Rothschild v. Strauss

Per Curiam. In this case we shall affirm the action of the chancellor (Moore, J.) who increased an award for the support of a minor child. In 1961 the parties agreed to disagree and, seemingly, ³⁹⁷ have agreed on little since then. An agreement which covered, among other things, support of the minor child with whom we are here concerned was entered into at that time.

This was followed by a Nevada divorce procured by the wife. She has since remarried and resides in Montgomery County. Several years ago the Circuit Court for that county acquired jurisdiction when the father filed a petition in which he asked that court to revise custody rights and visitation rights. The 1961 agreement provided that if the mother remarried there should be paid for support of the daughter the amount of $312.-50 per month.

She was born July 23, 1954. Judge Moore increased this award to $600.00 per month, pointing in his opinion to the mother’s estimate of $925.00 per month for the daughter’s needs, the increase in cost of living since 1961, the fact that “the child is a maturing young lady whose social, cultural and other interests are increasing and changing” and “the social and financial status of her father and mother”. Code (1957), Art. 16, § 28 provides that an agreement such as that heretofore entered into in this case relative to support of children is subject to revision by the courts, “looking always to the best interests of such infants”. As Judge Barnes observed for the Court in Wagshal v. Wagshal, 249 Md. 143 , 238 A. 2d 903 (1968), each case involving awards for the support of children rests upon its own facts.

He further said in that case: “The principal considerations in making an award for the support of a child are the need of the child and the financial circumstances of the father of the