can serve to benefit both the parents and the child by moving to permanency in a more timely fashion, reducing the time all must wait in litigation limbo until their case is finally resolved. While both the parents’ and child’s interests in the parent-child relationship are great, so is the State’s interest in resolving matters on appeal that have already been fully litigated . The combination of trial counsel’s opportunity to raise possible issues for appeal and the appellate court’s ability to review the full record and transcript of the underlying proceeding protects both the parents and child against the risk of erroneous deprivation. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 903, 47 L.Ed.2d at 34; see also United States v. Marines, 535 F.2d 552, 556 (10th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ibarra, 116 N.M. 486, 864 P.2d 302,
holding that doctrine does not violate due process recognizing that the preservation requirement applies even to issues of due process when there has been a clear opportunity to present the argument on appeal to the lower tribunal holding a summary calendar does not violate due process as long as defendant is able to properly present issues on appeal holding that due process right to present a defense is subject to forfeiture if not properly asserted in the trial court holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof and that such a disposition does not violate the due process clause