Sause v. Sause

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. 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 Choro, 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 ⁷⁹ 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, 192 Md. 88 , 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 Leglislature 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