Now Accepting New Clients!

FAMILY LAW 54: The trial court’s conclusion that defendant-mother had a substance abuse issue was not against the great weight of the evidence and did not require expert testimony.


The parties have a minor child (ABF), who was twelve-years-old at the time of the proceedings. Defendant had primary physical custody of ABF until she was involved in an accident while she was intoxicated. ABF was in the car at the time of the accident. After the accident, a blood sample was taken from defendant, which indicated her blood alcohol level was .144. Plaintiff filed an emergency motion for physical custody of ABF, which the trial court granted. Defendant filed a motion seeking primary physical custody and the trial court ordered that the parties would have week on/week off custody until a friend of the court investigation was completed. The friend of the court recommended that plaintiff be awarded physical custody. Defendant filed objections to this recommendation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court awarded the parties joint legal custody and awarded plaintiff sole physical custody. Defendant now appeals.


Defendant first raises the unpreserved argument that the trial court erred when it determined that she had a substance abuse disorder in the absence of expert testimony or an admissible psychological evaluation. We disagree. We must affirm all custody orders unless the trial court’s findings of fact were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue. MCL 722.28.   In the present case, the record establishes that defendant has a history of alcohol abuse. In November 2017, defendant’s intoxication while driving led to an accident with ABF in the vehicle. Despite defendant high blood alcohol level of .144, she claimed that she did not feel intoxicated. Plaintiff testified that defendant had attempted to drive drunk with ABF in the vehicle on other occasions. On one such occasion plaintiff’s friend, witnessed defendant attempt to pick up ABF from plaintiff’s house while defendant was intoxicated. A psychological evaluation diagnosed defendant with alcohol abuse. Plaintiff testified that once, defendant called him and seemed intoxicated because of her slowed and slurred speech. Although there was no medical evidence submitted to the trial court regarding defendant’s alleged substance abuse, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that defendant had a substance abuse issue.  The trial court’s determination that defendant had a substance abuse issue was supported by evidence concerning the accident, and various witness testimony of defendant’s intoxication. Thus, here, the trial court’s conclusion that defendant had a substance abuse issue was not against the great weight of the evidence.


Defendant has not demonstrated that she is entitled to relief.  The trial court’s decision is affirmed.


Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have parenting time issues.

Aldrich Legal Services represent parents throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of family law related matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000