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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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 IN THE MATTER OF THE 7 KINSHIP GUARDIANSHIP OF 8 ALLISON SCOTT G., a Child. 9 KELLY LEHMAN, 10 Respondent-Appellant, 11

v. NO. 30,325 12 VIRGINIA LEHMAN, 13 Petitioner-Appellee. 14 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 15 John W. Pope, District Judge 16 Gregory Gahan 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 for Appellant 19 Norman McDonald 20 Belen, NM 21 for Appellee 22 Lori Bauer Apodaca 23 Los Lunas, NM 24 Guardian Ad Litem 25 MEMORANDUM OPINION 262 KENNEDY, Judge. 1 Respondent appeals the appointment of Petitioner as guardian for Child. We 2 issued a calendar notice proposing to affi rm and we have received a memorandum in 3 opposition and a motion to amend the doc keting statement from Respondent. We 4 have carefully considered Respondent’s arguments, but we are not persuaded by them. 5 We therefore affirm. 6 Respondent seeks to amend her docketing st atement to include claims that the 7 district court used the wrong standard when making its decision, the district court 8 erroneously relied on “psychol ogical parenting” when making its decision, and the 9 district court relied on incompetent eviden ce from the GAL. In cases assigned to the 10 summary calendar, this Court will grant a motion to amend the docketing statement 11 to include additional issues if the motion (1) is timely, (2) states all facts material to 12 a consideration of the new issues sought to be raised, (3) explains how the issues were 13 properly preserved or why they may be raised for the first time on appeal, (4) 14 demonstrates just cause by explaining why the issues were not originally raised in the 15 docketing statement, and (5) complies in other respects with the appellate rules. State 16 v. Rael , 100 N.M. 193, 197, 668 P.2d 309, 313 (C t. App. 1983). We will deny 17 motions to amend that raise issues that are not viable, even if they allege fundamental 18 or jurisdictional error. State v. Moore , 109 N.M. 119, 129, 782 P. 2d 91, 101 (Ct. App. 193 1989), superceded by rule on other groundsas recognized in State v. Salgado , 112 1 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730 (Ct. App. 1991). 2 With respect to the issues that Respondent seeks to add to her docketing 3 statement, she has failed to comply witha number of requirements discussed in Rael

. 4 For example, Respondent does not explain howthe issues were preserved below or 5 why the issues were not included in the docketing statement, and Respondent provides 6 no information regarding her claim that the evidence from the GAL was incompetent. 7 In addition, the issues sought to be raisedby Respondent are not viable. As discussed 8 in our calendar notice, the evidence presente d to the district court was sufficient to 9 show that denial of the petition would lead to a substantial likelihood of serious 10 detriment to Child, which was the applicable standard in this case. For these reasons, 11 we deny Respondent’s motion to amend her docketing statement. 12 Respondent suggests that expert testimony was required in this case “to the 13 extent Appellee and the trial court relie d on psychological harm and the probability 14 of psychological harm” in making its decisi on. However, there is nothing in the 15 district court decision to indicate that the di strict court relied on, or even considered, 16 psychological harm in making the decision toappoint Petitioner as guardian for Child. 17 Therefore, expert testimony was not required in this case. 18 For the reasons discussed in this opini on and in our calendar notice, we affirm 194 the decision of the district court. 1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

___________________________________ 3 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 4 WE CONCUR : 5

___________________________ 6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 7

___________________________ 8 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 9