Opinion ID: 2003290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court's decision to deny specific child support payments was erroneous.

Text: Stone claims that the trial court should have exercised its discretion and awarded her child support to insure a stable, consistent standard of living for Christy. However, at no time during the trial did Stone ask for child support payments from Sobolik. Nor did she, in her proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, request that Sobolik be required to pay support. In fact, Stone's proposed conclusion of law No. 9 stated as follows: No specific child support obligation is imposed by this court. The parties shall share equally the costs of maintenance. Hugh A. Sobolik shall obtain and pay for health insurance coverage for Christy Rae Sobolik, with costs not covered by health insurance to be shared equally by the parties. Therefore, Stone cannot properly now object to the lower court's adoption of her own proposal. Furthermore, under SDCL 15-26A-8, there must be a specific motion, request for finding, offer, or objection before a matter may be reviewed on appeal. Burke v. Lead-Deadwood Sch. Dist. No. 40-1, 347 N.W.2d 343 (S.D.1984). Here, there is no record of any motion, request, offer or objection which might give Stone a basis to now claim that there should be child support paid to her. Additionally, there was no evidence in the record as to the income of Sobolik for us to consider. (We need not address whether Stone is entitled to child support under SDCL 25-7-7, since that was not argued below. We do not address issues raised for the first time on appeal. Midstates Exc. v. Farmers & Merchants Bk, 410 N.W.2d 190 (S.D.1987); Mayrose v. Fendrich, 347 N.W.2d 585 (S.D. 1984). Affirmed. WUEST, C.J., and MORGAN, J., concur. HENDERSON, J., concurs with writing. SABERS, J., concurs in result without writing.