Case Name: LEE v. LEE
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1930-06-02
Citations: 250 Mich. 670
Docket Number: Docket No. 110, Calendar No. 34,959
Parties: LEE v. LEE.
Judges: Butzel,. Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 250
Pages: 670–672

Head Matter:
LEE v. LEE.
Divorce — Maintenance op Minor Child.
Wife granted divorce and custody of six-year old son is entitled to allowance of $7 per week for Ms maintenance from , husband capable of earning $30 per week and more, where wife, who was awarded no alimony and must work to support herself, is earning $13 per week and paying $3 per week for care of boy while she is away from home.
Appeal from Kent; Dunham (Major L.), J.
Submitted April 23, 1930.
(Docket No. 110, Calendar No. 34,959.)
Decided June 2, 1930.
Bill for divorce by Ida May Lee against Harry D. ' Lee. From a decree for plaintiff granting claimed inadequate allowance for support of a minor child, she appeals.
Modified and affirmed.
Charles F. Hext, for plaintiff.
Seth R. Ridwell, for defendant.

Opinion:
Wiest, C. J.
Plaintiff was granted a decree of divorce, awarded the custody of the six-year old son of the parties, with $5 per week for his support, and was given the household goods. Asserting inadequacy of the allowance for support of the child, plaintiff appealed.
We are not asked to disturb the decree of divorce, nor are we asked to grant plaintiff alimony. In West v. West, 241 Mich. 679, we pointed out the distinction between alimony and money decreed for the maintenance of a child.
Defendant is a painter and decorator, capable of earning upward of $30 per week. Plaintiff works and supports herself. Defendant has no property. While working, plaintiff must rely upon others to care for the child. Plaintiff at the time of the hearing was working as an elevator operator in a store and earning $13 per week. With reference to the care of the child, she testified:
"Eight now I have a neighbor taking care of Bob. I get up in the morning, get him dressed, get his breakfast, and send him off to school, and then I leave for work, and this neighbor lady gets his lunch at noon and takes care of him until I get home at night. I pay her every week for that. I have been furnishing the clothing for him. To have him taken care of in this manner it costs me $3 a week right now."
Defendant should pay a dollar a day, or $7 per week, for support of the child. This will take about one-quarter of Ms earnings and probably require plaintiff to extend some aid. If in tbe future tbe needs of. tbe boy call for greater belp from tbe defendant tbe circuit court is vested with ample power to so order.
Tbe decree will be modified in tbe particular mentioned, and, so modified, affirmed with costs to plaintiff.
Butzel,. Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.