May 31, 2019- Adrienne Romero v. Jon Carver, No. A-1-CA-37215

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 ADRIENNE ROMERO,
3 	Petitioner-Appellant,
4 V. 	NO. A-1-CA-37215
5 JON CARVER,
6 	Respondent-Appellee.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
8 Matthew J. Wilson, District Judge
9 	Law Office of Augustine M. Rodriguez, L.L.C.
10 Augustine M. Rodriguez
11 	Albuquerque, NM
12 	for Appellant
13 	Denise E. Ready
14 	Albuquerque, NM
15 	for Appellee
16
17 	VARGAS, Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 	{t} 	Petitioner appeals from the district court's order adopting priority consultations
19 as a court order. In this Court's notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to
20 	summarily affirm. Petitioner filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly
21 	considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/31/2019 9:06 AM

1 {2} 	In her memorandum in opposition, Petitioner continues to argue that the district
2 court should have enforced a priority consultation order requiring Respondent to
3 participate and erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing after both parties
4 objected to the priority consultation recommendations, not appointing a guardian ad
5 litem for her child, and not appointing an expert to discuss her alienation claim.
6 Although Petitioner includes additional facts in her memorandum in opposition, and
7 reference to analogous case law, she has failed to persuade this Court that the district
8 court erred in its order or, consequently, that our proposed summary disposition was
9 incorrect. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, 124, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d
10 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden
11 	is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or
12 	law."); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, 110, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003
13 	( stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and
14 	specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments
15 	does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated
16 	in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, 13,297 P.3d 374.
17 	{3} 	Moreover, upon further review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that
18 	the district court did not abuse its discretion and, instead, prioritized the best interests
19 	of the child. See Lopez v. Lopez, 1981-NMSC-138, 113, 97 N.M. 332,639 P.2d 1186
2

1 ("Th[ e] statute clearly makes it discretionary with the court as to whether . . .
2 appointment of a guardian ad litem should be made.); Parkhill v. Alderman-Cave
3 	Milling & Grain Co. of N.M, 2010-NMCA-l 10, 116, 149 N.M. 140,245 P.3d 585
4 ("The admission of expert testimony or other scientific evidence is peculiarly within
5 the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be reversed absent a showing
6 	of abuse of that discretion." (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation
7 omitted));seealsoFarmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. &Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100,
8 1 8, 111 N .M. 6, 800 P .2d 1063 (stating that the burden is on the plaintiff to clearly
9 demonstrate that the trial 	court erred); 	cf 	Nat 'l Excess 	Ins. 	Co. 	v. 	Bingham,
10 	1987-NMCA-l 09, 19, 106 N.M. 325, 742 P.2d 537 (reiterating that, in the summary
11 	judgment context, "the court may, but is not required to, hold an oral hearing").
12 	{4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
13 	herein, we affirm.
14 	{5}
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 	WE CONCUR:
3