To prove habitual intoxication in Georgia you have to show a pattern, but you do not have to show your spouse was drunk all the time.
You Do Not Have to Prove Constant Drunkenness
The rule comes from Fuller v. Fuller, 108 Ga. 256 (1899), as the Georgia Supreme Court quoted it in Moody v. Moody, 224 Ga. 13 (1968): “It is not, in order to prove ‘habitual intoxication’ on the part of the respondent in a libel for divorce, essential to show that he was constantly and continuously drunk.”
That leaves room for the ordinary case, where a spouse holds down a job while drinking heavily at home.
What Was Enough in Moody
Moody is the useful illustration because the husband was employed throughout. He was teaching at Georgia Tech and living at home with his wife and five children.
The wife testified that he was intoxicated every night he was at home during the last year they lived together, that he bought whiskey by the case, drank three or more drinks before dinner, and would wake during the night and continue drinking.
The Georgia Supreme Court held that evidence “ample to support the finding” of habitual intoxication.
What Made That Evidence Work
Notice its shape. It was specific, it covered a defined period, and every part of it went to frequency rather than to any single night.
That is the difference between proving habitual intoxication and proving an incident. The worst night of a marriage proves very little here. A year of ordinary nights proves the ground.
One Warning
A spouse who drank alongside you can use that. OCGA 19-5-4 bars a divorce where “[b]oth parties are guilty of like conduct,” and the husband in Moody raised that defense – it failed only because the evidence did not support it.
Contact Us
This post is a quick overview of the law and is not intended as legal advice. Please feel free to contact our office for a consultation if you have questions about this or any other legal aspects regarding your case!