1989), Sarah further contends that the expenses incident to her pregnancy and childbirth are recoverable in a paternity suit. She also cites Daniels v. Bains , 967 So.2d 77, 79 (¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2007), in which a chancellor ordered a father to reimburse the mother for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of pregnancy. She contends that she submitted bills to the court to support her claims for reimbursement; therefore, she submits that the chancellor should have ordered James to reimburse her for those expenditures.

Id. at 1252 (¶27).In Daniels v. Bains, 967 So. 2d 77, 82 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007), we pointed out that the Dobbins opinion clarified that in paternity actions where attorney’s fees are awarded pursuant to section 93-9-45, the court should not rely on the factors for awarding attorney’s fees set out in McKee v. McKee, 418 So. 2d 764 (Miss. 1982), a divorce case.

Friday claims that the MDHS "had an affirmative duty to present evidence" that Sam was not emancipated but has cited no authority in support of this argument. SeeDaniels v. Bains , 967 So. 2d 77, 84 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (recognizing that the "[f]ailure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court's obligation to review such issues." (quoting Bridges v. Kitchings , 820 So. 2d 42, 49 (¶27) (Miss.

¶16. In support of his position, Tony relies on Daniels v. Bains , 967 So. 2d 77 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). In Daniels , the appellant contended that the county court erred in ordering him to purchase a $500,000 life insurance policy for the benefit of his daughter.

"Failure to raise an issue in a trial court causes the operation of a procedural bar on appeal." Daniels v. Bains , 967 So. 2d 77, 81 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).¶30.

However, Williams raises this issue for the first time on appeal. It is well settled that this Court does not review matters on appeal that were not first raised in the trial court. Daniels v. Bains, 967 So.2d 77, 81 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2007). This issue is procedurally barred.

However, Williams raises this issue for the first time on appeal. It is well settled that this Court does not review matters on appeal that were not first raised in the trial court. Daniels v. Bains, 967 So. 2d 77, 81 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). This issue is procedurally barred.

However, Julvanna failed to raise this issue at trial. It is well settled that this Court does not review matters on appeal that were not first raised in the lower court. Daniels v. Bains, 967 So.2d 77, 81 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2007). ¶ 17. Regardless of the procedural bar, Economy filed a response to Julvanna's motion asking the chancellor to over-rule the motion to enforce the agreed judgment.

¶ 29. This issue was not raised in the chancery court proceedings; therefore, it cannot be raised on appeal. Failure to raise an issue in a trial court procedurally bars the issue on appeal. Daniels v. Bains, 967 So.2d 77, 81 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2007). Procedural bar notwithstanding, this issue is without merit.

The State is not allowed to litigate a new issue on appeal; it is well established that failure to raise an issue in the trial court procedurally bars the issue on appeal. Daniels v. Bains, 967 So.2d 77, 81 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2007). ¶ 20.