1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

2 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO JANELL L. MONTANO, n/k/a JANELL L. GRIEGO, 9 Petitioner-Appellee, v. No. 34,225 DANNY D. HOWES, 12 Respondent-Appellant.

13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF McKINLEY COUNTY Grant L. Foutz, District Judge Advocate Law Center, P.A.

16 Bobbie P. Franklin Gallup, NM for Petitioner-Appellee William G. Stripp Ramah, NM for Respondent-Appellant

22 MEMORANDUM OPINION BUSTAMANTE, Judge.

1 {1} Respondent appeals from orders and judgments by which he was held in contempt and required to pay child support arrears. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Respondent has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded by Respondent’s assertions of error. We therefore affirm.

6 {2} In his docketing statement Respondent challenged the validity of the 1997 order by which he was originally required to pay child support. [DS 6] We proposed to summarily reject the argument. [CN 3-4] The memorandum in opposition contains nothing that is responsive. [MIO 2-4] The issue is therefore deemed abandoned. See generally State v. Johnson, 1988-NMCA-029, ¶ 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306 11 (observing that where a memorandum in opposition does not respond to our proposed summary disposition with respect to an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).

13 {3} Respondent challenges the award of attorney fees to Petitioner, on grounds that counsel for Petitioner should have been disqualified as a consequence of the law firm’s representation of him many years ago. [MIO 2-3] In our notice of proposed summary disposition we observed that none of the rules of professional conduct upon which Respondent has relied would render disqualification mandatory. [CN 2-3] The memorandum in opposition contains neither further argument relative to any of the rules, nor citation to any other authority. Instead, Respondent simply reiterates his

1 belief that the representation was improper based on the firm’s past representation of him, as well as the district court judge’s former association with counsel for Petitioner.

3 [MIO 2-4] Given the absence of supporting legal analysis and authority, we adhere to our initial assessment. See generally City of Eunice v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2014-NMCA-085, ¶ 17, 331 P.3d 986 (“Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists”); Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 26, 329 P.3d 701 (“The appellate court presumes that the district court is correct, and the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the district court erred.”).

10 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.

12 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 _______________________________________ 15 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge WE CONCUR:

18 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

20 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge