance of the child if circumstances should so warrant. We accordingly remanded the case for further proceedings. Sause v. Sause, Md., 63 A.2d 632.
Further testimony was subsequently taken before the chancellor. It was then learned that appellant had been discharged from Seton Institute in September, 1948. From that time until March 17, 1949, appellant's average net salary amounted to $27.21 a week. He has been living at the home of his sister, and has been paying her $12 a week for board and lodging.
Appellant is appealing from that part of the order which directs him to pay $9 a week for the care and custody of the child. He claims that the amount which the chancellor has ordered him to pay is excessive. His main contentions are (1) that his wife is living in the home at 204 South Washington Street, which they own as tenants by the entireties, and (2) that she is employed as a nurse by the Western Electric Company and is earning a net salary of $57 a week.
It is not disputed that appellee has been earning more than appellant. Yet even $9 a week is not nearly enough for the child's maintenance. Appellee testified that she has been paying her mother $10 a week to take care of the child while she herself is at work, and that it costs an average of more than $7 a week additional for clothing and incidental expenses.
In 1929 the Legislature of Maryland declared that the father and mother are the joint natural guardians of their minor child and are equally charged with its care, nurture, welfare and education. Laws of 1929, ch. 561, Code 1939, art. 72A, sec 1. However, a father is under the obligation at common law to support a minor child, and this obligation continues during its minority, without regard to a decree divorcing the parents. Kriedo v. Kriedo, 159 Md. 229, 231, 150 A. 720. The divorce statute provides that the court of equity...
To continue reading
Request your trial