Opinion ID: 901471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Admissibility of Custody Evaluation

Text: [¶24.] Finally, we consider Angela's argument that the trial court erred when it failed to admit the custody evaluation. Angela argues that her financial condition prohibited paying the evaluator to testify at the divorce trial. She asserts that in the context of family law, an exception should be made for custody evaluations in order to help the trial court make the best decision for the child. [¶25.] We normally review evidentiary rulings under the abuse of discretion standard. Steffen v. Schwan's Sales Enters., Inc., 2006 SD 41, ¶19, 713 NW2d 614, 621. In this case, however, there is no evidentiary ruling to review. While Angela filed a pretrial motion for admission of the custody evaluation, the record contains no ruling on that motion. Further, the record contains no transcript concerning that motion. The record merely contains a notice of a change of the trial date. The transcript of the court trial indicates that Angela never offered the evaluation and the trial court never considered its admissibility. [¶26.] Consequently, the record contains no grant or denial of Angela's motion. Further, Angela failed to present the custody evaluation at trial in order to preserve the issue for appeal. See Joseph v. Kerkvliet, 2002 SD 39, ¶7, 642 NW2d 533, 535. As we have stated, the proponent of the evidence must attempt to present the excluded evidence at trial, and if an objection to the proffered evidence is sustained, the proponent must then make an offer of proof. Such a requirement is strictly applied because a trial judge should be given an opportunity to reconsider [the] prior ruling against the backdrop of the evidence adduced at trial. Id. (citation omitted). Thus, where a party does not attempt to introduce evidence at trial or make an offer of proof, the issue has not been preserved for appeal. Id. Consequently, we decline to consider Angela's arguments concerning the custody evaluation [¶27.] Affirmed. [¶28.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS and KONENKAMP, Justices, concur.