No. 13664 

IN THE SUPREI.IE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

JERRY T. JEROME, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

DOROTHY S. JEROME, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, 

Honorable Gord-on R. Bennett, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record : 

For Appellant: 

Dorothy Stevens, Pro Se, Helena, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Datsopoulos and MacDonald, Missoula, Montana 

Cause submitted on briefs. 

Filed: 

Submitted: January 9, 1978 

Decided: .FEB 1 - 1978 
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the 

Court : 

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court, 

Lewis and Clark County, granting a dissolution of the marriage of 

Dorothy S. Jerome and Jerry T. Jerome. The portions of the 

decree in issue are those relating to child support, maintenance, 

and property distribution. 

The record reveals the parties were married December 11, 

1952. Three children were born of the marriage; only one, a 

12 year old girl, is still a minor. There is no dispute that 

Dorothy should have custody of this minor child. 

Jerry is employed by Mountain Bell Telephone Company and 

has an annual income of between $18,000 and $19,000 per year, 

which is approximately the highest level he will be able to reach 

in his present position. Dorothy has worked briefly at secretarial 

types of positions, but has generally been a housewife for 

twenty-five years. 

The assets of the parties consist almost entirely of real 

property. By the final decree of dissolution, entered September 

20, 1976, Dorothy was awarded the family home; a small home 

next door; and the proceeds of the sale of some partially developed land, sold for about $8,000. Jerry was awarded an old 

mining claim costing about $30 and approximately six acres of 

land west of Helena, Montana. 

The court also awarded Dorothy child support in the amount 

of $150 per month and monthly maintenance payments of $300 the 

first year, $200 the second yeaq and $100 the third year. A 

reevaluation of the maintenance issue is scheduled after the 

third year. 
Dorothy was represented by counsel at the District Court 

but brings this appeal pro se. The issues raised by Dorothy 

may be consolidatea into three classifications: 

(1) Error by the District Court in failing to consider 

various documents ; 

(2) Several alleged violations of Dorothy's constitutionally protected rights; and 

(3) Lack of evidence to support the District Court's 

findings relating to property distribution, maintenance and 

child support. 

Issue (1). Dorothy attached to her brief on appeal 

various documents she prepared to show the income and expenses 

of the parties, and the value of her services during the marriage. 

None of these documents were offered into evidence at trial, neither 

was there any offer of proof made regarding them. As such, these 

documents are not a part of the record on appeal and will not be 

considered by this Court. Pillsbury v. Blumenthal, (1950), 58 

N.M. 422, 272 P.2d 326. 

Issue (2). Dorothy cites Sections 3, 9, 11 and 17, Article 

11, 1972 Montana Constitution and the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution. She states, without further explanation, that her rights under these provisions 

were violated by the District Court. We note no such arguments 

were made in the District Court either at trial or in her various 

post trial motions. Constitutional issues are waived if not 

raised at the earliest opportunity. Johnson v. Doran, (1975), 

167 Mont. 501, 511, 540 P.2d 306. Dorothy clearly has waived 

her right to raise these issues before this Court. 
Issue (3). This issue is whether the District Court abused 

its discretion in the awards of child support and maintenance, 

and in the final distribution of the property. The standard by 

which this Court reviews such an action by the District Court 

was recently set forth in Berthiaume v. Berthiaume , (1977) , - 

Mont . , 567 P.2d 1388, 34 St.Rep. 921, 924, citing Porter 

v. Porter, (1970), 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538: 

"* * * In determining whether the trial court abused its 

discretion, the question is not whether the reviewing 

court agrees with the trial court, but, rather, did the 

trial court in the exercise of its discretion act arbitrarily 

without the employment of conscientious judgment or exceed 

the bounds of reason, in view of all the circumstances, 

ignoring recognized principles resulting in substantial 

injustice ." 

We have reviewed the entire record and find no abuse of 

discretion by the District Court. There was no error. 

The judgment is af f irmed. 

We Concur: 

4 

Justices