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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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 KRISTI HASSELSTROM, 7 Petitioner-Appellant, 8
v. NO. 30,452 9 DONALD W. SCOTT, 10 Respondent-Appellee. 11
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Elizabeth E. Whitefield, District Judge 13 Kristi Hasselstrom 14 Rio Rancho, NM 15 Pro Se Appellant 16 M. Michelle Cortez 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 for Appellee 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 CASTILLO, Judge. 212 Petitioner (Mother) appeals fro m two orders addressing issues of child support 1 and periods of responsibility for her three children. In this Court’s notice of proposed 2 summary disposition, we proposed to dismi ss the appeal because no final order has 3 been entered resolving all of the issues raised in the parties’ post-divorce-decree 4 motions. Mother has timely filed a memorandum in opposition to our proposed 5 summary dismissal. We have consideredMother’s arguments and, as we are not 6 persuaded by them, we dismiss this appeal. 7 “In civil cases, this Court has jurisdic tion over, among other things, any final 8 order after entry of judgment whic h affects substantial rights[.]” Khalsa v. Levinson , 9 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 12, 125 N.M. 680, 964 P.2d 844 (internal quotation marks and 10 punctuation omitted). “Whetheran order is a ‘final order’ . . . is a jurisdictional 11 question that an appellate court is required to raise on its own motion.” Id. In a 12 divorce proceeding involving issues over which the district court has continuing 13 jurisdiction, a decision by the district court that resolves fewer than all of the issues 14 presented by post-decree motions is not final and appealable unless “(1) the trial court 15 expressly determines, pursuant to Ru le 1-054(C)(1) NMRA 1998 [now Rule 1- 16 054(B)(1) NMRA] that there is no just reas on for delay and expressly directs entry of 17 judgment and (2) the matters adjudicated are not intertwined with issues that remain 18 unresolved.” Khalsa , 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 2. 193 In our notice of proposed summary dis position, we proposed to conclude that 1 no final order has been entered in this case because the district court has not resolved 2 all the issues raised by the parties’ multip le post-decree motions and, with respect to 3 those issues that have been resolved, ha s not made the determinations required by 4 Rule 1-054(B)(1). See Khalsa , 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 2. InMother’s memorandum in 5 opposition, she argues that this Court should hear the appeal because the issues she 6 raises are not intertwined with those that are still to be decided by the district court. 7 We are not persuaded. New Mexico has a strong policy disfavoring piecemeal 8 appeals. See Executive Sports Club, Inc. v. First Plaza Trust , 1998-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 9 8, 11, 125 N.M. 78, 957 P.2d 63. When a final decision is rendered as to some issues 10 in a case, but not others, such a decisi on is generally not immediately appealable 11 unless the district court certifies that there is no just reason for delay and expressly 12 directs entry of judgment. See Khalsa , 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 2. Where, as here, the 13 district court has not made the determinations re quired by Rule 1-054(B)(1) or 14 otherwise demonstrated any intention th at its non-final orders be immediately 15 appealable, we do not reach the issue of wh ether the issues on appeal are intertwined 16 with those yet to be decided, as no final judgment has been entered and no exception 17 to the requirement of a final judgment applies. 18 Therefore, for the reasons stated this opinion and in our notice of proposed 194 summary disposition, we dismiss Mother’s appeal. 1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

________________________________ 3 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 4 WE CONCUR: 5

__________________________________ 6 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 7

__________________________________ 8 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 9