Opinion ID: 1172030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: pre-adjudication orders

Text: The mother asserts on appeal that the actions of the trial court require reversal of the adjudication order finding her child to be deprived. She contends that the failure of the state to file an affidavit in conformity with 10 O.S.Supp. 1982 § 40.5, the absence of a hearing as provided by 10 O.S. 1981 § 1104.1, and the failure of the proceedings to conform to 25 U.S.C. § 1922, are errors of such a magnitude as to require reversal of the proceedings. We cannot review the mother's contention that the trial court failed to follow these three statutes. No motion or argument appears in the trial court record questioning the statutory sufficiency of the amended petition. Similarly, no motion or argument was addressed to the trial court attacking the temporary custody orders for lack of a hearing pursuant to 10 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 1104.1. No reference to 25 U.S.C. § 1922 appears in the trial court record before us. A party may not assign errors on appeal which were not presented to the trial court. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Cable, 585 P.2d 1113, 1116 (Okl. 1978); Kepler v. Strain, 579 P.2d 191, 193 (Okl. 1978). The misapplication of 10 O.S. Supp. 1984 § 1104.1, 10 O.S.Supp. 1982 § 40.5, 25 U.S.C. § 1922 does not defeat the jurisdiction of the trial court. [2] Misapplication of the statutes in this case does not present a question involving the welfare of the people at large sufficient for de novo appellate review. [3] The mother's allegations of error that the trial court failed to follow 25 U.S.C. § 1922, 10 O.S.Supp. 1982 § 40.5, and 10 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 1104.1, do not come within exceptions to the general rule that allegations of error must be presented to the trial court. Therefore, they are beyond the scope of our review on appeal.