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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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 MATTHEW STAHLBAUM, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3 vs. No. 36,119 4 ALISHA PINSON, 5 Respondent-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 7 Mark T. Sanchez, District Judge 8 Lara Law Firm 9 Roxanne Rodriguez Lara 10 Carlsbad, NM 11 for Appellant 12 Alisha Pinson 13 Carlsbad, NM 14 Pro Se Appellee 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 HANISEE Judge. 17
{1} Petitioner has appealed from an order finalizing child support issues. We issued 18 a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm in part, 192 reverse in part, and remand. Petitioner ha s filed no response. Respondent has filed a 1 responsive memorandum. After due consideration, we adhere to our initial assessment. 2
{2} Because the pertinent background information was previously set forth and 3 neither party has expressed disagreemen t, we will avoid undue reiteration here. 4
{3} In his docketing statement Petitioner raised three issues, first challenging the 5 portion of the order requiring him to pay child support retroactive to the date upon 6 which Respondent regained custody of the Child, but prior to the date upon which 7 Respondent filed the petition for modificati on. [DS 4] We observed that this is 8 impermissible. [CN 2] See Zabolzadeh v. Zabolzadeh , 2009-NMCA-046, ¶ 7, 146 9 N.M. 125, 207 P.3d 359 (“New Mexico . . . allows modification of child support to 10 be retroactive to the date of the petition for modification.”). In her responsive 11 memorandum Respondent does not disagree. [M IO 1] Instead, she offers equitable 12 considerations which may underlie the district court’s decision. [MIO 1-2] We 13 observe that the equities would be moreappropriately accomm odated in a different 14 context, specifically in relation to the award of arrears. See Ullrich v. Blanchard, 15 2007-NMCA-145, ¶¶ 21-22, 142 N.M. 835, 171 P.3d 774 (observing, with respect to 16 calculation of retroactive child support on re mand, that the trial court should consider 17 any applicable equitable defenses, incl uding estoppel, waiver, and unclean hands); 18 Ingalls v. Ingalls , 1994-NMCA-148, ¶ 14, 119 N.M . 85, 888 P.2d 967 (“In a 193 proceeding to enforce a child support order, th e trial court also ha s latitude to consider 1 any equitable defense.”). We leave the hand ling of this matter to the sound discretion 2 of the district court on remand. 3
{4} By his second and third issues, Petitioner challenged the district court’s denial 4 of his request for interest and imposition of a payment deadline. [D S 7, 9] Because we 5 perceived no abuse of discre tion, we proposed to summarily reject these arguments. 6 [CN 3-4] In light of Petitioner’s failure to file any memorandum in opposition, these 7 issues are deemed abandoned. See generally State v. Johnson , 1988-NMCA-029, ¶ 8, 8 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306 (observing that where a party does not respond to our 9 proposed summary disposition with respect to an issue, that issue is deemed 10 abandoned). 11
{5} Accordingly, for the reasons statedabove and in the notice of proposed 12 summary disposition, we reverse in part a nd remand for further pr oceedings consistent 13 herewith. 14
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

16 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 174 WE CONCUR: 1

2 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 3

4 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 5