662, 375 S.E.2d 676, 678-79 (1989); In re K.L.C., 12 P.3d 478, 480-81 (Okla.Civ.App.2000); E.H., supra, 880 P.2d at 13; In re M.D., 168 Wis.2d 995, 485 N.W.2d 52, 55 (1992)). IV. The Miottiest issue presented is the practical application of a post-trial remedy, given the time constraints that apply in a parental termination case because of a child’s need for permanency. There are two basic paradigms for raising the issue: direct appeal and post-judgment motion in the trial court. The vast majority of states utilize the first route. See, e.g., In re A.L.E., 248 Ga.App. 213, 546 S.E.2d 319, 325 (2001) (allowing ineffectiveness claims to be raised on direct appeal but remanding for evidentiary hearing upon determining record inadequate); In re C.N.W., 26 S.W.Sd 386, 393 (Mo.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>); Geist, supra, 796 P.2d at 1201 (instructing
holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived holding arguments not raised on appeal waived holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal