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-onR. 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 

# - 1978Mr. 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 JerryT. 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 childrenwere born of the marriage; only one, a 12year old girl, 

### is stilla minor. There isno dispute that Dorothy should have

### custody of this minor child. Jerry 

### isemployed by Mountain BellTelephone Company and has an annual income of between $18,000 and $19,000 per year, which 

### is approximately the highest levelhe 

### willbe able toreach inhis present position. Dorothy has worked briefly atsecretarial 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 sixacres of land west of Helena, Montana. The court also awarded Dorothy child support inthe amount of $150 per month and monthly maintenance payments of $300 the firstyear, $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 atthe District Court but brings this appeal pro se. The issues raisedby Dorothy may be consolidatea intothree 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 toproperty distribution, maintenance and child support. Issue (1). Dorothy attached toher 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 attrial, neither
was there any offer of proof made regarding them. As such, these documents arenot a part of the record on appeal and willnot 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, 1972Montana 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 inthe District Court either attrialor inher various post trialmotions. Constitutional issues are waived ifnot raised atthe earliest opportunity. Johnson v. Doran, (1975), 167Mont. 501, 511, 540 P.2d 306. Dorothy clearly has waived her right toraise these issues before this Court.Issue (3). This issue iswhether the District Court abused 

### its discretion inthe awards of child support and maintenance, and inthe final distribution of the property. The standard by which this Court reviews such an action by the District Court
was recently 

### set forth inBerthiaume v. Berthiaume

## , (1977)

## ,

# - Mont

# . ,567 P.2d 1388, 34 St.Rep. 921, 924, citing Porter
v. Porter, (1970), 155Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538: 

# "*

# ** Indetermining whether the trialcourt abused 

### its discretion, the question 

### isnot whether the reviewing court agrees with the trialcourt, but, rather, did the trialcourt inthe exercise of 

### its discretion act arbitrarily without the employment of conscientiousjudgment or exceed the bounds of reason, inview of allthe circumstances, ignoring recognized principles resulting in substantial injustice

# ."
We have reviewed the entire record and findno abuse of discretionby the District Court. There was no error. The judgment 

### is affirmed.

We Concur:



# 4

Justices