Opinion ID: 852501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Drug and Alcohol Abuse

Text: Valerie contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing her to testify regarding Sam's alcohol and drug abuse history as it relates to his ability to effectively be a custodial parent. Evidence of a parent's drug or alcohol use can be relevant to that parent's health and the child's best interests. See Russell v. Russell, 682 N.E.2d 513, 515 (Ind.1997) (describing husband's prior drug use as undoubtedly relevant to best interests of children). Valerie did not preserve this claimed error for appeal because she made no offer of proof. Indiana Rule of Evidence 103 requires that an objecting party provide the substance of the evidence, or that the substance of the evidence be apparent from the context. Neither occurred here. The entire record on this issue consists of Valerie's counsel asking her whether there were any drugs or alcohol involved in . . . family activities. Sam's counsel objected, and Valerie's counsel explained that We're dealing with relocation issues, custody of a child, single parenting. [Valerie] had custody for a number of years following the entry of the divorce. There's reference in the original custody decree to alcohol playing a role in the life of this family. I think we should find out if alcohol continues to play a role in the life of this family, and if so, to what extent. There is no showing what the anticipated evidence would have been. Testimony could have ranged from highly relevant drug use to nonabusive and moderate use of alcohol, or even that neither was in use. Failure to make an offer of proof precludes raising this issue on appeal.