This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 MAIDA MARIE WARD, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3 v. No. 33,888 4 TIMOTHY BERNARD HARVEY, JR. 5 Respondent-Appellee. 6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Alisa Ann Hadfield, District Judge 8
Maida Marie Ward 9 Albuquerque, NM 10 Pro Se Petitioner-Appellant 11 Timothy Bernard Harvey, Jr. 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 Pro Se Respondent-Appellee 14
MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 162 {1} Petitioner appeals, pro se, from a distri ct court order reducing her supervised 1 visitation of her children from three hours a week to one hour. We issued a calendar 2 notice proposing to affirm. Petitioner has responded with a memorandum in 3 opposition. [Ct. App. file at red clip] On May 12, Petitioner filed an emergency 4 motion to remand to the district court to permit it to address ne w allegations relating 5 to the custody dispute. [Motion is top doc in file] In light of our disposition on the 6 current appeal, we deny the motion as moot, although we note that any new 7 allegations relating to custody may be raised in the district court at any time. See 8 NMSA 1978, § 40-10A-202 (2001). We affirm the current appeal. 9 {2} Petitioner continues to challenge anorder modifying child custody. With 10 respect to the change in custody, “[a] court may modify a custody order only upon a 11 showing of a substantial changein circumstances since the prior order that affects the 12 best interests of the children.” Thomas v. Thomas , 1999-NMCA-135, ¶ 10, 128 N.M. 13 177, 991 P.2d 7. We review the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. See 14 id . (“We will overturn the [district] c ourt’s custody decision only for abuse of 15 discretion, and we will uphol d the court’s findings if supported by substantial 16 evidence.”); Clayton v. Trotter, 1990-NMCA-078, ¶ 5, 110 N.M. 369, 796 P.2d 262 17 (“In matters of custody, the trial courts have wide discretion; we will overturn an 18 award only when there has been a manifest abuse of discretion.”). 193 {3} Here, the district court found that Petiti oner behaved inappropriately during the 1 supervised visits, including inflammatory statements about Respondent. [RP 381, ¶ 2 15] Based on this, the district court temporarily modified Petitioner’s supervised 3 visitation from three hours to one hour. [RP 381, ¶ 18] In light of Petitioner’s 4 behavior, we conclude the districtcourt acted within its discretion. 5 {4} With respect to alleged bias, “[r]uli ngs adverse to a party do not necessarily 6 evince a personal bias or prejudice on the part of the judge against it, even if the 7 rulings are later found to have been legally incorrect.” United Nuclear Corp. v. Gen. 8 Atomic Co. , 1980-NMSC-094, ¶ 425, 96 N.M. 155, 629 P.2d 231. We also note that 9 a judge’s opinions based on the facts of the proceedings, even if hostile, do not 10 establish bias. See US West Commc’ns, Inc. v. N.M. State Corp. Comm’n , 1999- 11 NMSC-016, ¶ 44, 127 N.M. 254, 980 P.2d 37. Here, Petitioner has not referred us to 12 anything in the record that supports her cl aim that the judge, or the hearing officer, 13 were biased against her. Instead, Petitioner is relying on the fact that the court ruled 14 against her. [MIO 3] As noted above, this is insufficient to support a claim of bias. 15 {5} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 16 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

3 _______________________________________ 18 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 194 WE CONCUR: 1
2 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 3
4 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 5