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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 from 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 GERALDINE PEREA, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3
v. NO. 34,348 4 ROMAN A. PAULINO, 5 Respondent-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Deborah Davis Walker, District Judge 8 Enlace Comunitario 9 Antoinette Sedillo Lopez 10 Delilah Tenorio 11 Julia White 12 Linda K. Wilson 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellant 15
MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 GARCIA, Judge. 17 {1} Petitioner appeals an order of the distri ct court establishing North Carolina as 18 the “home state” of the children involved in this custody proceeding. Our calendar 192 notice proposed to affirm on the basis that the district court correctly applied the 1 Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 40-10A2 101 to -403 (2001) (the “UCCJEA”). Petiti oner has filed a memorandum in opposition 3 to that proposed summary judgment. Having duly considered that memorandum, we 4 now affirm. 5 {2} Petitioner’s memorandum in opposition continue s to argue that the district court 6 should have considered evidence relate d to Sections 40-10A-207 and -208 and 7 improperly deferred to the judgment of th e North Carolina court in which Respondent 8 had filed parallel proceedingswith regard to that issue. [MIO 4-7] Petitioner’s 9 memorandum in opposition does not address the basis of this Court’s proposed 10 disposition, which is that the issues Petitioner would like to raise may be properly 11 determined, under the UCCJEA, only by a court of the children’s home state. [CN 4] 12 Thus, it is not possible to interpret the U CCJEA to require or allow consideration of 13 those issues as part of th e determining which state is the home state of the children 14 involved. 15 {3} When an appeal is assigned to the su mmary calendar, “the burden is on the 16 party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.” 17 Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683. 18 Petitioner’s memorandum in opposition does not point out any factual or legal error 193 in the calendar notice. Petitioner offers no support for the proposition that Sections 1 207 and 208 can be decided by any court outsi de the children’s home state and makes 2 no attempt to explain how matters to be decided by a court of the children’s home 3 state could be addressed before determining which state that is. Instead, Petitioner 4 repeats her assertion that the district c ourt should have considered that evidence 5 because Sections 207 and 208 allow that evidence to be considered. [MIO 4-6] 6 Petitioner’s memorandum in opposition does not address the basis of this Court’s 7 proposed disposition and we are unpersuaded that the notice contains error. 8 {4} Consequently, for the reasons statedin this Court’s notice of proposed 9 disposition, we affirm the district court’ s order determining that the children’s home 10 state is North Carolina. 11 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

_________ ___________ ____________ 13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 14
WE CONCUR: 15

_______________________________ 16 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 17

_______________________________ 184 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 1