Therefore, Scruggs and Hansen are not on point. The proper standard of review is abuse of discretion. While the statutory scheme charges the case manager with a variety of duties, it leaves the method and timing of carrying out those duties to the discretion of the case manager and the court. Debora's complaints involve the manner in which the case manager handled the case, the case manager's decision to make recommendations to the court, and the court's oversight of the case manager. In other words, despite her argument in favor of a de novo standard, Debora alleges that the case manager and court abused their discretion.
Discretion is abused only when it is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.
She complains that the case manager addressed issues not raised by the parties and made recommendations without authorization of the parties. Her position is that the case manager has no authority to raise issues, make recommendations, or do anything without the approval of at least one of the parties. However, her position ignores the discretion plainly given the case manager by statute. 23-1001 provides that a court may appoint a case manager to assist the parties in making a plan for child custody or visitation. The case manager is not a mediator.