There are certain areas of law that are more likely than others to involve alcohol testing. Areas like:
- Criminal law – Think sobriety checkpoints, continued monitoring after a DUI, or even the fact that 37% of prisoners admit to drinking when they were arrested.
- Employment law – As much as 78% of Fortune 500 companies require drug-screening for prospective hires.
- Education law – Many private schools have implemented alcohol testing for their student bodies.
While alcohol testing is used in each of these areas, substance testing in these instances generally focuses more on drug use than on alcohol use. However, there is another area of law in which, although drug testing can also be used, testing for alcohol is much more prevalent. That area is family law.
Now, on the specific issue of whether alcohol testing should be conducted randomly: Research shows that random testing is not always practical or appropriate for many of the other areas of law discussed above.
However, my experience in family law leads me to conclude that when alcohol testing is necessary or required, it should be conducted randomly in most cases. There are exceptions, of course.
But given the circumstances in which alcohol testing is normally used in family law cases, random alcohol testing is much more effective in accomplishing its purposes: to protect children and other victims through detection and deterrence, and possibly to obtain treatment for the disordered alcohol user.
This conclusion is consistent with existing research. A Cochrane Review of randomized drug and alcohol testing in safety-sensitive workplaces found that unpredictable testing improves detection and deters substance use more effectively than scheduled testing. While the study focused on employment settings, the same logic applies in family law—where the goal is to ensure safety and accountability when children are involved.
When alcohol testing is necessary or required, it should be conducted randomly in most cases.”
How should drug and alcohol testing be used in family law?
Alcohol testing – randomized or not – should be used in family law cases only when it is needed.
Because most family law cases involve issues of a civil nature (as opposed to criminal in nature), alcohol testing should not be conducted for punitive purposes in the family law context.
Rather, it should be used to protect children and to prompt opportunities to assist – not punish – the party whose alcohol misuse poses a danger to themselves and other family members.
Types of alcohol testing schedules: Pros & cons
Court-ordered alcohol tests can be scheduled as needed. Before we do a deep-dive into randomized testing specifically, let’s review all of the options.
Bear in mind that one key difference between each of these alcohol test-administration options is how much the subject knows about when they are going to be tested.
1. Scheduled testing
Scheduled testing can involve testing on the same days and times each week or testing regularly within the designated time period.
With scheduled testing, the Tester knows exactly when they will need to take alcohol tests. There is zero unpredictability.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| ✅ Since scheduled testing is predictable, Testers can adjust their work or social schedules accordingly. ✅ Testers may be less likely to miss a scheduled test. | ❌ If identity verification, tamper prevention, and other critical security measures aren’t up-to-par – or the schedule allows for too much time to pass between tests – Testers could plan their alcohol consumption around the testing schedule. |
2. Randomized testing
Tests can be scheduled to occur randomly over a designated period of time.
Randomized testing means the Tester doesn’t know exactly when a test will happen. This uncertainty helps deter drinking, especially when safety or child custody is involved.
BACtrack View uses time-blind testing. The Tester:
- Sees they have pending test for a specific day
- Does not know the exact test time
- Is notified only when the test is triggered
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| ✅ More unpredictable than scheduled testing ✅ Stronger deterrent for drinking on test days ✅ Time-blind: test timing is hidden to prevent manipulation ✅ Suitable for custody/safety concerns where day-of sobriety matters | ❌ If Testers know which days are test-free, they could drink on those days ❌ Seeing a number of pending tests could let Testers guess when they’re “done” for the day ❌ May require consistent setup to maintain deterrence over time |
How BACtrack View hits the “sweet spot” of random alcohol testing
BACtrack View’s approach to randomized testing offers a smart balance: It’s unpredictable enough to discourage drinking, but structured enough to reduce missed tests and common excuses.
Testers know they might be tested on a certain day – but they don’t know the time. That creates just enough pressure to stay sober throughout the day, while still allowing them to plan around work, childcare, or other commitments.
The result? Stronger compliance, fewer no-shows, and better reliability – without needing full surveillance-level testing.
This middle-ground setup works especially well for family law situations where the goal is day-of sobriety – not 24/7 control.
Here’s how randomized testing works with BACtrack View:
- Select which days of the week tests will occur – i.e., Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
- Determine the testing time period – i.e., between 7:15 pm and 10:15 pm, on the days you selected.
- Enter in the number of tests you would like to occur throughout that time period – i.e., 3 tests.
In this example, the Tester will take 3 tests between 7:15 and 10:15 on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. - That’s it. The system will automatically randomize tests. Neither the Tester nor the Monitor will know the exact time (hour/minute) each test will occur.
Learn more about alcohol testing with BACtrack View →
3. Continual monitoring.
Continual monitoring is a viable option for protecting children because it offers real-time monitoring, 24/7, over an extended period of time – typically through alcohol monitoring ankle bracelets.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| ✅ Constant monitoring – such as with transdermal devices, like ankle monitors – can allow one to immediately spot any changes in a person’s BAC level and take action. | ❌ Transdermal alcohol monitoring bracelets can be expensive. ❌ Devices are not completely waterproof. ❌ Devices can be uncomfortable and irritate skin. ❌ Past court cases indicate continued monitoring devices could present heightened Fourth Amendment privacy issues. |
So, should I use randomized alcohol testing?
It depends on what you’re trying to achieve. If your main goal is to stop a parent from drinking alcohol at all, or to make sure a child is safe during visits with that parent, then the answer is yes – randomized alcohol testing makes sense.
The reason randomized testing works well in custody cases is because it keeps the parent guessing. They never know when a test might happen, especially around visit times, so they’re less likely to risk drinking at all. Even if a test doesn’t happen before every visit, knowing one could happen at any time discourages drinking.
If both parents agree to testing (or a judge orders it) to make sure a parent is sober and able to care for the child properly, random testing is the better option. It gives a more accurate picture than scheduled testing and is more effective at keeping the parent accountable.
When should I not use random alcohol testing?
Here are a few scenarios in which random alcohol testing may not be a good fit:
- If the purpose of alcohol testing is to determine consumption patterns, assess treatment needs, or demonstrate sobriety over a designated period of time – random testing may not be necessary. Scheduled testing will likely suffice, particularly if the subject consents to testing and depends on results to retain or acquire custody of the child in the future.
- If random testing will be overly-intrusive or significantly inconvenient for the Tester. Conflict with a subject’s work schedule can be problematic and can increase the likelihood that the subject will fail to submit results within the required time period and thereby affect the court’s determination of custody.
- If the purpose of testing is to detect long-term use of drugs or alcohol – and results are not likely to be available or relevant to the immediate safety risks for the child, then random testing is not useful for that purpose and therefore not necessary.
4 best practices for using random alcohol tests in family law
Random testing is generally more effective than scheduled testing for purposes of deterring and detecting alcohol use, especially when relevant to circumstances under which real-time data can more reliably protect the child during visits or custody periods. But how a random testing program is structured can determine how successful it is.
Because so many employers also use random testing for purposes of protecting employees from accidents, liability, and the risk of other dangers, studies of random drug and alcohol tests in the workforce are instructive on the use of random testing to protect children in custody disputes.
Likewise, random testing used in the criminal drug-court context are useful for assessing best practices when implementing random testing.
The National Treatment Court Standards echo this, emphasizing that random testing must be both frequent and unpredictable to be effective. Their best practice guidelines also stress timely reporting, verified identity, and clear consequences—all features that increase accountability in family law applications.
Based on the research on random alcohol testing in these areas, here are best practices.
1. Carefully consider frequency.
The frequency of randomly-scheduled tests can play a large role in how successful they are in keeping a Tester sober.
If random tests don’t occur often (low frequency), a Tester may have ample time to consume alcohol in between tests. So, it’s important to strike a balance. Randomized tests should not occur constantly – this may overly intrusive for the Tester or cause them to miss tests. But they should occur frequently enough that the Tester isn’t able to take advantage of time gaps and they’re still deterred from drinking.
2. Make sure the randomized testing period is long enough to show real patterns.
When using randomized alcohol testing, it’s important that the testing period lasts long enough to give a reliable picture of the person’s behavior.
Because the tests are unpredictable, a longer duration helps ensure you’re not just catching short-term compliance (unless, of course, you’re only concerned with short-term compliance). The schedule should extend well beyond any treatment period so it can reveal whether sobriety is sustained – or if relapse occurs once structure or oversight is reduced.
3. Use identity verification for each test.
The method of random collection should verify the identity of the subject – for each and every test – to make sure the right person is actually testing.
Historically, the identity verification issue arose more in the context of testing urine samples. Most alcohol monitoring systems – like BACtrack View – implement some sort of identity verification measure.
4. Clearly define testing requirements and consequences.
Any program implementing random testing should clearly define the terms of the alcohol monitoring program and address contingencies, such as:
- Defining what BAC level constitutes a positive (non-compliant) test result
- What to do if there are any issues with collecting or submitting an alcohol test (i.e. a technical issue)
- How much time the Tester has to submit a test result, after being notified of a test (i.e. 35 minutes)
Test results should also have clear, timely consequences.
Test results should be available quickly enough to affect upcoming visits or custody time. That way, the Tester understands that a failed test – or even a missed one – can directly impact their next visit. This connection increases accountability.
The program should also clearly state what happens if a test is missed. For example, if someone is traveling for work or doesn’t get enough notice to take the test in time, there should be a clear, pre-defined consequence.
Finally, every program should include a process for handling emergencies, resolving disputed results, and allowing appeals. This helps ensure the system is fair, consistent, and transparent.
Is random alcohol testing right for your case? The bottom line
Research consistently shows that random testing is more effective than scheduled testing when the goal is to detect and deter substance use—especially in high-stakes situations like workplace safety or child custody. Random testing reduces the chance of manipulation and better reflects real behavior, making it a more reliable option in most family law cases.
That said, whether randomized testing is appropriate depends on the specifics of the case. Judges, attorneys, and parents need access to clear best practices and practical tools to implement it effectively. While the research supports its use, availability remains a barrier.
From my experience, the biggest challenge isn’t whether random testing works – it’s whether the right tools are being used. BACtrack View is the only consumer-accessible device I’ve seen that offers randomized alcohol testing suitable for custody disputes. It’s reliable, accessible, and designed for this kind of use.
The concern arises when courts or parents rely on devices that don’t offer randomized testing. These may work fine in other settings, but in custody cases, they could leave room for manipulation – and that can put children at risk.
Choosing the right testing method isn’t just a technical decision – it’s a child safety issue.
About The Author
