hearing and instead of modifying custody, it suspended appellant's

custodial rights. 

### Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 427, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (explaining that in determining whether an order is final, this court will consider what the order substantively accomplishes); 

### cf. In re Temp. Custody of Five Minor Children, 105 Nev. 441, 443, 777 P.2d 901, 902 (1989) (recognizing that the district court has authority to enter a temporary order regarding custody to protect children). When the district court denied appellant's motion for a review hearing after he had made a colorable argument that he had completed all the court-ordered requirements, the district court's order made the temporary suspension permanent and thereby finally modified custody, and thus, the May 9, 2013, order was appealable. 

### See NRAP 3A(b)(7) (providing that an order that finally alters child custody is appealable).

Having considered the parties' arguments and the record before us, we conclude the district court abused its discretion by denying appellant's request for a review hearing to reestablish his custodial rights. 

### See Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) (explaining that this court reviews a child custody decision for an abuse of discretion); 

### see also generally Moser v. Moser, 108 Nev. 572, 576, 836 P.2d 63, 66 (1992) (providing that "Mitigants in a custody battle have the right to a full and fair hearing concerning the ultimate disposition of a child"). Appellant had made a colorable argument that he had completed the court-ordered requirements because he asserted that he had resolved the criminal charges pending against him and he submitted a psychological evaluation, a substance abuse evaluation, a certification of completion of a 52-week domestic violence class, and a letter from his neurologist. Thus, the district court abused its discretion in denying appellant's request for

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A le)vathe review hearing without considering whether he had completed the

court-ordered requirements.

Appellant's custodial rights have now been suspended for over five years, and thus, if the district court determines that appellant has completed the court-ordered requirements and that his custodial rights should be reestablished, the court must then determine what custodial arrangement will currently serve the children's best interest. Therefore, we reverse the May 9, 2013, order and remand for the district court to hold the review hearing contemplated by the January 2010 order and determine what custodial arrangement is in the children's best interest.'

It is so ORDERED.

arraguirre

1In regard to the January 2010 order, appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion by modifying custody when no custody modification motion was pending, without first holding an evidentiary hearing, and without explicitly considering the children's best interests. We note that appellant did not challenge the January 2010 order until he had substantially complied with it, he never filed a petition for extraordinary writ relief with this court, and more than five years has passed since that order was entered. Moreover, because the January 2010 order merely suspended rather than modified appellant's custodial rights and because we are now remanding for the district court to hold the review hearing, we find it unnecessary to address appellant's arguments regarding the January 2010 order. To the extent appellant's additional arguments are not addressed in this order, we conclude they lack merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947A me>

### cc: Second Judicial District Court, Department 14 Anderson Keuscher, PLLC Marquis Aurbach Coffing Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 4

(0) 1947A 0411PP>