all those who have unadjudicated adoption petitions on file -with the court in the matter, as they are also parties to the judicial proceeding. Therefore, if the juvenile court determines that appellants filed an adoption petition, they must be afforded their due process rights to notice and a hearing. II. Other Issues ¶ 21 Appellants also argue that the juvenile court erred in (1) not disqualifying the GAL for a conflict of interest, and (2) enjoining DCFS from removing the children from the chosen adoptive family to place them with appellants in February 1998. We have considered these issues and conclude they are without merit, regardless of the status of appellants’ adoption petition. Accordingly, we decline to address them further. See State v. Carter, 776 P.2d 886, 888 (Utah 1989) (<HOLDING>); see also id. at 889 (stating “it is a maxim
holding that this court need not address the merits of an argument raised for the first time on appeal holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendants motion to dismiss instead of in an amended complaint was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal holding issue not properly before the appellate court where appellant fails to demonstrate where in the record an issue was raised in the district court holding that appellate court will not normally address issue raised for the first time on appeal holding that appellate court need not analyze and address in writing each and every argument issue or claim raised and properly before us on appeal