Bridget K. Miller v. David W. Nery, 2017 ME 216

Miller and Nery divorced in 2014; the amended judgment provided for shared parental rights and residence for their four children and required counseling for the youngest.
Miller moved in December 2016 to modify and enforce the judgment and for contempt, alleging Nery failed to attend to the children’s medical needs, opposed prescribed treatments, and drank excessively and argued in the children’s presence.
The court found Nery repeatedly denied or obstructed medical and psychological treatment for the children, harassed providers, and interfered with counseling and medication (including asthma medication and the youngest child’s treatment).
The court found the children exposed to parental conflict and instances where the oldest son believed Nery was not sober while caring for them and driving with them in the car.
The District Court granted Miller’s modification motion, awarded her sole parental rights and responsibilities, set a contact schedule, required Soberlink testing before and during visits, and conditioned overnight visits on substance abuse and psychological evaluations and completion of recommended treatment.
Nery appealed, arguing statutory misinterpretation of the best-interests standard and that the sobriety testing and evaluation/treatment conditions were an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Miller's Argument	Nery's Argument	Held
Whether the court misinterpreted or misapplied the best-interests statute (19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3))	Court should prioritize children’s safety and well-being given the record; modification appropriate	Court erred by overemphasizing safety to the exclusion of other factors	Affirmed: court properly prioritized child safety and well-being as primary factor
Whether ordering Soberlink sobriety testing before and during all visits was an abuse of discretion	Testing reasonable to ensure children’s safety during contact	Testing and monitoring were excessive and intrusive	Affirmed: sobriety testing within court’s discretion to protect children
Whether conditioning overnight visits on substance abuse and psychological evaluations and completion of treatment was an abuse of discretion	Evaluations/treatment reasonably required to address behavior harming children before overnight custody resumed	Conditions were unnecessary or punitive and beyond court’s authority	Affirmed: court acted within discretion to require evaluations/treatment before restoring overnight visitation
Whether shared parental rights remained workable	Shared rights not feasible given Nery’s refusal to cooperate on medical and parenting matters	Shared rights should continue absent extreme findings	Court found shared parental rights not workable and awarded sole rights to Miller

Curtis v. Medeiros, 152 A.3d 605 (2016 ME) (discussing prioritization of child safety in best-interests analysis)
In re Jacob C., 965 A.2d 47 (2009 ME) (addressing best-interests framework)
Pearson v. Ellis-Gross, 123 A.3d 223 (2015 ME) (upholding sobriety testing as protective measure)
Vibert v. Dimoulas, 159 A.3d 325 (2017 ME) (affirming conditioning of contact on evaluations and treatment)