No one can predict, it's based on local laws and customs and your judge's philosophy.
But there are some general guidelines: non-custodial parents almost always have to pay support. If a judge waives the obligation, he has to justify it in writing to the Federal government in order for the state to keep getting certain types of grants. Most judges aren't going to bother. So probably she will have to pay some child support, even if it's $5 a month. (this is if you are in the US). So I'm surprised she doesn't have to pay CS.
Also, 2 years of rehab alimony for a spouse that has been a stay at home parent for 10 years doesn't sound excessive. Usually there's guidelines and a chart the state uses to determine what's appropriate. I know my state had a formula, years off of work, plus or minus education and professional certificates, plus or minus local economy in her field, plus or minus job experience, so on. Judges usually go by that. Deviations open them up for appeals, so they generally follow the formula. What does your atty say about that?
Almost never is drinking factored in, especially if it's a no fault divorce. Spouses of drinkers want it to be factored in because they've suffered so much, they hope the court will punish the drinker for ruining the marriage. This almost never happens as a general rule of thumb. Courts think if drinking causes problems in a marriage, divorce is an excellent solution, and it's your fault you stayed so long or whatever... they really hate to get into the he said/she said part of it. And who can blame them, people lie in court; nondrinkers exaggerate the sins of drinkers and drinkers minimize their drinking. It's a mess and judges don't get into it much--they figure divorce solves the drinking problem in a marriage.
The other thing is alcoholism is a disease and people don't get penalized for a disease. Generally courts avoid the topic and stick to the guidelines.
They will consider it child custody and visitation. You have to understand that visitation of a parent is a Federally protected right that judges have to explain in writing when they take it away. Federal money depends on how much visitation noncustodial parents have and on how much child support is paid versus how much is ordered. And it's been proven that more visitation equals more child support paid. So in general judges given standard visitation to non custodials accused of addiction and 'see how it goes'. Most of the time it works out, but they cautiously modify the orders if you keep going back to complain and have evidence.
So while no one can predict, it seems likely you will have to pay some alimony, and 2 years for 10 years of not working (and how long the marriage was also will matter) seems about right. The question is how much alimony will you have to pay. Sometimes the alimony is more than the child support and sometimes it's $1 a month (that's what my ex husband had to pay to his first wife).
Good luck to you and know soon this will all be over.
I am surprised she doesn't have to pay child support at all; did you agree to that? If so that would make more sense. But if the judge excused her from paying, it sounds like he/she is sympathetic to her drinking problem and feels sorry for her for losing her kids. Judges can have alcohol problems too or family members they are enabling and sometimes can be more sympathetic to the drinker than the spouse.
The one above who had to pay child support of $400+ even though she was unemployed probably was imputed with income (the judge thought she was doing cash under the table, or had the ability to make money but just chose not to) and the child support was established against the imputed income. That happened to my ex. He quit an $80K job during the divorce and said he had post traumatic stress from the divorce and a nervous breakdown. We got his ex boss on the stand who said he'd hire him back. My XAH said he couldn't, he was too mentally destroyed and came up with his Vietnam service, his bipolar, admitted that he 'used' to have a drinking problem (but was all gone now), had high blood pressure, etc... Judge imputed him with $70K in income and bingo he had a HUGE CS payment--and still refused to work (thought it would go away, it didn't, he went to jail eventually and is STILL paying it off although all the kids are over 18).
Anyway, good luck to you.