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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 TOMAS MARTINEZ, 2 Petitioner-Appellee, 3 vs. No. 34,740 4 KATHRYN OVERTON, 5 Respondent-Appellant

. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Deborah D. Walker, District Judge 8 Tomas Martinez 9 Albuquerque, NM 10 Pro Se Appellee 11 Sutin, Thayer & Browne 12 Timothy J. Atler 13 for Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 HANISEE, Judge. 16 {1} Respondent-Appellant Kathryn Overton (Mother) appeals a memorandum order 17 adopting a hearing officer’s report awardi ng sole legal and physical custody of Child 182 to Petitioner-Appellee Tomas Martinez (Father). [RP 280] This Court issued a notice 1 of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Mother has filed a 2 memorandum in opposition, along with a mo tion to amend the docketing statement, 3 which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we deny Mo ther’s motion to amend the 4 docketing statement and affirm the district court’s permanent custody order. 5 {2} Our notice detailed the findi ngs set forth in the hearing officer’s report and 6 proposed to conclude that substantial evidence supported the district court’s custody 7 decision. [CN 8] The memorandum in oppos ition asserts that Mother continues to 8 dispute these findings, but does not provide any additional factual or legal argument 9 in support of that contention. [MIO 10] Instead, the memorandum in opposition 10 “focus[es] the Court’s attention on the [asserted] illegality of the initial, temporary 11 reversal of custody in April 2014 that set the stage for the subsequent permanent 12 change in custody.” [MIO 10-11] Mother’s memorandum in opposition seeks to argue 13 that the district court’s temporary order adopting advisory consultation 14 recommendations, issued in response to Father’s emergency motion for the court to 15 reverse custody, [RP 188, 213] was improper because it was issued without the benefit 16 of a hearing and without a finding of material change in circumstances. [MIO 11] 17 Relevant to this, Mother contends that allowing the issuance of a temporary custody 18 order without a hearing or finding of material change in circumstances “means the 193 district court can disregard the law concerning change of custody so long as 1 substantial evidence is later developed to justify the ch ange.” [MIO 11] Because this 2 issue was not articulated in Mother’s docke ting statement, we construe the inclusion 3 of this issue as a motion to amend the doc keting statement. However, for the reasons 4 set out here we deny that motion because th e issue Mother attempts to raise is not 5 viable. See State v. Sommer , 1994-NMCA-070, ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 58, 878 P.2d 1007 6 (denying a motion to amend the docketing statement because the argument sought to 7 be raised was not viable). 8 {3} First, we decline to review Mother’s contention on the basis of mootness. [RP 9 213] See State v. Ordunez , 2012-NMSC-024, ¶ 22, 283 P.3d 282 (“It is not within the 10 province of an appellate court to decide abstract, hypothetical or moot questions in 11 cases wherein no actual relief can be afforded.” (alteration, internal quotation marks 12 and citation omitted)). The language of the temporary custody order provides that 13 “[t]he [c]ourt hereby adopts the provisions of the custody attachment to the [o]rder of 14 [p]rotection as a temporary order in th e above-captioned cause of action. On a 15 temporary basis, Father sh all have sole legal custody and primary physical custody of 16 the parties’ minor child.” [RP 213-14] Th e temporary custody order was initiated by 17 Father’s filing of an emergency moti on [RP 188] asserting that there were 18 circumstances warranting the district court’s consideration. To the extent Mother 194 argues that the circumstances alleged by Father were not in the nature of an 1 emergency motion, [MIO 17] we disagree. Mother failed to comply with a court2 ordered custody arrangement, [RP 188-89] and has not pointed us to any authority 3 suggesting that such disregard for a court order, in the context of child custody, does 4 not constitute an emergency. See Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co. , 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 5 320 P.3d 482 (“Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may 6 assume no such authority exists.”). 7 {4} Nevertheless, and importantly, any provi sions outlined in the temporary custody 8 order necessarily expired after entry of the permanent custody order on April 17, 9 2015. [RP 280] Effectively, Mother’s me morandum in opposition asks this Court to 10 vacate the permanent custody determination of the district court based on an allegedly 11 improper temporary custody order. We dec line to do so. Hearings were held on 12 February 26, 2015 and March 5, 2015, at which both Moth er and Father were present 13 and had the opportunity to present testimony. [RP 234] As our notice observed, [CN 14 5-7] based on these hearings and testimony, the hearing officer entered a twenty-six 15 page report, [RP 234] which th e district court adopted. [RP 280] At that juncture, the 16 district court determined, based on the ex tensive findings in the hearing officer’s 17 report, that it would be in the best interests of Child to be in Father’s sole legal and 18 physical custody. [RP 258, 280] See Schuermann v. Schuermann , 1980-NMSC-027, 195 ¶ 6, 94 N.M. 81, 607 P.2d 619 (“In any proceeding involving custody, the courts’ 1 primary concern and consideration must be fo r the child’s best interests.”). As such, 2 we disagree that the district court’s reliance on the custody provisions in the order of 3 protection as a temporary order should imp act our review of the district court’s 4 decision with respect to Child’s best interests and permanent custody status. Cf. 5 Lucero v. Pino , 1997-NMCA-089, ¶¶ 11-13, 124 N.M. 28, 946 P.2d 232 (holding that 6 a mother’s challenge to a custodial change pursuant to a temporary order of protection 7 was moot because the order had expired six months from th e date of its issuance and 8 there was no indication that the temporary order legally impacted current custody and 9 adoption proceedings); State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dept. v. Maria C. , 10 2004-NMCA-083, ¶ 34, 136 N.M. 53, 94 P. 3d 796 (holding, in the context of 11 termination of parental rights, “that as a general matter, parent s have a due process 12 right to fair notice and an opportun ity for meaningful participation at the permanency 13 stage , including the right to present evidence and cross examine witnesses, when their 14 presence or additional safeguards would be useful or beneficial to their defense” 15 (emphasis added)). 16 {5} To the extent Mother argues this issue is not moot because th e lack of hearing 17 at the temporary stage amounted to improper burden shifting to the original custodial 18 parent—in this case, Mother—we disagree. [MIO 11] Importantly, Mother’s 196 memorandum in opposition does not specifically argue that the burdens of proof in 1 this case indeed improperly shifted at th e permanent custody stage and that she was 2 prejudiced as a result of such a shift. However, even if Mother had successfully 3 argued that she inappropriately bore the burden of proof, our review of the hearing 4 officer’s report indicates that Father presented ample evidence in support of his 5 position and Mother failed to present any evidence in support of her position. 6 Specifically, the hearing officer’s report notedthat “despite bei ng allotted ninety (90) 7 minutes in which to present her case, Mother did not present so much as a scintillaof 8 evidence to demonstrate that Child is either primarily bonded to her or that she is a 9 better parent when compared to Father.” [RP 258 (emphasis in original)] We therefore 10 find no reversible error because Mother has not demonstrated that any claimed error 11 prejudiced her. See In re Estate of Heeter , 1992-NMCA-032, ¶ 23, 113 N.M. 691, 831 12 P.2d 990 (“On appeal, error w ill not be corrected if it w ill not change the result.”); 13 Hartman v. Texaco Inc. , 1997-NMCA-032, ¶ 25 n. 4, 123 N.M. 220, 937 P.2d 979 14 (holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice, and that in the 15 absence of prejudice, there is no reversible error); State v. Guerra , 2012-NMSC-027, 16 ¶ 30, 284 P.3d 1076 (recognizing that in the absence of demonstrating harm done by 17 alleged errors, there is no due process violation). 18 {6} For the reasons set forth above and in our notice of proposed summary 197 disposition, Mother’s motion to amend th e docketing statement is denied, and we 1 affirm the district court’s permanent custody order. 2 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

_____________________________ 4 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 5 WE CONCUR: 6

__________________________________ 7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 8

__________________________________ 9 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 10