Great info so far. Let's see. what do I wish I'd known going in....
One thing my lawyer told me, and which ended up as true in our case, was that the court is not likely to require testing if the visits are supervised. Because some one will be there to watch over your child(ren) even if the other parent is drunk.
Still, if you don't ask for it, you definitely won't get it.
One thing I wasn't told early enough (there's a reason I switched lawyers) was that the court is not likely to be more restrictive on long-term visitation orders than interim orders without SIGNIFICANT reason and proof. i.e. if there is a reason why you think a member of his family would not be appropriate as a visitation supervisor long-term, do not agree to let that person supervise in any interim period. (Since you agreed once already, they're OK to supervise long-term.)
I also did not know that bargaining a request for a restraining order 'down' to a mutual no contact order, is a common tactic when a RO is requested any time near a divorce, because, then the judge is more likely to see it as simply a contested custody/divorce case and not a divorce case with DV against one partner. From this side of the court hearing, IMO, if you have reason to seek a RO, if your STBX's lawyer suggests a mutual no contact order instead, and your lawyer only tells you something like 'It does about the same thing. You just wouldn't have to do the exchanges at the police station.' you may want to get a different lawyer.
The judge in my case told XAH point blank that the problem he has with XAH saying he's going to AA was that there's no way to prove he's actually attending....
I hope any of this helps....