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)va 
the 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 

1 In 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>