their testimony. In re M.W., 2004 MT 301, ¶ 35, 323 Mont. 433, 102 P.3d 6. In this case, the record reveals the District Court’s conclusion that Mother’s abuse and neglect of her children has worsened over the past ten years and that reunification efforts and another treatment plan are not in the children’s best interests is supported by the testimony presented. ¶31 In her reply brief, Mother argues that the District Court also erred by failing to make a finding regarding whether Mother’s condition or conduct that caused the Department’s involvement was likely to change within a reasonable time. However, this argument was not raised in Mother’s opening brief, and we therefore will not address it. See M. R. App. P. 23(c); Pengra v. State, 2000 MT 291, ¶ 13, 302 Mont. 276, 14 P.3d 499 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION ¶32 For the reasons stated above,
holding that this court will not address the merits of an issue presented for the first time in a reply brief holding that we do not address an argument raised for the first time in a litigants reply brief holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before this court holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding an appellant who raised an issue for the first time in his reply brief waived the claim