This decision was not selected for publication inthe New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-g enerated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court. 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 D. Walker, District Judge 8 Enlace Comunitario 9 Antoinette Sedillo-Lopez 10 Delilah Tenorio 11 Linda K. Wilson 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellant 14 Roman A. Paulino 15 Gastonia, NC 16 Pro se Appellee 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 BOHNHOFF, Judge. 192 {1} The opinion filed in this case on June 30, 2015, is withdrawn and this opinion 1 is substituted in its place. This is a childcustody dispute that crosses state lines. 2 Petitioner Geraldine Perea (Mother) filed her petition with a New Mexico court 3 seeking custody of her two young sons. Responde nt Roman Paulino (Father) filed his 4 petition with a North Carolina court two week s later, seeking an award of custody in 5 his favor. Following an evidentiary hearing that the two courts conducted jointly, both 6 courts determined that the North Caro lina court had jurisdiction over the custody 7 issue, and the New Mexico court entere d a final order concluding that it lacked 8 jurisdiction. Mother appeals, arguing generally th at because she alleged that Father 9 had physically abused her, the New Mexico court should have exercised at least 10 temporary emergency jurisdicti on. We disagree and affirm. 11 The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act 12
{2} New Mexico has adopted the Unif orm Child-Custody Jurisdiction and 13 Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), NMSA 1978, §§ 40-10A-101 to -403 (2001). The 14 UCCJEA establishes rules by which state courts can resolve competing claims by 15 parents, and other persons acting as parents, for custody of children when the 16 parents/other persons assert their claims in different states. The seminal provision of 17 New Mexico’s codification of the UCCJEAis Section 40-10A-201(a) that states: 18 Except as otherwise provided in Section 204, a court of this state has 19 jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if . . . 201 The remaining provisions of Section 40-10A -201(a) address other circumstances under 18 which a state’s courts can obtain initial custody jurisdiction (none of which are material to resolution 19 of the case at bar). However, Section 40-10A-201(a)(1) controls if its predicates are met. 20 3 this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement 1 of the proceeding, or was the home st ate of the child within six months 2 before the commencement of the pro ceeding and the child is absent from 3 this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this 4 state[.] 5 Section 40-10A-201(a)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the key initial determinant of 6 jurisdiction is ordinarily 1 the child’s home state as of the date of the commencement 7 of the child custody proceeding or during the six months previous to that date. 8
{3} Two provisions of the UCCJEA authori ze the court of a state with initial 9 custody jurisdiction to transfer jurisdiction toanother state’s court. First, pursuant to 10 Section 40-10A-207(a), a court “which has jurisdiction under the [UCCJEA] . . . may 11 decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient 12 forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate 13 forum.” Section 40-10A-207(b) identifies ei ght non-exclusive factors that the court 14 shall consider in making an inconvenient forum decision, including “whether domestic 15 violence has occurred and is likely to continuein the future and which state could best 16 protect the parties and the child[.]” Sec ond, Section 40-10A-208(a) provides that a 17 court of the state with initial custody jurisdiction generally shall decline to exercise 184 such jurisdiction where “a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in 1 unjustifiable conduct[.]” 2
{4} Section 40-10A-204(a) authorizes a court that does not have initial custody 3 jurisdiction to exercise “temporary emergency jurisdiction.” 4 A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is 5 present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary 6 in an emergency to protect the childbecause the child, or a sibling or 7 parent of the child, is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or 8 abuse. 9 Id. Thus, the fundamental (and logical) prec ondition for the exercise of temporary 10 emergency jurisdiction is the presence of th e child in the state in which the court is 11 located. 12
{5} Section 40-10A-206 addresses what s hould happen if child custody petitions 13 are filed concurrently in tw o different states. Section 40- 10A-206(a) prohibits a court 14 from exercising initial custody jurisdiction if, at the time the petition is filed with that 15 court, “a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a 16 court of another state havi ng jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the 17 [UCCJEA.]” Id. While at first blush this provision would suggest that the first-filed 18 case has jurisdiction, that is the case onl y if it has jurisdicti on under the UCCJEA. In 19 other words, both courts must, as a thre shold matter, ascertain whether they have 20 jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Further, S ection 40-10A-206(b) provides as follows: 215 Except as otherwise provided in Section 204 [temporary emergency 1 jurisdiction], a court of this state, before hearing a child-custody 2 proceeding, shall examine the court documents and other information 3 supplied by the parties pursuant to Section 209 [concerning other 4 custody proceedings in which the parties are involved, or of which they 5 are aware]. If the court determines that a child-custody proceeding has 6 been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction 7 substantially in accordance with the [UCCJEA], the court of this state 8 shall stay its proceeding and communi cate with the court of the other 9 state. If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in 10 accordance with the [UCCJEA] does not determine that the court of this 11 state is a more appropriateforum, the court of this state shall dismiss the 12 proceeding. 13 This provision effectively encourages both c ourts to act jointly to determine which 14 one has initial custody jurisdiction. 15 BACKGROUND 16
{6} Mother filed her custody petition in New Mexico on July 7, 2014. Father filed 17 his complaint for child custody and child support in North Carolina on July 18, 2014. 18 Both states have adopted the UCCJEA. See N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 50A-101 to -349 19 (West. 1999, as amended through 2007). On August 15, 2014, consistent with Section 20 40-10A-206(b), the two courts held a join t hearing via a video-conference link to 21 determine whether New Mexico or No rth Carolina had jurisdiction under the 22 UCCJEA to hear the dispute. Both Moth er (present in New Mexico) and Father 23 (present in North Carolina) testified, about their physical presence and their children’s 24 physical presence over time in the two states and also, at leas t to some extent, 256 Mother’s allegations thatFather had physically abused her in the past. In a 1 jurisdictional order entered on December 5, 2014, by the New Mexico court, and 2 entered nunc pro tunc by the North Carolina court as of August 15, 2014, the two 3 courts agreed and determined that North Carolina had initial custody jurisdiction 4 under the UCCJEA. 5
{7} In the December 5, 2014 jurisdictional order, the New Mexico court made the 6 following findings: 7 1. That the Father is a citizen and resident of Gaston County, North 8 Carolina, and has been for more than six (6) months immediately 9 preceding the commencement of this action. 10 2. That the Mother is a citizen and resident of New Mexico. Mother 11 last resided in Gaston County, North Carolina on or about June 26, 2014, 12 prior to moving back to New Mexico. 13 3. That . . . Father and Mother were never married, however, are the 14 natural biological parents of two (2) children, to wit: [JP] . . . and [EP.] 15 4. The minor child, [JP], was born in New Mexico. The minor child, 16 [EP], was born in North Carolina. 17 5. The children have extended familyin both New Mexico and North 18 Carolina. 19 6. The parties resided in New Me xico with [JP] until December 11, 20 2011. That on or about December 11, 2011, the parties moved to North 21 Carolina. 22 7. The parties resided in North Carolina at 5132 Hoover Drive, 23 Charlotte, North Carolina until December 23, 2013. 247 8. The parties moved to 3126 Fraley Church Road, Gastonia, North 1 Carolina on December 23, 2013. Father and the children have resided at 2 this address, except for temporary vi sits by the children to New Mexico, 3 until the present. 4 9. After the parties moved to No rth Carolina, Mother and the 5 children would return to New Me xico to visit with her family 6 approximately two times per year. 7 10. The minor children’s doctors are in North Carolina. [JP] and/or 8 [EP] were seen at the doctor for medical and dental concerns routinely 9 from February 7, 2012 until the present. There were at least 21 visits of 10 record during that time. The children have not seen any medical 11 providers in New Mexico since moving to North Carolina. 12 11. The parties have maintained a constant home with furnishings, 13 furniture, toys for the children, and supplies in North Carolina since 14 December 11, 2011. 15 12. Mother left North Carolina with the children on February 1, 2014. 16 It was Father’s belief that Mother would return to North Carolina with 17 the children in March, 2014. Father purchased return airline tickets for 18 the children and Mother to returnto North Carolina on March 24, 2014. 19 Mother did not return to North Carolina with the children in March. 20 Mother indicated to the Court thatshe intended to remain in New 21 Mexico permanently with the children. 22 13. Mother did not purchase furniture or furnishings for the children 23 while in New Mexico until her return on February 1, 2014. For any of 24 the prior return visits, Mother did not bring anything for the children 25 other than clothing. 26 14. Father went to New Mexico on May 17, 2014, and the parties and 27 the children returned to North Carolina on June 2, 2014. 28 15. On June 26, 2014, Mother returned to New Mexico without the 29 children, who remained with Father in North Carolina. Father purchased 30 a return ticket for Mother to return to North Carolina on July 7, 2014. 318 Mother did not return to North Carolina and has remained in New 1 Mexico without the children. 2

. . . . 3 22. North Carolina is the home state of the minor children. 4 Mother does not challenge any of these fi ndings, and as a result we accept them for 5 purposes of the appeal. See Seipert v. Johnson , 2003-NMCA-119, ¶ 26, 134 N.M. 394, 6 77 P.3d 298 (“An unchallenged finding of th e trial court is binding on appeal.”). 7 These findings make clear that the children had resided primarily in North Carolina 8 between December 2011 and mid-2014, their home state was North Carolina, and they 9 were present in North Carolina on July 7, 2014, when Mother filed her custody 10 petition in New Mexico. 11
{8} This appeal followed. We now decide th e issues raised in Mother’s March 21, 12 2016 brief in chief: (1) whether the New Me xico court erred when it failed to sua 13 sponte apply the temporary emergency jurisdiction exception to its home state 14 jurisdictional analysis after hearing tes timony from Mother regarding her allegations 15 of domestic violence, (2) whether the Ne w Mexico court erred when it failed to 16 conduct a full evidentiary hearing regardi ng Mother’s domestic violence allegations, 17 and (3) whether public policy requires th e consideration of domestic violence 18 evidence in all child-custody jurisdiction proceedings. 199 {9} Contrary to Rule 12-213(A)(3) NMRA (2010, recompiled and amended as Rule 1 12-318 NMRA, effective Dec. 31, 2016). Motherhas not provided any citations to the 2 record proper or transcript of proceedings in her brief to support her statements about 3 what transpired during the proceedings belo w and what evidence was presented at the 4 August 15, 2014 hearing. Where a party fails to cite any porti on of the record to 5 support his or her contentions, this Court need not consider the party’s argument. 6 Santa Fe Expl. Co. v. N. M. Oil Conservation Comm’n , 1992-NMSC-044, ¶ 11, 114 7 N.M. 103, 835 P.2d 819. Notwithstanding this failure, we have carefully reviewed the 8 record proper and the recording of the August 15, 2014 hearing, and we resolve 9 Mother’s appeal on its merits. 10 ANALYSIS 11 I. Standard of Review 12
{10} “Whether the district court is possesse d of jurisdiction over the subject matter 13 of a case is a question of law that we review de novo.” Ottino v. Ottino , 2001-NMCA14 012, ¶ 6, 130 N.M. 168, 21 P.3d 37. “Statutory interpretation is an issue of law, which 15 we review de novo.” N.M. Indus. Energy Consumers v. N.M Pub. Regulation Comm’n , 16 2007-NMSC-053, ¶ 19, 142 N.M. 533, 168 P.3d 105. 17 II. The Children’s Home State Was North Carolina as of, and During the Six 18 Months Preceding July 7, 2014, the Date Mother Filed Her Petition; 19 Therefore, the North Carolina Court Had Initial Custody Jurisdiction 2010 {11} Section 40-10A-201(a)(1) unambiguously ve sts jurisdiction to decide custody 1 questions in the court of the state that is the child’s home state on the date on which 2 the custody proceeding is commenced, or with in six months of that date. Section 40- 3 10A-102(7) defines “home state” as “the state in which a child liv ed with a parent or 4 a person acting as a parent for at least si x consecutive months immediately before the 5 commencement of a child-custody proceedi ng.” The New Mexico and North Carolina 6 courts jointly found not only that North Carolina was the home state of Mother’s two 7 sons, but also specific facts that support th at general determination. Mother does not 8 challenge those findings, and therefore they are conclusive on appeal. See Seipert , 9 2003-NMCA-119, ¶ 26. 10 III. Mother’s Children Were Not Present in New Mexico on and After 11 July 7, 2014; Therefore, the New Mexico Court Lacked Temporary 12 Emergency Jurisdiction Under the UCCJEA 13
{12} Section 40-10A-204(a), quoted above, is properly construed to require: (1) the 14 child’s presence in the forum state, and (2 ) either (a) the child has been abandoned, 15 or (b) the child, or a sibling or parent of th e child, is being or at risk of being abused. 16 Indeed, there is no logical rationale for a court to exercise emergency 17 jurisdiction—regardless of the presence of other justifying circumstances—unless the 18 child is in the forum state. Mother cites to In re Marriage of Fernandez-Abin , 120 Cal. 19 Rptr. 3d 227 (Ct. App. 2011), and Saavedra v. Schmidt , 96 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. App. 2011 2002), but neither case is to the contrary. Under their respective state’s UCCJEA, both 1 courts condition temporary emergency jurisdiction on the child’s presence in the state. 2 See Fernandez-Abin , 120 Cal. Rptr. at 247; Saavedra , 96 S.W.3d at 544. 3
{13} We cannot logically construe Section 40- 10A-204(a) to read that a New Mexico 4 court may exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child has been abandoned 5 or if it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child (or a sibling or parent) 6 regardless of whether the child is present in New Mexico. Mother’s reading of the 7 statute would allow a parent to go to any state that has adopted the UCCJEA and ask 8 that state to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction, even if the child is not present 9 in that state. We will not give Sec tion 40-10A-204(a) such an implausible 10 construction. 11
{14} It is undisputed that Mother’s children were present in North Carolina on July 12 7, 2014, the day she filed her custody petition, and thereafter. The children were last 13 in New Mexico on June 2, 2014. Therefore, the New Mexico court did not possess 14 temporary emergency jurisdiction and lackedauthority to act pursuant to Section 40- 15 10A-204(a). 16 IV. Mother’s Argument That the New Mexico Court Erred in Failing to Sua 17 Sponte Consider Exercising TemporaryEmergency Jurisdiction Is Not 18 Persuasive and in Any Event Is Moot 1912 {15} During the New Mexico court proceedings, Mother failed to assert and urge the 1 New Mexico court to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction under Section 40- 2 10A-204. She argues, however, that the New Mexico court should have noted the 3 provision on its own and exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction, given that she 4 was alleging that Father had abused her. Mother base s her argument on the language 5 of Section 40-10A-201(a)(1), which again states in part, “Except as otherwise 6 provided in Section 204, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial 7 child-custody determination only if . . . this state is the home state of the child on the 8 date of the commencement of the proceed ing, or was the home state of the child 9 within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent 10 from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this 11 state[.]” Id. Mother contends that “[S]ec tion 201’s beginning language is an 12 instruction to any court presented with a jurisdictional issue in a custody case to 13 always begin with a determination of whether a court’ s exercise of temporary 14 jurisdiction is proper under the circumstances.” 15
{16} Mother’s argument is strained. One cannotinfer legislative special direction to 16 sua sponte consider Section 40-10A-204’ s temporary emergency jurisdiction 17 exception from the mere fact that the exception is noted in Section 40-10A-201(a)(1). 18 More fundamentally, it is moot. Even a ssuming Mother herself had urged the New 1913 Mexico court that it should exercise tem porary emergency jurisdiction under Section 1 40-10A-204(a), or alternatively the court had raised the question itself, because 2 Mother’s children were not present in New Mexico at any time on or after the July 7, 3 2014, when Mother filed her petition, tem porary emergency jurisdiction was lacking 4 in any event. We do not disagree with Mother that multiple provisions of the 5 UCCJEA, including Section 40-10A-204, provide protection for victims of domestic 6 violence. However, the basic statutory requirement remains that the children that are 7 the subject of the custody proceeding have to be present in the state seeking to 8 exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction. 9 V. The New Mexico Court Was Not Re quired to Conduct a Full Evidentiary 10 Hearing on Mother’s Allegations of Abuse 11
{17} Mother also argues that as soon as the New Mexico court “was alerted to the 12 allegations of abuse[,] . . . [it] had a duty to conduct a full evidentiary hearing 13 regarding the issue of abuse . . . to fi rst consider whether temporary emergency 14 jurisdiction [was] proper[.]” As previouslynoted, there is no ev idence in the record 15 that Mother asked the New Mexico court to consider exercising temporary emergency 16 jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, so Mother eff ectively is arguing that after raising the 17 issue sua sponte, the New Mexico court should have conducted a “full” evidentiary 18 hearing to determine whether abuse had occurred before or at l east at the same time 19 as the court was determining whether it possessed temporary emergency jurisdiction. 2014 Mother is putting the cart before the hor se. Before the New Mexico court took any 1 action to address—on an emergency basi s—Father’s allege d physical abuse of 2 Mother, the court had to establish that Motherwas able to satisfy the prerequisite that 3 the children were present in the state. At the August 15, 2014 hearing, the court 4 therefore properly focused on the predicate requirements for such jurisdiction, 5 including the threshold requirements that Ne w Mexico had to be the children’s home 6 state or alternatively, the children had to be present in New Mexico. Once it was clear 7 that these preconditions were not met, the New Mexico court not only properly 8 declined, but was required to decline, to exercise jurisdiction, including temporary 9 emergency jurisdiction. 10 VI. Public Policy 11
{18} Mother also argues that public policy calls for the consideration of domestic 12 violence evidence in all child-custody jurisdiction proceedings. Under the 13 circumstances of this case, the New Mexico court had neither initial custody 14 jurisdiction nor temporary emergency jurisdiction. Once that jurisdiction 15 determination had been reached—based on th e findings that the children’s home state 16 was North Carolina and they were not present in New Mexico—the New Mexico 17 court did not have further authority to act, whether on the basis of public policy 18 concerns or otherwise. 1915 {19} We emphasize, however, that the issue is not whether concerns about domestic 1 violence are to be considered and addressed, but rather how they are to be addressed, 2 and in particular in what forum. The UCCJEA’s temporary emergency jurisdiction 3 (Section 40-10A-204), inconvenient forum (Section 40-10A-207), and unjustifiable 4 conduct (Section 40-10A-208) sections all contemplate addressing domestic violence 5 allegations. However, the UCCJEA necessarily must address those and other concerns 6 only within a structure that balances and accommodates sister states’ sometimes 7 competing jurisdictional interests. The U CCJEA resolves those interests by providing 8 that the concerns may be addressed only by the state court that has initial jurisdiction, 9 which in this case was the North Carolina court. Mother could have sought to have 10 evidence of her domestic violence allegations considered by the children’s home state 11 of North Carolina when that state adjudi cated the child custody proceeding. Indeed, 12 conclusion of law, paragraph five in the December 5, 2014 jurisdictional order invited 13 her to do this: “Now that North Carolina ha s been determined tobe the home state of 14 the minor children, . . . Mother, may file motions pursuant to [N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. 15 Section 50A-207 and/or Section 50A-208], inorder for North Carolina to determine 16 whether North Carolina is an inconvenien t forum and/or whether North Carolina 17 should decline jurisdiction by reason of conduc t.” We reject Mother’s argument to the 1816 extent that she is suggesting that public policy considerations about domestic violence 1 should override statutory requirements for the exercise of jurisdiction. 2 CONCLUSION 3
{20} The New Mexico court did not have in itial custody jurisdiction or temporary 4 emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA toconsider Mother’s custody petition. The 5 court did not err when it did not consider sua sponte whether to exercise temporary 6 emergency jurisdiction over Mother’s petiti on. The court did not err when it did not 7 conduct a full evidentiary hearing regardi ng Mother’s domestic violence allegations. 8 Public policy does not require New Mexico courts to consider domestic violence 9 evidence in all child-custody jurisdiction proceedings. We affirm the New Mexico 10 court’s dismissal of Mother’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. 11
{21} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

______________________________ 13 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 14

WE CONCUR: 15

___________________________________ 16 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 1717 ___________________________________ 1 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 2