Former Custody Master's Federal Lawsuit - The Court Strikes Back, Claims She Was Biased For Attorney Accused of Drug Possession

I've written several times now about the federal lawsuit filed by Lisa Tresslar, Northampton County's former child custody master. She initially sued the entire court and county as well, but her lawsuit now is only aimed at Court Administrator Jermaine Greene and President Judge Craig Dally (I'll refer to them henceforth as the NorCo Court).  A previous motion to dismiss was partially granted. Federal Judge John Gallagher ruled that Tresslar failed to allege properly that she was a victim of discrimination.  But he allowed Tresslar's claim of retaliation to stand. She argues that she was effectively terminated for voicing concerns about revisions to child custody guidelines. After exhaustive discovery, NorCo Court has filed a motion for summary judgment based on the undisputed facts of record. It claims that the revised custody guidelines were adopted "to alleviate several concerns of reported conflicts of interest [and] favoritism based on complaints NorCo Court had received about Tresslar's bias toward certain attorneys. These include Attorney Stan Margle, who has now been charged twice with bringing cocaine and drug paraphernalia to court and then forgetting it there.  

Tresslar has filed a competing motion for summary judgment, but I'm unable to tell you about it because she requested that it be sealed. I've outlined her arguments in the past. I believe she may have sought to seal her motion to keep individual cases from being publicized. But up until now, I've never really heard  NorCo Court's side of the story. It's a doozy. 

According to NorCo Court's motion, its concern about bias turned out to be accurate. Through discovery, it learned of "ex parte communications between Tresslar and Margle in which she worked actively to undermine the opposing party, provided legal counsel and acted in a manner "completely contrary to her role as neutral Court employee." It calls its revised custody guidelines a reasonable attempt to limit the appearance of impropriety that arose from her dealings with her friends. Had it known then what it knows now, the actions taken would have been far harsher. 

NorCo Court contends it has "an affirmative duty to address any appearance of impropriety when it arises." That was the reason for revised custody guidelines. Discovery revealed that she made several statements to Margle that are clearly beyond the pale. 

Here's an example from one of her texts to Margle:

"Seriously, the day you cross-examined Dr. B----, and the day you cross-examined U-----, I got weak in the knees. I, like, wanted to have your baby. ... When other lawyers complain I have a special relationship with you because you were once my lawyer, I always scoff at them, but privately I'm thinking, 'If you only knew ... ."

While I believe a judicial officer can certainly compliment good lawyering, Tresslar appears to have gone a bit beyond mere puffery. The record reveals she shared confidential information with Margle and disparaged an attorney who was squaring off against him. "He is none too bright. You will be splendid tomorrow. I wish I could be there to see it. Please delete these text messages!" Discovery also revealed that she gave him advice on how to present cases and who to call as witnesses. Margle himself said he had "help from a little birdie who sometimes work[ed] in the Courthouse." 

Other custody masters were concerned. Brian Panella, now a judge, said that attorneys complained to him of being "stonewalled" with an "endless cycle of co-parenting counseling." This apprehension was shared by another former custody master (now retired) who called Tresslar's insistence on co-parent counseling a "roadblock" that "added months, and costs, to any given custody matter." Panella was concerned that this was effectively denying due process. He made these concerns known to NorCo Court. 

He In previous filings, Tresslar has maintained that Judges Jennifer Sletvold and Paula Roscioli refused to look at counseling reports because they wanted to be able to claim ignorance if a parent abused a child after an order was entered. They both deny this, saying they find these expert reports helpful. They simply decided it would be improper to read these reports before a trial because it might make them biased.