Lisa Tresslar's Value as a Custody Master

I've told you that Lisa Tresslar, Northampton County's full-time Custody Master, has been forced out of her job by a trio consisting of Judges Jennifer Sletvold, Paula Roscioli and Court Administrator Jermaine Greene. So what, some of you might say. Some of you have suggested that she was just there to force parties to settle custody disputes so that judges could play 18 rounds of golf instead of 9. So I thought I'd explain the difference she made as a custody master.

Supervised Visitation. - When then-President Judge Baratta appointed Tresslar to be the court's first full-time custody master in 2014, the court desperately needed an organization with trained staff and professional security that could supervise visits in cases where there were concerns about danger posed by a parent. Parties had had to make their own arrangements for supervised visits, and it had been extremely difficult. No agency provided these services on a regular, consistent, and reliable basis. It was vital that the court not only be able to refer parties to a reliable agency for supervised visits but that the court receive written reports from the supervising agency about how the party had behaved with the Child during the visits, in order to assist the court in making custody determinations.

Tresslar reached out to The Children's Home of Easton and developed a process that served both the court's and The Children's Home's interests. Since that time, the court has enjoyed a strong and reliable relationship with The Children's Home of Easton. The agency's written reports and testimony have proven to be invaluable in the court's management and disposition of custody cases where there are safety concerns about one or both of the parents.

Recruiting Affordable and Reliable Family Counselors. - Tresslar's most significant contribution was recruiting and cultivating relationships with outside professionals to assist parties in settling cases and, if necessary, preparing their cases for trial and educating trial judges about their family dynamics. Tresslar persuaded parties that taking time to engage in such counseling before proceeding to trial offered many advantages.

Instead of asking a judge to spend one or more days presiding over stressful and expensive trial and then make a decision based largely on he-said, she-said court testimony, the family could spend several weeks together with a professional who had training and experience in working with adults and children in high-conflict situations and, particularly, custody litigation.

The counselor could help the parties understand how their behaviors were affecting their children and how a judge might react to their respective contentions. He or she could help the parties learn to communicate better, work out their differences, and perhaps settle their case. If the case could not be settled, the counselor could help the parties narrow the areas in genuine dispute and clarify their respective positions for the court.

Because co-parenting/family counseling involved the entire family and was not confidential as among the family members, there was no legal privilege shielding statements made during co-parenting/family counseling from disclosure to the court. Thus, if the case proceeded to trial, the parties could support their respective positions by citing statements made, and behaviors observed, during the counseling. If the parties agreed in advance to waive hearsay objections, the counselor's written report would come into evidence and could be an invaluable, and affordable, aid to the trial judge in gaining an understanding of the case, deciding what areas should be explored further during the trial, and formulating specific questions that the judge wished to pose to trial witnesses.

Most counselors did not accept insurance for court-ordered co-parenting/family counseling, which can be very expensive, Tresslar worked hard to find counselors who were willing to accept insurance.

Obtaining a written report from the counselor helped to reduce the "trial by ambush" quality of custody litigation. After the parties had spent several weeks with a counselor who had submitted a written report to the court, it was more difficult for either party to assert surprise allegations at trial that had never been raised during the counseling. Thus, even when a case could not be settled and went forward to trial, the counseling not only simplified and clarified the trial but usually reduced the stress and expense.  Written reports by outside professionals could be lengthy and might require significant time to review and analyze. In some cases, there might be several professionals submitting reports, and some professionals might submit multiple reports over the lifetime of one case. In the case summaries that Tresslar prepared for judges, she attached all written reports, summarized them, and highlighted significant information contained in the reports. Pursuant to local rules, which permit a master to make recommendations to judges, Tresslar often suggested specific areas the judge might wish to explore at trial or specific questions the judge might wish to pose to trial witnesses.

Most trial judges found that after they had read the custody master's case summary and the counselor's written report, they were usually able to settle the case without a trial. 

Her work helped judges, to be sure. But more importantly, she helped families with custody disputes.