This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 DENAE TURLEY, and EDITH 2 TURLEY and KARL TURLEY, 3 Petitioners-Appellees, 4

v. No. 35,846 5 TYRONE WHETTEN, 6 Respondent-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HIDALGO COUNTY 8 J.C. Robinson, District Judge 9 Lopez, Dietzel & Perkins, P.C. 10 Cathryn L. Wallace 11 Silver City, NM 12 for Appellees 13 New Mexico Legal Aid, Inc. 14 Kate M. Merwald 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 ZAMORA, Judge. 192 {1} Defendant Tyrone Whette n (Father) appeals from a district court order 1 awarding joint custody. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Father has 2 responded with a memorandum in opposition. Not persuaded by Father’s arguments, 3 we affirm the district court. 4
{2} Father continues to challenge the evidence to support the district court’s 5 custody determination. We will overturn the district court’s custody decision only for 6 abuse of discretion, and wewill uphold the court’s findings if they are supported by 7 substantial evidence; an abuse of discreti on occurs when a ruling is clearly contrary 8 to the logical conclusions demanded by th e facts and circumstances of the case. See 9 Grant v. Cumiford , 2005-NMCA-058, ¶ 13, 137 N.M. 485, 112 P.3d 1142. 10
{3} Here, Father and Mother have two ch ildren together: J.W., born in October 11 2013 and E.T., born in June 2015. [RP 132] While Mother was still pregnant with 12 E.T., she and her parents filed a petiti on for custody, support, and grandparent 13 visitation. [RP 1] The district court awarded Father and Mother joint legal custody of 14 the children, gave Mother primary physical custody of E.T., and gave Father primary 15 physical custody of J.W. [135] 16
{4} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition continues to claim that the district 17 court failed to properly consider the f actors in NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-9 (1977) 18 (setting out standards for the determin ation of child custody), and NMSA 1978, 193 Section 40-4-9.1(B) (1999) (setting out fact ors to consider with respect to joint 1 custody). We disagree. A review of the district court’s findings and conclusions [RP 2 132], as well as its order denying the motion to amend [RP 166], indicate that the 3 district court gave due cons ideration to these factors, and applied them to the unique 4 circumstances of this case. See Crutchfield v. N.M. Dep’t of Taxation & Revenue , 5 2005-NMCA-022, ¶ 28, 137 N.M. 26, 106 P.3d 1273 (stating that we liberally 6 construe the trial court’s findings to support the judgment). 7
{5} The district court took judicial notice of Mother’s criminal case, and noted that 8 Mother had been participating in counseling as a result. [RP 132-33] The district court 9 found that there is no credibleevidence that either parent is unable to or unwilling to 10 care for the children. [RP 134] With resp ect to protecting Father from any future 11 abuse, the district court ordered that all communications between the parties be in 12 writing, that Mother continue with he r counseling and treatment, and that all 13 exchanges of the children take place at the KISS facility. [RP 168-69, ¶¶ 14-15] The 14 district court was free to reject the GAL’s recommendation [referen ced at RP 97] that 15 Father should have primary physicalcustody of both of the children. See Kimbrell v. 16 Kimbrell , 2014-NMSC-027, ¶ 12, 331 P.3d 915 (stati ng that the district court is not 17 bound by the recommendations of the GAL). The district court also found that both 18 parents receive substantial support from thei r respective families. [RP 133] It is clear 194 from the court’s findings that the district court believed that Mother’s prior criminal 1 conduct would not prevent her from being ableto properly parent her children. [RP 2 133; 169-70] See § 40-4-9.1(B)(9) (requiring a fi nding that the custody order 3 adequately protects child or other parent where there has been domestic violence). 4
{6} With respect to Father’s claim that it was wrong to separate E.T. from her 5 brother and half-siblings, the district court’ s order will have E.T. with her brother on 6 each weekend, and she will also be with her half-siblings every other weekend. [RP 7 135] The district court specifically emphasized that its order did not permanently 8 separate the children. [RP 163] In sum, a reading of the findings as a whole indicate 9 that the district court considered the appli cable statutory factors, and the findings are 10 supported by substantial evidence. 11
{7} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 12
{8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

14 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

17 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 18

195 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 1