Concordia Preparatory School in Towson, Maryland, markets itself as a sanctuary of faith and discipline. Its brochures boast of character, community, and Christian values. But for one family, Concordia has been anything but Christian.
Behind the glossy brochures and football games lies a darker truth: Concordia actively colluded with a vindictive mother to erase a father from his son’s life. Alongside its attorney, Andrew M. Croll, the school selectively enforced orders, trafficked in privileged information, silenced a child’s voice, and even used coaches as muscle.
This isn’t an allegation in the abstract. The matter is already in litigation. Father and attorney Jeffrey Reichert has sent a Notice to Sue, outlining claims that reach far beyond negligence. He will bring actions for intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, conspiracy, interference with custody, malicious prosecution, and negligence. Individual staff are also in the crosshairs: Director of Admissions and lacrosse coach Stephen Berger, Headmaster Brent Johnson, and Pastor Couser will be pursued in their personal capacities for what Reichert describes as deliberate acts of interference and abuse.
Concordia says it is neutral. The record shows otherwise.
A Lawyer’s Slip That Gave the Game Away
The mask slipped in September 2025. After years of alienation, Reichert wrote Concordia demanding accountability. Attorney Andrew Croll responded with one chilling line: “I hope that you are able to obtain the professional help that the courts believe you need and restore your relationship with your son.”
That sentence revealed everything. Custody files are sealed. Psychological evaluations are confidential. For a school’s attorney to invoke court findings about a parent’s mental health isn’t just inappropriate — it’s evidence that Concordia was plugged into Hornbeck’s smear campaign and happy to repeat it.
“Neutrality” doesn’t sound like a lawyer parroting sealed court narratives. “Neutrality” doesn’t look like a school trafficking in privileged information to brand a father “crazy.”
Enrollment Concealment by Design
In spring 2024, Concordia’s Director of Admissions, Stephen Berger, quietly enrolled Grant without his father’s consent, directly violating the custody order. This wasn’t an innocent oversight.
- Concealment: For over two months, from July through October 2024, Concordia hid Grant’s enrollment.
- Roster tampering: On athletic rosters, the boy was listed only as “Grant R.” — the only student stripped of his surname.
- Headmaster’s admission: Brent Johnson, the headmaster, admitted he barely knew the boy and that Berger handled everything.
Maryland law requires schools to review custody orders in such cases. If Concordia ignored the order, enrollment was illegal. If it reviewed the order, then it knowingly tortiously interfered with Reichert’s parental rights. Either way, the school crossed the line.
Picking and Choosing Which Orders to Obey
When the custody order protected Jeff’s role, Concordia ignored it. But when Hornbeck engineered a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) — defective, never served, and legally worthless — Concordia embraced it like gospel.
- Teachers were instructed not to speak to Jeff.
- Coaches told Grant he wasn’t allowed to see his father.
- Croll himself sent Jeff a copy of the bogus TPO, as though it carried the force of law.
This is selective enforcement, pure and simple. The custody order? Ignored. A defective protective order? Weaponized. That isn’t neutrality. That’s collusion.
Coaches as Enforcers
Concordia’s complicity turned physical. In October 2024, Berger allegedly instructed a coach to pull Grant out of practice and tell him he was “not allowed to see or speak to his dad.”
A year later, in August 2025, the scene repeated itself at a football game. Jeff stood quietly at the sidelines as Concordia trailed Bishop McNamara 35–0 in a game marred by 15 personal fouls and a 60-minute ambulance delay after a serious injury. When Grant spotted his father, two CPS coaches rushed in, physically grabbed him, whispered in his ear, and dragged him away.
Other players walked freely to their families. Only Grant was treated like contraband.
What lawful order allows a school’s staff to lay hands on a child to prevent him from seeing his parent? None. This wasn’t safety. It was assault in service of alienation.
Deleting Emails, Silencing Witnesses
The campaign extended beyond the field. Reichert alleges Concordia deleted emails Grant sent him through the school portal. Teachers and coaches were instructed not to communicate with him.
Even Grant’s grandmother, a veteran principal and mandatory reporter, was stonewalled when she raised abuse concerns. Mandatory reporters are required by law to act. Concordia chose silence. Neutrality doesn’t delete emails. Neutrality doesn’t muzzle teachers. Neutrality doesn’t bury abuse reports.
Denying a “Safe Place” for Calls
When Grant asked for a safe, supervised place to call his father, his grandmother suggested Pastor Couser’s office. A Christian school could have honored that request instantly. Instead, Croll flatly denied it, writing there was “no good reason” for a monitored call in the pastor’s presence.
No good reason? For a frightened child with PTSD and anxiety, fearful of retaliation at home, the reason was obvious: protection. Instead of providing it, Concordia slammed the door.
And Couser himself? He sat with the boy not to protect him but to lecture him that the “Christian” thing to do was forgive his mother. For a child begging for a lifeline, Concordia gave him theology as a muzzle.
Child Neglect and ADA Failures
Grant’s mental health is not in dispute. He has been diagnosed with PTSD and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). Those conditions qualify him for protection under the ADA. He is supposed to be in weekly therapy.
By concealing his enrollment, stonewalling documentation, and refusing safe accommodations, Concordia denied him those protections. Jeff argues this amounts to both ADA violations and criminal child neglect — creating a substantial risk of harm by ignoring his needs.
Concordia’s “Neutrality” Defense
CPS and Croll claim they are neutral, that they provide equal access through online portals, and that they complied with applicable laws. Croll denies abuse, denies that Berger ordered coaches to restrict contact, and insists the only instruction given was that Grant should not leave with his father if he showed up at a game.
Croll even painted Grant as “flourishing at CPS” and “an asset to the school.”
But neutrality doesn’t look like:
- Secret enrollment without consent.
- Stripping a child’s surname from rosters.
- Treating a defective protective order as valid.
- Coaches physically dragging a boy away from his dad.
- Deleting father–son emails.
- Blocking supervised calls.
- Quoting sealed court findings in an email.
That isn’t neutrality. It’s conspiracy.
Why Would a School Do This?
Why would a Christian prep school risk its reputation by concealing enrollment, falsifying rosters, intimidating coaches, and parroting privileged court files?
The answer is liability. To acknowledge what really happened would open Concordia to lawsuits for negligence, conspiracy, false imprisonment, child neglect, and ADA violations. So the school doubled down — protecting itself, not its student.
The Verdict of Conscience
Jeff Reichert may be an attorney, but his warnings to Concordia read more like prophecy. He invoked Scripture: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones … it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck.”
Concordia’s glossy brochures talk about faith, family, and community. But for one boy, the truth was secrecy, silencing, and erasure. With Andrew Croll as its mouthpiece, Concordia stopped being a school and started being an enforcer of abuse.
Concordia Prep did not just fail a student. It helped destroy a family. And no football victory, no chapel service, no marketing slogan will wash that stain away.
Editorial Note:
This article is based on information obtained from publicly available records, court filings, government documents, and other records lawfully obtained or reviewed by the author. All factual statements are made in good faith and reflect the information available at the time of publication. Allegations, where referenced, are attributed to official records or named sources. This reporting does not assert guilt or liability beyond what is contained in the public record.
Discover more from Reform Maryland Courts
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
