from district court orders denying appellant's motion to
modify custody and appointing a special master/parenting
coordinator. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County;
Mathew Harter, Judge.
& LoBello and John D. Jones, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
Benjamin B. Childs, Las Vegas, for Respondent.
THE COURT EN BANC. 
Renelyn Bautista and respondent James Picone agreed to share
joint physical custody of their minor child. In the months
following the parents' agreement, Bautista filed three
motions with the district court to modify the parents'
custody arrangement, which were denied. The district court
appointed a parenting coordinator to help mediate and resolve
any disputes concerning the minor child and permitted the
parenting coordinator to make substantive changes to the
parents' custody arrangement. Bautista then filed another
motion with the district court seeking to modify custody
based on allegations that Picone was dating a minor. Without
conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied
Bautista's request. In this opinion, we conclude that
granting the parenting coordinator authority to make
substantive changes to the parents' custody arrangement
is an improper delegation of the district court's
judicial authority. We further hold that the district court
abused its discretion by denying Bautista's latest motion
to change physical custody without conducting an evidentiary
hearing after she established adequate cause.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
and Picone share joint physical custody of their minor child
pursuant to a stipulated order. Three months after the
district court entered the stipulated order, Bautista filed a
motion to modify physical custody. The court denied
Bautista's motion and stated that given the history of
the case, if Bautista filed a similar motion within the next
six months, the court would appoint a parenting coordinator.
Bautista reported to the Special Victims Unit at the
Henderson Police Department that Picone sexually abused their
minor child. As a result, the parties filed competing motions
regarding child custody. The district court conducted a
hearing regarding the sexual abuse allegation and interviewed
the investigating officer. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the district court stated that based on the preponderance of
the evidence and the history of the case, the parties'
custody schedule would continue.
months after the hearing, Bautista filed another motion to
modify child custody by one hour so that the minor child
could attend Sunday school. The district court denied
Bautista's request and appointed a parenting coordinator.
Bautista filed a motion requesting a different and specific
parenting coordinator, which the district court granted.
then filed a motion seeking to change custody based on
allegations that Picone was dating a 15-year-old girl. The
district court denied Bautista's request without
conducting an evidentiary hearing. The district court also
entered an order appointing a different parenting coordinator
because the previous coordinator withdrew from the case. The
district court granted the parenting coordinator the
authority to make temporary decisions resolving minor
disputes between the parents, including substantive and
nonsubstantive changes to the parents' custody plan,
until the court entered an order modifying the
coordinator's decision. Bautista now appeals the latest
order denying custody modification and the latest order
appointing a parenting coordinator.
regarding child custody rest in the district court's
sound discretion, and this court will not disturb the
decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Sims v.
Sims,109 Nev. 1146, 1148, 865 P.2d 328, 330 (1993). An
abuse of discretion occurs when a district court's
decision is not supported by substantial evidence or is
clearly erroneous. Ogawa v,Ogawa, 125 Nev.
660, 668, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009) ...