734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

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.

BACKGROUND              

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.

ANALYSIS

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.

CONCLUSION

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

ADVICE TO CLIENTS FACING PRENTING TIME ISSUES IN FAMILY LAW CASES

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

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...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Are you required to provide ID as a passenger?

Original Post: 05/14/2017 The preceding is for informational purposes only. Being stopped by the police is not usually a pleasant experience. Even with the most benign of infractions, the encounter can be adversarial. The idea of...

DIVORCE 45: Federal law preempts state law such that the parties’ consent judgment is unenforceable to the extent that it required defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the reduction in the amount payable to her due to his election to receive CRSC

BACKGROUND This case involves a dispute between former spouses who entered into a consent judgment of divorce (the consent judgment), which provided that defendant would pay plaintiff 50% of his military retirement benefits. Beyond that, the...

How to Choose a Criminal Defense Lawyer for a DUI

No one wants to be arrested, and if you are, especially for the first time, you can be very confused. Being arrested for Drunk Driving, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) - formerly Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)...

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
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405