This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 DEANNA VILLANUEVA, 7 Petitioner-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 31,153 9 ALEJANDRO VILLANUEVA , 10 Respondent-Appellee, 11

v. 12 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel., 13 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, 14 Intervenor-Appellant. 15 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY 16 Henry R. Quintero, District Judge 17 Deanna Villanueva 18 Silver City, NM 19 Pro Se Appellee 20 Alejandro Villanueva 21 Las Cruces, NM 22 Pro Se Appellee 23 Human Services Department 242 Child Support Enforcement Division 1 Mary Elizabeth Price, Special Assistant Attorney General 2 for Appellant 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION 4 VANZI, Judge. 5 The Human Services Department (HSD) is appealing from a district court 6 arrears judgment awarding both Petitioner D eanna Villanueva and HSD back child 7 support. We issued a calendar notice propos ing to affirm. HSD has filed a timely 8 memorandum in opposition. [Ct. App. File at blue clip] Fatherhas filed a pro se 9 memorandum in support of our calendar notice. We affirm. 10 The district court determined thatRespondent Alejandro Villanueva was in 11 child support arrears and must reimburse HSD in an amount that reflected public 12 assistance benefits paid to Petitioner. [RP 238-39] The district court also terminated 13 Respondent’s obligation to pay additional childsupport. [RP 239] In this appeal, 14 HSD is challenging the terminati on of the support obligation. SeeNMSA 1978, § 27- 15 2-27(A) (2004). In its order on HSD’s motion for new trial, the district court found 16 that Petitioner had moved to Arizona in early 2011, and that under the circumstances, 17 HSD’s proper response would be to termin ate any further public assistance benefits 18 to Petitioner. [RP 250-51] Given the court’s factual findings, which were, in effect, 19 a determination of non-resi dency, Petitioner would no longer be entitled to public 203 assistance. SeeNMSA 1978, § 27-2-4(F) (1975) (stating that recipient must be a 1 resident of New Mexico). Accordingly, our calendar notice proposed to affirm the 2 court’s ruling that HSD would no longer be able to enforce child support under 3 Section 27-2-27(A). 4 In its memorandum in opposition, HSD c ontinues to make factual assertions 5 with respect to Petitioner’s eligibility for pub lic assistance and payments that had been 6 paid out subsequent to the court’s ruling. HSD correctly sets forth its legal authority 7 to pursue reimbursement for public assistance payments. We do not deem it necessary 8 to resolve the issue of additional public a ssistance benefits that may have been made 9 and may permit reimbursement here. As westated in our calendar notice, HSD may 10 use these payments as a basis for seeking reimbursement in a separate action. To the 11 extent that the district court terminated Respondent’s child support obligation, we 12 believe that this was directed to specific circumstances that existed at that time and 13 would not prevent HSD from using its legal authority to seek reimbursement in a 14 separate action. In short, we do not believe that the order appealed from prevents 15 HSD from responding to events as they play out . It is better procedurally to create an 16 evidentiary record in a separate proceeding than to play out this independent action 17 for each change in circumstances. 18 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 194 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

__________________________________ 2 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

_________________________________ 5 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 6

_________________________________ 7 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 8