custody to Graham pending a final hearing. I dissent because this court should address the merits of the appeal. The circuit court’s order denying Graham’s motion for a change of custody is obviously a final order. As such, it is subject to appeal. This court has denied Graham’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the circuit court’s most recent order vesting custody in Graham was only temporary in nature. Regardless of what may be happening in circuit court at this time, the issue raised by Graham in this appeal is ripe for review and should be settled by this court. The majority recognizes that this case is not moot. Because the issue is not moot, it cannot be said that our opinion would be purely advisory. See Chandler v. Martin ex rel. State, 2014 Ark. 219, 433 S.W.3d 884 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, this court should address the
holding the constitutional issue was not preserved and thus declining to issue an advisory opinion holding that the supreme court will not issue advisory opinion on issue not before the court recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion