after the pre-trial meeting set up specifically to deal with such matters. Further, Parents did not request a sanction or object to the material during the trial itself. Thus, Parents did not preserve any discovery or evidence denial issues for our review. 2) Legality of Service Plan 110 Likewise, Parents waived their right to appeal the legality of the modified service plan. Here, the service plan had been in place for about one year before the permanency hearing. Parents never objected to the plan or petitioned the trial court for its modification and never attempted to appeal the final order arising from the dispo-sitional hearing. See Utah Code Aun. § 78-Sa-311 (1996) (stating service plan may be ordered at dispositional hearing); Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017, 1022 (Utah 1996) (<HOLDING>); Hart v. Salt Lake County Comm'n, 945 P.2d
holding that issues not properly presented to the bankruptcy court  cannot be raised  for the first time on appeal holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding issues not raised at trial level cannot be argued for the first time on appeal holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered