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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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

ANNE HOLLY WHITE , 7 Petitioner-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,975 9 WYLDER K. BIBBY , 10 Respondent-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Gerard J. Lavelle, District Judge 13 Anne Holly White 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 Pro Se Appellee 16 Wylder K. Bibby 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 Pro Se Appellant 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 VIGIL, Judge. 21 Respondent appeals, pro se, from a district court order denying his motion to 22 modify a pre-existing custody order. We i ssued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. 232 Respondent filed a memorandum in opposition. Respondent then filed a supplement 1 to the memorandum. Petitioner then filed a response to the supplement, and a motion 2 to strike Respondent’s supplement to th e memorandum. We decline to consider 3 Respondent’s supplemental filings because th ey are either duplicative of the record 4 or were not made part of the record be low. As such, we deny Petitioner’s motion as 5 unnecessary. We affirm the district court order. 6 Issue 1 7 Respondent has claimed that the districtcourt erred in refusing to permit 8 Child’s therapist from testifying at the h earing to modify a pre-existing (December 9, 9 2009) order, which continued to give him sole legal and physical custody of Child, 10 with Petitioner (Mother) and Grandparent visitation. [RP 790-91, 809] Respondent’s 11 motion had sought to terminate all visitation based on the alle ged conduct of Mother 12 and Grandparents. [RP 793] The record i ndicates that the parties had a long history 13 of back-and-forth accusations. Notwithstanding Respondent’s memorandum, which 14 largely refers us to the importance of pare ntal rights generally, we believe that the 15 district court could, withinits discretion, limit the hearing to a consideration of 16 Respondent’s credibility as to his accusations , and could defer to the court-appointed 17 expert, Dr. Roll, for oversight of Child’s behavioral status. In any event, there is no 18 tendered testimony in the record , and we conclude that it is speculative that additional 19 therapist testimony would have establishe d a material and substantive change in 203 circumstances. See In re Ernesto M., Jr. , 1996-NMCA-039, ¶ 10, 121 N.M. 562, 915 1 P.2d 318 (“An assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice.”); see also 2 Campos Enters., Inc. v. Williams & Co. , 1998-NMCA-131, ¶ 12, 125 N.M. 691, 964 3 P.2d 855 (noting that an appellate court re views only matters that were presented to 4 the trial court). 5 Issue 2 6 Respondent has also challenged the denial of his motion on the merits. As 7 noted, the district court was familiar with th e long history of bad relations between the 8 parties. We believe that Respondent’s motion largely came down to an issue of 9 credibility, with the district court, sitting as fact finder, deciding that the ongoing 10 hostility was not a change in circumstances, but instead demanded an order instructing 11 the parties to stop the bad-mouthing. This is the precise language used by the district 12 court in its order. [RP 809] As such, we de fer to the court’s determination that this 13 was not a change in circumstances, but instead an opportunity to reign in the parties. 14 Issue 3 15 Respondent claims that he has been deni ed due process. Defendant’s examples 16 go back to 2006, and he was re quired to raise any challenge s as those matters related 17 to the various appealable orders that en sued. We only concern ourselves with the 18 process as it relates to his current moti on to modify. Because we believe that our 194 analysis of his first two issues indicate thathe was not denied due process with respect 1 to his motion, we do not believe that this claim has merit. 25 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

_________________________ 3 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 4 WE CONCUR: 5

_________________________________ 6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 7

_________________________________ 8 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 9