Custody & parenting time; Determination that a party “had a substance abuse disorder in the absence of expert testimony or an admissible psychological evaluation”; Best interests determination; Berger v. Berger; Pennington v. Pennington; Consideration of circumstances occurring between the motion to change custody & the evidentiary hearing; Witness credibility; Demski v. Petlick; Exhibits that allegedly concerned the time period after a car accident; Nahshal v. Fremont Ins. Co.; Detroit v. Detroit Plaza Ltd. P’ship; Due process; Motion for a continuance in the evidentiary hearing; Al-Maliki v. LaGrant; Bye v. Ferguson; Haller v. Haller; Admission of exhibits; Calling names on the witness list; Blood alcohol level (BAL)

Holding, among other things, that the trial court’s conclusion defendant-mother had a substance abuse issue was not against the great weight of the evidence, the court affirmed the trial court’s order modifying custody and parenting time. Defendant had primary physical custody of A until she was involved in an accident while she was intoxicated. A was in the car at the time. “After the accident, a blood sample was taken from defendant, which indicated her” BAL was .144. Plaintiff-father filed an emergency motion for physical custody of A, 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. “Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court awarded the parties joint legal custody and awarded plaintiff sole physical custody.” Defendant claimed that the trial court erred when it concluded that “she had a substance abuse disorder in the absence of expert testimony or an admissible psychological evaluation.” She relied on Pennington to argue that “[a] trial court cannot make determinations regarding a party’s mental health – including substance dependency or addiction – absent medical evidence.” But the record established that she had “a history of alcohol abuse.” In 2017, her intoxication while driving led to an accident with A in the vehicle. Despite a high BAL of .144, “she claimed that she did not feel intoxicated. Plaintiff testified that defendant had attempted to drive drunk with [A] in the vehicle on other occasions.” A psychological evaluation diagnosed her with alcohol abuse. “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.” In Pennington, “the only evidence of the plaintiff’s alleged mental health problems was the testimony of the CPS worker that the ‘plaintiff’s level of concern was irrational.’” In this case, the trial court’s conclusion that “defendant had a substance abuse issue was supported by evidence concerning the accident, and various witness testimony of” her intoxication. Thus, its determination was not against the great weight of the evidence.