the witnesses, their testimony, and the best interest of the children. Alphin v. Alphin, 364 Ark. 332, 336, 219 S.W.3d 160, 162 (2005). For her first point on appeal, Westin argues that the circuit court’s finding of a material change in circumstances was cleaiiy erroneous because the court erred by allowing | ¡¡evidence of facts not pleaded in Hays’s petition; more specifically, Wes-tin argues that the introduction at trial of facts that had not been raised by the petition was in violation of the Due Process Clause. Westin further argues that the petition’s properly pleaded facts do not give rise to a material change in circumstances. Westin’s due-process argument was not raised below, and thus, it is not preserved for appeal. See Mason v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 285, 435 S.W.3d 510 (<HOLDING>). The record reflects that Westin objected only
holding that appellate court will not consider an argument on appeal that is different from the specific argument presented to the trial court even if it relates to the same general issue holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency holding that even when the issue is constitutional in nature an argument is not preserved on appeal unless the appellant raised and made the argument at trial and obtained a ruling on it nor will a particular theory be addressed on appeal if it was not presented below holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed holding that an argument not made to the circuit court cannot be raised on appeal