in re duprey

Vermont 	Superior 	Court
Filed
FranRha 	Gait
/26
VERMONT 	SUPERIOR 	COURT 	CIVIL 	DIVISION
Franklin 	Unit 	Case 	No. 	26-CV-04742
17 	Church 	Street
St. 	Albans 	VT 	05478
802-524-7993
www.vermontjudiciary.org
In 	re: 	David 	Duprey
ENTRY 	REGARDING 	MOTION
Title: 	-Emergency 	Motion 	to 	Stay 	Enforcement 	of Probate 	Court 	Order 	issued
09/02/2026 	(Motion: 	1)
Filer: 	Jesse 	D. 	Bugbee
Filed 	Date: 	September 	03, 	2026
The 	Court 	held 	a 	hearing 	on 	this 	request 	for 	a 	stay 	on 	September 	4, 2026. 	All 	parties
were 	present, 	as 	were 	seven 	medical 	providers 	from 	Northwest 	Medical 	Center.
The 	Court 	denies 	the 	motion 	for 	a 	stay. 	The 	Court 	made 	its 	full 	findings 	on 	the 	record,
but 	provides 	a 	written 	order 	to 	supplement 	that 	order.
Legal 	Standard
Barbara 	Duprey 	is 	a 	person 	under 	guardianship. 	Her 	Guardian 	filed 	a 	motion 	to 	change
Ms. 	Duprey's 	goals 	of care 	to 	comfort 	care 	and 	consent 	to 	the 	withdrawal 	of a 	ventilator. 	The
Probate 	Division 	held 	a 	hearing 	and 	issued 	an 	order 	on 	September 	2, 	2026:
Based 	on 	the 	uncontradicted 	medical 	testimony, 	the 	court 	finds 	by 	clear 	and
convincing 	evidence 	that 	the 	continued 	ventilation 	offers 	no 	medical 	benefit 	and 	rather
inflicts 	substantial 	pain 	and 	suffering 	upon 	the 	respondent. 	Therefore, 	it 	is 	Barbara
Duprey's 	absolute 	best 	interest 	to 	transition 	to 	comfort 	care. 	The 	motion 	to 	change 	the
goal 	to 	that 	of care 	and 	comfort 	measures 	and 	to 	consent 	to 	the 	withdrawal 	of ventilator
support 	is 	granted.
Barbara 	Duprey's 	children 	Tina 	and 	David 	Duprey 	filed 	a 	notice 	of appeal 	the 	next 	day.
There 	is 	no 	automatic stay 	of orders 	issued 	by 	the 	Probate 	Division 	in 	guardianship 	matters.
V.R.P.P. 	62. 	Appellants 	asked 	for 	a 	stay 	of that 	order 	pending 	consideration 	of the 	appeal.
The 	factors 	a 	court 	must 	consider 	in 	deciding 	whether 	to 	grant 	a 	stay 	are: 	"(1) 	whether 	the
stay 	applicant 	has 	made 	a 	strong 	showing 	that 	he 	is 	likely 	to 	succeed 	on 	the 	merits; 	(2) 	whether
the 	applicant 	will 	be 	irreparably 	injured 	absent 	a 	stay; 	(3) 	whether 	issuance 	of the 	stay 	will
substantially 	injure 	the 	other 	parties interested 	in 	the 	proceeding; 	and 	(4) 	where 	the 	public
interest 	lies." 	Hilton 	v. 	Braunskill, 	481 	U.S. 	770, 	776 	(1987).
There 	was 	no 	dispute 	among 	the 	parties 	that 	the 	children 	of Barbara 	Duprey 	would 	be
irreparably 	harmed 	if a 	stay 	is 	not 	entered 	because 	without 	a 	ventilator 	their 	mother 	will 	die
within 	a 	few 	minutes 	or 	hours. 	There 	is 	also 	no 	dispute 	that 	Barbara 	Duprey 	will 	be 	substantially
Entry 	Regarding 	Motion 	Page 	1 	of 	5
26-CV-04742 	In 	re: 	David 	Duprey

Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 5
26-CV-04742 In re: David Duprey
injured by a stay because she will continue to experience pain and interference with her dying
process.
As a result, the hearing focused on the likelihood of success on the merits.
This is a case brought pursuant to 14 V.S.A. § 3075(f) and (g). Subsection (g) requires a
guardian to obtain prior written approval from the Probate Division “before withholding or
withdrawing life-sustaining treatment other than antibiotics.” The guardian is required to make
that decision “consistent with the manner in which the person under guardianship would have
given or withheld consent, provided there is sufficient information concerning the person’s
wishes.” Id. at (f).
In making this determination, the guardian and the court in reviewing a guardian’s
decision under this section shall:
(1) Rely on written and oral expressions of the person under guardianship.
(2) Rely on available information concerning the wishes, values, beliefs, and preferences
of the person under guardianship if the person’s written and oral expressions do not
provide sufficient information.
(3) Follow the best interests of the person under guardianship if subdivisions (1) and (2)
of this subsection are inapplicable. No decision to withhold or abate medical treatment
will be based solely on the age, economic level, or level of disability of the person under
guardianship.
Id.
As a result, the question of whether Tina and David Duprey can establish that they are
likely to succeed on the merits depends on whether they can show that the Guardian (and the
Probate Division) did not properly consider and rely on these factors.
Findings and Legal Analysis
As noted at the hearing, and by agreement of the parties, the Court considered the
testimony provided to the Probate Division two days ago. The Court also took evidence from the
parties at the hearing. The findings below and stated at the hearing are based on the clear and
convincing evidence.
Barbara Duprey is 81 years old and her body is in the dying process. She has no prospect
of recovery. She has multiple organ systems failing. As of two days ago, her doctor opined that
because she could not be fully medicated for pain, she was experiencing torture. Dr. Shank
testified today that Barbara Duprey has proceeded further in the dying process, is not showing
outside signs of pain such as grimacing at this point and can no longer express pain. However,
medical treatment is interfering with the dying process and doing so without the ability to
medicate for the pain they believe she is experiencing.

Entry Regarding Motion Page 3 of 5
26-CV-04742 In re: David Duprey
Tina and David Duprey are the children of Barbara Duprey. They are very close with
their mother. Tina Duprey has lived with her mother her entire life, and the two shared
everything with each other. She testified that she gave up dating years ago to better enjoy her
relationship with her mom and strengthen their bond. Tina has devoted herself to her mother’s
care and has worked toward her mother’s medical improvement throughout her hospital stay.
She has spoken to her mother about her end-of-life goals many times. Her father died of an
aneurism, and the family had extensive conversations about end of life wishes at that time. The
Duprey children both agree that their mother wanted all possible medical support to extend her
life as long as possible, regardless of the cost. It was clear to the Court that Tina Duprey would
do anything to provide care for her mother.
The Temporary Guardian is Sarah Nussbaum. Ms. Nussbaum is the head of the Office of
Public Guardian for the past two years and was a public guardian for years before that. She has
handled other guardianships that addressed the issue of withdrawing medical intervention. Since
she was appointed, Ms. Nussbaum has spoken with Barbara Duprey, her children, her doctors at
the hospital, her nurses, and her primary care doctor. She reviewed medical records and prior
family obituaries. She considered all information reasonably available to her before coming to
the conclusion that it was in Barbara Duprey’s best interests to remove the ventilator and change
the goals of care to comfort.
The information she relied on included statements from nurses that on one occasion
Barbara Duprey tried to pull her ventilator out when Tina Duprey left the room. She stated
numerous times that she wanted to die, and repeated requests for help from nursing staff and the
guardian herself. Barbara Duprey would not express these feelings in front of Tina or David
Duprey.
There is no valid advanced health directive signed by Ms. Duprey. Tina Duprey testified
at the hearing before the Probate Division that she had just found a document that expressed her
mother’s wishes dated from 2014. This was written by her mother and signed after her father
died. It expressed a desire to receive “all life saving measures” including a ventilator. Medical
Directive, January 21, 2024 (filed as AHCD in 26-PR-04020 on 9/2/2026) (emphasis in original).
Appellants did not present this as a valid health care directive because it was not properly
witnessed.
While the Probate Division rejected the validity of this document, for purposes of today’s
hearing, the Court considered it to be a written expression of Barbara Duprey’s wishes under
section 3075(f)(1). The Guardian reviewed the document before the hearing and testified
credibly that it would not change her decision to remove life sustaining care for Barbara Duprey.
This is because the wishes Barbara Duprey expressed twelve years ago and not while in the
midst of a long-term hospital stay while intubated are informative, but not controlling. These
feelings could have changed based on her current life reality and experiences. Based on all of
the other information available to the Guardian she concluded that her feelings and desires did in
fact change. The Court comes to the same conclusion.
There is no case law interpreting section 3075, but the plain language of the statute makes
it clear that the guardian must receive permission from the Probate Division prior to withdrawing

Entry Regarding Motion Page 4 of 5
26-CV-04742 In re: David Duprey
life-sustaining measures and that she must consider the stated factors. The Court is directed to
consider these same factors in arriving at its decision, which is in effect a de novo review of the
Guardian’s decision.
The Court found all of the parties in this case to be credible. The Court finds that
Barbara Duprey was saying different things to her children than she was to the medical staff.
Ms. Duprey had her reasons for not wanting to share with Tina and David Duprey that she was
ready to die. All parties agreed that Ms. Duprey wanted to go home. That is no longer possible
under any circumstance, but it was previously not possible without removing the ventilator,
which Tina Duprey would not authorize. Barbara Duprey’s statements to nurses, the guardian,
and doctors indicates that her true desires, expressed to those to whom she did not have a strong
emotional bond, were to no longer be in pain and to die comfortably. The Guardian considered
and relied on those statements from the medical staff. The Court finds that the medical staff
were motivated by providing care to Ms. Duprey and finds their testimony and statements to the
Guardian to be credible.
The Guardian also spoke to the Dupreys and learned about their conversations with their
mother and her expressed with to stay alive. She learned that this was a strongly expressed
desire and that the children also wanted their mother to stay alive.
The Guardian concluded and the Court agrees that while those wishes accurately capture
Ms. Duprey’s views prior to her hospitalization, more recently, they were expressed by Barbara
Duprey as an act of love to her children, not an expression of her true desire. The Court further
concludes that it is in Barbara Duprey’s best interests to remove the ventilator and change the
goal of her care to comfort care.
The Court notes that while this document was not an advanced health directive as
recognized by Chapter 231, subchapter 1 of Title 18, the Court considered that statutory scheme
to understand the legislature’s direction to Courts in considering a person’s dying wishes. 18
V.S.A. § 9704 controls how a person can amend an advanced health directive. Subsection (b)
allows a person without capacity to change their wishes under a validly executed advanced
health directive by expressing those wishes to a medical professional. That is what happened
here.
It is unlikely any Court could conclude that the Guardian did not properly rely on all
information available to her in arriving at her decision and that Barbara Duprey’s expression of
her wishes twelve years ago would not have changed that decision. The Court finds after
considering all of the evidence presented at both hearings, that Barbara Duprey wished to
transition to comfort care and to pass away naturally. She no longer wished to be on a ventilator.
The Cout finds that Tina and David Duprey have a very low likelihood of succeeding on the
merits of their claim.
The Court finds that although the harm to Barbara Duprey is somewhat reduced because
as she advances in the dying process she expresses less pain, the balance is still equal. The
Duprey children will be irreparably harmed by a loss of their mother they feel is premature, and

Entry Regarding Motion Page 5 of 5
26-CV-04742 In re: David Duprey
Ms. Duprey will be substantially and irreparably harmed by continuing to suffer and be delayed
from dying naturally.
As a result, the factors the Court is required to consider favor a denial of a request for a
stay.
ORDER
The Court has considered the four factors and concludes that a stay is not appropriate
because Appellants are not likely to succeed on the merits. The request for the stay is denied.
The Court stays the effect of this order until 4:30pm. This Court will not further consider
any request for a stay, and any further requests for a stay must be made immediately to the
Supreme Court.
Electronically signed on September 4, 2026, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).
____________________
Navah C. Spero
Superior Court Judge