context: Alvarado suggests that this court should take judicial notice of the recent progress she has made as is reflected in several reports that she has proffered to us. We note that the reports were not referred to, much less offered or admitted into evidence, in the Family Court.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 671 A.2d 794, 795
citation_a.parenthetical: "[o]ne of our most settled doctrines in this jurisdiction is that a matter not raised before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal"
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Chase v. Bouchard, 671 A.2d 794, 795 (R.I.1996) (“[o]ne of our most settled doctrines in this jurisdiction is that a matter not raised before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal”). In any event these reports do not present either factual findings or legal rulings that could be judicially noticed.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 552 A.2d 368, 370
citation_b.parenthetical: "[t]he general rule that allows a court to take judicial notice of its own records may not be expanded to allow the court to take judicial notice of every document, paper, or report that at some time has been placed in a court file"
citation_b.sentence: See In re McKayla C., 618 A.2d 1264, 1265 (R.I. 1998); see also In re Michael A., 552 A.2d 368, 370 (R.I.1989) (“[t]he general rule that allows a court to take judicial notice of its own records may not be expanded to allow the court to take judicial notice of every document, paper, or report that at some time has been placed in a court file”).