 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In the Matter of J.M.J.11/19/1999
a's proposed Conclusion of law asserted her fundamental right to parent J.M.J., it did not challenge the constitutionality of terminating that right in this case, thereby placing the issue squarely before the District Court for resolution.
As a general rule, we do not consider an issue presented for the first time on appeal because "it is fundamentally unfair to fault the trial court for failing to rule correctly on an issue it was never given the opportunity to consider." Unified Industries, Inc. v. Easley, 1998 MT 145, 15, 289 Mont. 255, 15, 961 P.2d 100, 15 (citation omitted). In this case, the District Court received evidence regarding what each party believed was in J.M.J.'s best interest, but Sada did not present the issue of the constitutionality of terminating her parental rights to the District Court for resolution. We conclude, therefore, that the issue of the constitutionality of terminating Sada's parental rights when a less restrictive alternative was available was not before the District Court, and we decline to address it further. See In re S.M., 32.
Sada also advances an equitable argument for permanent guardianship rather than termination of her parental rights. She contends that if Karen is permitted to adopt J.M.J., Jade will have more rights than she will because he will still have a relationship--albeit as a brother--to J.M.J., and he has made less effort to become a suitable parent than she has. The District Court specifically questioned the social worker supervisor in this regard and entered a finding of fact summarizing her explanation of why termination of parental rights was in J.M.J.'s best interest.
Sada does not challenge the court's finding. Furthermore, it is well established that the best interests of the child are paramount in a termination of parental rights action and take precedence over parental rights. See, e.g., Matter of C.M., 281 Mont. at 187, 932 P.2d at 1066; Matter of J.J.C.H. (1992), 252 Mont. 158, 165, 827 P.2d 812, 816; In re J.W. (1988), 232 Mont. 46, 50, 757 P.2d 769, 771.
We hold the District Court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Sada's parental rights.
Affirmed.
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
We concur:
/S/ J. A. TURNAGE
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JIM REGNIER
|