Ludington michigan dating chilliwack dating

6854933580_2c8b688306_z

The first pregnancy was in May 2009, which resulted in a miscarriage. Zingery agreeing on shared custody of the child, [AR], with the actual sharing of time on a 50/50 basis commencing in the summer of 2013.During the time of the relationship between [plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff] fathered a child with Sara Zingery. Subsequent to the birth of [AR], the relationship continued between [plaintiff] and [defendant] with a second pregnancy occurring, followed by a miscarriage.

First, the trial court ruled that ARJ has an established custodial environment with both parents.

[Defendant]'s third pregnancy with [plaintiff] occurred thereafter with the child, [ARJ], born on April 1, 2011.[1] An Acknowledgement of Parentage was signed, and [plaintiff]'s name appears as the father on the birth certificate.[Plaintiff] and [defendant] were unable to agree on long-term custody and/or parenting time arrangements, and the custody suit was brought forth by [plaintiff].

Ultimately, the parties' relationship continued to deteriorate with neither marriage occurring nor continuation of their romantic relationship.

Defendant-appellee-cross-appellant, Christa Johnson, cross appeals. He was previously married to Lori Riemer, from whom he was divorced in 2004. She is a chiropractor who shares ownership in her own practice, Zeller & Johnson, in Manistee. She was previously married to Eric Ross, from whom she was divorced in 2007. Plaintiff and Defendant started dating in late 2007 or early 2008.

Plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee, Andrew Riemer, appeals as of right the trial court's judgment in this custody proceeding and challenges its determinations regarding custody, parenting time, child support, and attorney fees. IThe trial court set forth the following relevant facts in its opinion: The parties are the parents of [ARJ], born April 1, 2011, and were never married. [Plaintiff] lives in Ludington, Michigan, on Hamlin Lake.

Although it found that defendant's anger toward plaintiff regarding their relationship had previously reduced her willingness to facilitate a close relationship between AJR and plaintiff, the parties nevertheless had satisfactorily resolved important matters affecting the welfare of the child and it was in his best interests for them to share decision-making authority.

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!