Opinion ID: 2074534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Change in Circumstances Issue

Text: Ms. Williams's first argument on appeal is that the Family Court erred in exercising jurisdiction over this matter because the hearing justice failed to first make a finding that a change in circumstances had taken place subsequent to the point in time when the parties reached an agreement about custody of Dakota. In making this argument, Ms. Williams relies upon the following language from this Court's opinion in the case of Parrillo v. Parrillo, 554 A.2d 1043 (R.I.1989): The Family Court retains jurisdiction over the custody of the minor children of divorced parents regardless of whether custody was initially established by judicial decree or agreement of the parents.    However, jurisdiction should only be exercised when the party seeking the modification shows by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the circumstances and conditions that existed when custody was decided have been changed or altered. Id. at 1044-45. In the instant case, there was no previous judicial decree establishing custody; but Ms. Williams argues that the parties agreed [2] to a custody arrangement as to Dakota on September 12, 2003 and that, therefore, pursuant to the above-quoted language in Parrillo, the Family Court could not properly exercise jurisdiction over this matter without first finding that Mr. Parker had demonstrated a change in circumstances after this date. We shall not address the merits of this contention, however, because our review of the record reveals that Ms. Williams failed to raise this argument at the hearing that was held in Family Court about the placement issue or in her pretrial memorandum to that court. It is well settled that this Court will consider on appeal only issues that were properly raised before the trial court. Montecalvo v. Mandarelli, 682 A.2d 918, 926 (R.I.1996) (A party who fails to bring his or her objections to the attention of the trial justice waives the right to raise them on appeal.); see also Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of New England, Inc. v. Rossi, 847 A.2d 286, 293 (R.I.2004) (This Court will not review issues that are raised for the first time on appeal.). Accordingly, Ms. Williams has waived the right to raise this argument on appeal.