Case Title: Miller v. Nery

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017 ME 216

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2017-11-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
 
 
 
 
 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 216 
Docket: 
Lin-17-227 
Submitted 
On Briefs: October 24, 2017 
Decided: 
November 14, 2017 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
BRIDGET K. MILLER 
 
v. 
 
DAVID W. NERY 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  David W. Nery appeals from a judgment of the District Court 
(Wiscasset, Raimondi, J.) modifying a divorce judgment to confer sole parental 
rights and responsibilities on Bridget K. Miller and impose conditions on 
Nery’s contact with the parties’ four children.  Nery argues (1) that the court 
misinterpreted or misapplied the statute governing the determination of the 
children’s best interests, and (2) that it abused its discretion in ordering Nery 
to undergo sobriety testing before and during all visits with the children, and 
to have a psychological evaluation and begin any recommended treatment 
before overnight visits may be resumed.  We affirm the judgment. 
 
2 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
[¶2]  Nery and Miller were married in 1997, had their four children 
between 2003 and 2010, and were divorced in November 2014 through a 
judgment entered by the District Court.  As subsequently amended, the 
judgment provided for shared primary residence and parental rights and 
responsibilities, required counseling for the parties’ youngest son, and, with 
the agreement of the parties, ordered that a referee would be appointed to 
resolve parenting disputes.   
 
[¶3]  In December 2016, Miller moved to modify and enforce the 
judgment and for contempt on the grounds that the children’s medical needs 
were not being attended to adequately at Nery’s home, that Nery had been 
drinking alcohol to excess and arguing loudly with his current wife in the 
children’s presence, and that Nery had failed to execute necessary releases for 
the parties’ youngest child to attend counseling and obtain treatment as 
required by the divorce judgment.  Nery moved to modify the divorce 
judgment on the ground that Miller had been unwilling to co-parent.   
 
[¶4]  The court held a hearing on the motions in February and April 
2017.  The court found, with evidentiary support, that Nery engaged in a 
pattern of behavior that undermined his youngest son’s medical treatment, 
 
3 
including by denying the existence of the child’s increasingly serious health 
problem; refusing to administer medications; acting in conflict with Miller to 
such an extent that one doctor refused to meet with the parents unless a third 
person was present; and asking repetitive questions of the child’s counselor, 
who felt badgered by Nery’s questions and refused to treat the child.   
 
[¶5]  Nery similarly attempted to have his other children removed from 
medications.  He denied his oldest child’s need for an asthma inhaler and sent 
the child on an overnight field trip without it.  He also denied that his youngest 
daughter has asthma or needs an inhaler.  He made unreasonable demands of 
the children’s pediatrician’s office, including a request that his children be 
removed from all medications, and he accused the doctor of drugging his 
children.  When Miller brought the medical issues to the referee’s attention, 
the referee instructed the parents to follow the doctors’ advice.  The court 
found that Nery’s behavior with medical and psychological professionals was 
not in the children’s best interests.   
 
[¶6]  The court further found that the children have been exposed to 
arguing and fighting between Nery and his current wife, including during 
times when the parties’ oldest son believes that Nery was not sober.  That son 
 
4 
worries about Nery because Nery often smells of alcohol and has driven with 
the children in the car at times when he did not seem sober.   
 
[¶7]  The court granted both Miller’s motion to modify and her motion 
for contempt.1  It modified the divorce judgment to, among other things, grant 
Miller sole parental rights and responsibilities,2 provide Nery a schedule of 
contact with the children, require Nery to enroll and participate in Level 1 
Soberlink services six hours before scheduled contact and at least every four 
hours during his contact with the children,3 and condition Nery’s overnight 
contact with the children on the following: 
• Completion of a substance abuse evaluation that includes input from 
Miller; 
 
• Completion of a psychological evaluation focused on Nery’s parenting 
capacity and co-parenting skills; 
 
• Engagement in recommended treatment regarding any identified 
issues; and 
 
• The filing of an affidavit with the court establishing successful 
completion of these requirements. 
                                         
1  The judgment on the motion for contempt is not on appeal. 
2  The court specifically found, “Shared parental rights is not workable with this family.”   
3  On the first day of the hearing, in February 2017, Nery agreed to engage in Level 2 Soberlink 
testing, which called for testing every day at regular intervals, but he later denied that he had given 
his consent, and he had not initiated testing by the time of the April hearing dates. 
 
5 
 
[¶8]  Nery timely appealed.  See 14 M.R.S. § 1901 (2016); 19-A M.R.S. 
§ 104 (2016); M.R. App. P. 2 (Tower 2016).4   
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶9]  The court did not misinterpret or misapply 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3) 
(2016) in prioritizing the children’s safety and well-being when determining 
their best interests.  See id.; Curtis v. Medeiros, 2016 ME 180, ¶ 14, 152 A.3d 
605 (citing In re Jacob C., 2009 ME 10, ¶ 9, 965 A.2d 47).  In a detailed and 
thoughtful judgment, the court explained that Nery’s behavior presented a 
heightened concern “with respect to the basic care and safety of the 
children”—a concern that must take priority in determining child residence 
and rights of contact.  See 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3) (“In making decisions 
regarding the child’s residence and parent-child contact, the court shall 
consider as primary the safety and well-being of the child.”). 
[¶10]  As the court found, Nery at times “repeats his points multiple 
times, appearing to be entirely deaf to anything anyone has to say to the 
contrary”; his “behavior with medical and psychological professionals who are 
trying to assist his children has been unreasonable, irrational, confrontational, 
and sometimes downright harassing”; he “denies the existence of his 
                                         
4  This appeal was commenced before September 1, 2017, and therefore the restyled Maine 
Rules of Appellate Procedure do not apply.  See M.R. App. P. 1 (restyled Rules). 
 
6 
children’s medical issues”; and whatever the cause of his “complete inability 
to co-parent,” the issue “must be addressed before overnight visitation can be 
restored.”  The court found, with support in the evidentiary record, that “[a]t 
one time or another, [Nery] has been unwilling to cooperate with Ms. Miller as 
a co-parent in almost every child related area: medical, educational, 
extracurricular activities, daycare, uninsured medical expenses and child 
support.”   
[¶11]  The cause of Nery’s unreasonable, uncooperative, and often odd 
behavior is not known, and the court found that it was “not in the position to 
diagnose the nature of the problem.”  In these circumstances, the court acted 
well within its discretion in ordering Nery’s sobriety testing before and during 
any visits to ensure the children’s safety, see Pearson v. Ellis-Gross, 2015 ME 
118, ¶ 4, 123 A.3d 223, and in requiring that, before the children resume 
overnight visits in Nery’s home, he undergo substance abuse and 
psychological evaluations and follow any recommended treatment to modify 
his pattern of behavior that is demonstrably harming the children, see Vibert v. 
Dimoulas, 2017 ME 62, ¶¶ 18-19, 159 A.3d 325.   
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jennifer A. Davis, Esq., Law Office of Jennifer A. Davis, Topsham, for appellant 
David W. Nery 
 
Justin W. Andrus, Esq., Andrus Law, LLC, Brunswick, for appellee Bridget K. 
Miller 
 
 
Wiscasset District Court docket number FM-2013-89 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY