How Family Courts Address Alcohol Concerns in Custody Cases According to Calabrese Budner

This article is part of a promoted series and not produced by the editorial staff.

Most people assume family court only steps in when there’s a DUI, an arrest, or a criminal charge. In reality, judges have a surprisingly sophisticated toolbox for addressing alcohol and drug concerns long before they rise to that level. 

Family law attorney Elisa Reiter of Calabrese Budner has spent more than 30 years helping families navigate divorce and custody disputes. If there’s one thing she’s learned, it’s this: “The parents who end up surprised by a judge’s orders are rarely the ones you’d expect.” Most aren’t career criminals or people struggling to survive. They’re executives. Business owners. Stay-at-home parents. The neighbors you see at football games, charity galas, wine dinners, and backyard cookouts.  “And many of them genuinely don’t believe they have a drinking problem,” Reiter says.

One client insisted she was simply a social drinker. “I never drink around my kids,” she told Reiter. “I have wine with friends like everyone else.” She believed that. As the custody case unfolded, however, the evidence painted a different picture. Friends described evenings where one or two glasses regularly became five or six. Text messages, photographs, and witness accounts painted a pattern of impaired judgment that raised concerns about the children’s safety.

None of it was criminal. There were no arrests. No DUIs. No dramatic headlines. But family court isn’t deciding whether someone has committed a crime. It’s deciding whether children are safe. “The question isn’t whether someone drinks,” Reiter says. “It’s whether alcohol affects parenting.” Many parents are surprised to learn those aren’t the same thing.

Family Court Looks Different Than Criminal Court

Most people assume if no one has been arrested, there’s no legal issue. Family courts operate under a different standard. Judges aren’t determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; they’re making decisions about children based on safety, judgment, and the child’s best interests. Family courts look for patterns: repeated intoxication, poor judgment, missed exchanges, forgotten school events, or driving after “just a couple glasses of wine.” None may be criminal alone, but together they can lead a judge to take a much closer look.
That’s where technology comes in.

Soberlink: Building Trust One Test at a Time

The tool ordered by family court judges most often today is Soberlink. Most people picture a breathalyzer, but Soberlink uses facial recognition, GPS verification, and scheduled alcohol testing throughout the day. Results are automatically shared with everyone involved, creating objective evidence instead of conflicting stories. 

If a parent arrives for an exchange after drinking, even if they believe they’re no longer impaired, that positive test becomes objective evidence. “Family court isn’t interested in debating whether someone ‘felt fine,'” Reiter says. “Objective testing removes the guesswork.”

SCRAM and PEth: Accountability Around the Clock

Some cases require even more monitoring. Judges may order a SCRAM ankle monitor that continuously detects alcohol through perspiration or PEth blood testing, which measures patterns of alcohol use over the previous several weeks. “Judges aren’t looking for one isolated glass of champagne,” Reiter says. “They’re looking for patterns.”

It’s Not About Wine

One of the biggest misconceptions Reiter hears is that family court is policing adults who enjoy cocktails. Nothing could be further from the truth. “No judge cares if you have a glass of wine while playing mahjong,” she says. “What concerns the court is when alcohol begins affecting parenting decisions.” This might result in regularly arriving late for exchanges. Falling asleep while responsible for young children. Driving after drinking. Missing school obligations. Choosing another drink instead of showing up consistently for your family. “The issue isn’t alcohol,” Reiter says. “The issue is judgment.”

The Bigger Picture

After more than 30 years practicing family law, Reiter has learned that custody cases involving alcohol are rarely black and white. “Every case has at least two stories,” she says. “The truth is often somewhere in the middle. Sometimes I’m representing the parent who is terrified because they believe the other parent’s drinking has become unpredictable. Other times, I’m representing the parent who sincerely believes they don’t have a drinking problem and can’t understand why the court is questioning their judgment.”

Many parents ordered to use Soberlink or wear a SCRAM monitor don’t see themselves as addicts. They have careers. They coach soccer. They volunteer at school. They simply don’t believe their drinking has crossed a line. “Family court isn’t deciding whether someone deserves a label. It’s deciding whether a child needs additional protection while trust is rebuilt,” Reiter says. “The parents who have the best outcomes usually stop asking whether the court is being fair. They start asking, ‘What can I do to show my children, and the court, that they can count on me?'”

That’s when these tools stop feeling like punishment. They become proof. Proof that trust can be rebuilt. Proof that children can have meaningful relationships with both parents. “In the end, family court isn’t trying to decide whether someone should enjoy a glass of wine,” Reiter says. “It’s trying to answer a much more important question: Can this child safely rely on the adult who’s responsible for them?” 

That’s a question worth getting right.

To learn more about Calabrese Budner and their expertise, visit calabresebudner.com.