When family court is working properly, it is supposed to be a safeguard—a place where truth is sought, children are protected, and parents are held accountable. In the case of Jeff Reichert v. Sarah Hornbeck, that promise has been inverted. The very system that should have shielded a vulnerable child instead became a weapon in the hands of his mother.
This is not a bitter divorce or a routine custody squabble. This is a pattern of criminal misconduct—perjury, false reporting, neglect, kidnapping, theft, and malicious prosecution—stretching across years and jurisdictions. It is the story of a father wrongfully arrested, a son abused and silenced, and a mother who turned deceit and manipulation into her modus operandi. And it is the story of courts, police, and prosecutors who looked the other way.
Hornbeck did not act alone. She has been shielded and assisted by her boyfriend John Michel, complicit attorneys, cooperative police, blind prosecutors, and judges who refused to enforce accountability. What should have been a custody case became a coordinated campaign of legal warfare and erasure.
I. The Weaponization of Protective Orders
At the center of Hornbeck’s strategy is the protective order, six of them—a legal mechanism intended to protect genuine victims of violence, but which in this case was twisted into a tool of deception and control.
- In July 2020, Hornbeck swore under oath that Reichert “put a gun to [her] head while [she] was pregnant.” Reichert has never owned a firearm. The accusation was false, but it achieved its purpose: securing an emergency protective order that immediately cut him off from his son.
- This fabricated claim triggered at least 26 criminal charges against Reichert in a matter of six weeks. Police hauled him away multiple times, jailing him for 11 days. All charges were later dropped or dismissed. Yet the stain of those false arrests remains.
- In October 2024, Hornbeck struck again, filing another Temporary Protective Order based on claims of a threatening social media post, that he was “coming to get her.” That post never existed.
- In September 2025, and despite a federal lawsuit filed against Hornbeck for her repeated malicious use of protective orders, filed another one that prevented Reichert from attending an away football game trying to see his son. Why? Because of one of these articles? Reichert has had no interaction with Hornbeck.
Hornbeck has used protective orders not as shields but as swords—blocking Reichert from schools, police stationed outside his home, even preventing him from attending Grant’s football games.
Perjury is a felony. Filing false statements is a crime under Maryland law. Yet Hornbeck has not been prosecuted for these lies. Instead, her filings were rubber-stamped, and Reichert was forced to spend thousands defending himself from charges that should never have existed.
II. False Reports and Abuse of Police Power
Hornbeck did not stop at perjured petitions. She made the police her private hit squad.
Between July and December 2020 alone, Hornbeck made over twenty calls to law enforcement, demanding wellness checks on her son. These were not emergency calls. They were harassment campaigns designed to drain police resources and paint Reichert as dangerous.
- On July 10, 2020, Hornbeck filed a false missing persons report for her son. She told police he had disappeared, when in reality she knew he was at a friend’s sleepover. Grant himself had texted her earlier that day. Jeff would return home where police threw him to the ground and arrested him because of the false report.
- On four separate dates—July 14, July 25, August 8, and August 18—Hornbeck filed statements of charges claiming Reichert violated protective orders. He had not even been served with those orders yet. Police arrested him anyway.
- Again and again, police were dispatched not to protect a child—but to intimidate his father.
Maryland Criminal Law Code § 9-501 makes filing a false report a crime. Yet no charges have been filed against Hornbeck. The police were used, abused, and manipulated into carrying out a smear campaign.
III. Endangerment of the Child
The most troubling allegations are those involving Hornbeck’s own conduct toward her son, Grant.
1. False Imprisonment and Kidnapping
In May 2023, after Grant disclosed abuse during a Department of Social Services interview, Hornbeck and her boyfriend, John Michel, retaliated. They physically forced Grant into a vehicle and transported him to a remote cabin in upstate New York, where there was no electricity or cell service. Grant was effectively cut off from the outside world.
This is the textbook definition of false imprisonment under Maryland law: unlawful detention of a person against their will, accomplished by force or deception. To call this “parenting” is an insult to the word.
2. Neglect and Drunk Parenting
Hornbeck’s history of alcohol abuse is well-documented.
- In June 2019, she locked her children in a hotel room while she drove drunk on the Eastern Shore, resulting in her passing and leaving Grant and his younger brother unsupervised. The children were forced to call their grandparents for food and assistance. Hornbeck’s parents did not even reach out to inform Jeff about the incident.
- In March 2018, she was arrested for DWI, assault, and destruction of property after hitting multiple vehicles and even assaulting a police officer. She even slipped out of her handcuffs to try and use her phone. Somehow, she was only given probation.
This was not a one-time lapse. Court-ordered Soberlink monitoring later revealed missed tests and positive alcohol results, including a positive test (.024 BAC) in September 2019. Missed tests are treated as presumptive positives. Again, the courts turned a blind eye.
3. Medical Neglect
Grant allegedly struggles with mental health issues, as any child would be stuck in the middle of a high-conflict custody battle. Despite any conditions, Hornbeck ignored his medical needs and failed to provide the consistent therapy ordered by the court, prioritizing her own litigation tactics over his health.
This is not only neglect—it constitutes a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which guarantees disabled children access to appropriate care.
4. Findings of Abuse
In July 2021, the Chesapeake JDR Court in Virginia found credible evidence of abuse against Grant by Hornbeck and issued a temporary protective order. Baltimore City issued a similar order against her for abuse of Grant, lasting until August 2020.
5. Therapy Collapse
The record shows the only period of consistent therapy came while Grant lived with his father through early 2022. When custody shifted, therapy devolved into rotating providers, telehealth placeholders, and long gaps—precisely when a child with PTSD needed stability.
Despite this, Maryland courts returned custody to her.
IV. ADA Neglect, Not a Scheduling Dispute
Grant carries formal mental health diagnoses. Courts ordered weekly therapy, reunification therapy, and coordination among multiple providers. Sarah did not maintain those treatments.
For a child with diagnosed disabilities, “not maintained” is not a clerical note; it is disability neglect. Equal access under the ADA requires continuity of clinically indicated care. Swapping providers, blocking communication, and letting months pass without consistent therapy is how a paper plan becomes no plan at all.
DSS itself recognized the need for both a psychiatrist and a therapist and still delivered no enforceable plan. In a child with PTSD and suicidal ideation, that isn’t a paperwork miss—it’s a safeguarding failure.
V. Theft, Wiretapping, and Destruction of Evidence
Hornbeck’s misconduct extends beyond custody battles into outright theft and unlawful surveillance.
- She stole and destroyed multiple cell phones purchased for Grant by his father. Grant himself has said she took the devices and “sold them for cash.”
- She intercepted and recorded private phone calls between Grant and his father, in direct violation of the Maryland Wiretap Act and potentially federal law.
- She deleted and altered text messages from Grant’s phone, despite a court order instructing her to preserve them. At least one judge noted that her messages appeared to have been “all deleted out.”
If Reichert had committed any of these acts, he would already be facing felony charges. Instead, Hornbeck has been allowed to manipulate evidence and silence her son’s voice without consequence.
VI. Lawfare and Jurisdictional Games
The Reichert case is not a collection of isolated incidents. It is a sustained pattern of lawfare, across the last 15 years—using courts, police, and protective orders as weapons rather than safeguards. Hornbeck and her influencers have perfected the art of lawfare—weaponizing courts instead of guns.
- Hornbeck filed false protective orders in multiple counties (Anne Arundel, Baltimore County, Baltimore City), playing jurisdictional games to keep Reichert off balance.
- She lied about her residence to manipulate venue. At one point, she swore under oath she lived in Severna Park, while testimony indicated she was living in Maine, but she was actually living in Middle River with John Michel.
- She abducted her children across state lines in violation of consent orders, a form of parental kidnapping.
Each move follows the same script: fabricate a threat, rush to court, secure a protective order, and use it to shut down Reichert’s access to his son.
VII. Court Findings and Ignored Warnings
It is not as though no one has seen through Hornbeck’s tactics.
- In 2019, evidence surfaced that she had neglected her children by drinking and passing out while they were in her care.
- Protective orders against Hornbeck herself were in place until August 2020, including one issued in Baltimore City for abuse of Grant.
- In July 2021, the Chesapeake JDR Court in Virginia found credible evidence of abuse against Grant by Hornbeck. A temporary protective order was issued.
Yet each time, Maryland’s courts allowed her to resume control. The warnings were ignored. The findings were shelved. The cycle repeated.
VIII. Why Hasn’t She Been Prosecuted?
This is the obvious question that haunts the Reichert case: why has Sarah Hornbeck not been prosecuted for perjury, false reporting, theft, child abuse, and false imprisonment?
The answer lies in a toxic mix of gender bias, institutional cowardice, systemic dysfunction, and outside influence.
- Family courts often operate under the presumption that mothers are default caregivers and fathers are aggressors. In that context, Hornbeck’s lies were treated as credible even when disproven.
- Prosecutors are hesitant to bring perjury charges in family court, fearing it will “discourage victims.” The result? Perjury flourishes unchecked.
- Police, caught between conflicting court orders, defaulted to arresting Reichert rather than challenging Hornbeck’s claims.
The double standard is glaring. Fathers like Reichert are treated as guilty until proven innocent. Mothers like Hornbeck are granted impunity, even when children are begging for protection.
IX. Who Protects Sarah Hornbeck?
Hornbeck has not survived this long on lies alone. She has help. She has protection.
John Michel: The Enforcer
Hornbeck’s boyfriend, John Michel, is her enforcer. He helped confine Grant in New York. He monitored calls, intimidated Grant, and participated in surveillance tactics. Michel’s political or legal connections explain how police and prosecutors keep looking away. His role is not hidden—it is central.
Attorneys and Legal Insiders
Hornbeck’s attorneys, particularly McCarthy, conspired with her and Michel to file false protective orders and game the system. They steered her filings into favorable jurisdictions, secured subpoenas while blocking Reichert’s discovery, and kept the machine running.
Police
Instead of recognizing Hornbeck’s false reports, police in Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties acted on them. They arrested Reichert over and over on baseless charges. They became her private security force.
Prosecutors
Every perjury, every false report, every theft of property crossed a prosecutor’s desk. None were charged. Prosecutors let her walk. They pursued Reichert instead, even when the evidence wasn’t there.
Judges
Judges had ample evidence: court findings of abuse, probation violations, lies about residence, repeated perjury. They ignored it. They dismissed Reichert’s motions. They kept granting Hornbeck “another chance.” Maryland’s judicial patronage networks protected her.
Therapist Gatekeeping
Court orders gave Hornbeck control over therapist selection and access. Providers rotated (Krohn → Smith → Piercey/BetterHelp → Luminis), invoices and updates went missing, and father was barred from therapist contact. That is not treatment—it is gatekeeping designed to sever the father–child bond under the pretense of “care.”
X. Prosecutorial Blindness: When Inaction Became Complicity
If Hornbeck has been able to lie, steal, wiretap, and imprison her son without facing prosecution, it is not simply because she had clever lawyers or indulgent judges. It is because prosecutors themselves refused to act.
On November 4, 2024, attorney Ibrahim Reyes wrote to Baltimore County ASA Michelle Demma Fuller documenting the State’s Attorney’s refusal to prosecute Hornbeck for theft of phones, illegal wiretapping, child neglect, and false imprisonment.
Reyes warned:
“You and your office refused to prosecute… Unfortunately, due partially to your office’s inaction, the situation has gotten much worse.”
He attached Hornbeck’s fraudulent protective order filed on October 9, 2024, in Baltimore County, proof of perjury and forum shopping. He identified John Michel as her de facto attorney and financial backer, paying her bills and directing her filings. He documented DSS failures to act despite repeated reports of abuse.
Prosecutors had the evidence. They had testimony. They had documentation. They were warned. They chose not to act. Their refusal transformed inaction into complicity.
XI. The “Mental Abuse” Label—Systemic Backfire
The court branded the father’s persistence as “mental abuse,” citing his “continued involvement” of Grant in proceedings. That finding flips cause and effect.
Grant was already diagnosed with mental health disorders. The docket ballooned because protective-order lawfare, missed therapy, and DSS inaction left court as the only forum left. Labeling the documenting parent “abusive” for pressing the system to follow its own orders tells abusers that if they make a case messy enough, the system will punish the parent who refuses to look away.
XII. The Human Cost
For Jeff Reichert, the cost of Hornbeck’s campaign has been staggering.
- Wrongful Arrests: Hauled out of his home multiple times, jailed on charges that never stuck.
- Financial Ruin: Tens of thousands spent on attorneys, bail, and defense against baseless charges.
- Public Humiliation: His reputation shredded by accusations of gun threats, stalking, and abuse—all fabricated.
- Alienation from His Son: Despite court-ordered visitation and daily calls, Reichert has been cut off from Grant for years.
For Grant, the cost is worse.
- Abuse and Neglect: Forced into isolation, deprived of medical care, and punished for wanting to live with his father.
- Property Theft: His phones stolen or destroyed, his communications cut off.
- Psychological Trauma: Living under the constant threat that if he speaks up for his father, his life will be made miserable.
This is not custody. This is coercive control.
XIII. Financial Irresponsibility and Foreclosures
Hornbeck’s misconduct is not limited to custody warfare, police manipulation, or abuse of her child. Her record also shows a pattern of financial irresponsibility and instability that would disqualify most parents from being treated as a source of stability in a child’s life.
- Hornbeck has foreclosed on homes she could not pay for, losing properties to lenders while dragging her children through instability and upheaval.
- These were not isolated incidents but part of the same pattern seen in her legal and personal life: take what she wants, fail to meet her obligations, and then rely on others—or the system—to shield her from consequences.
- Stable housing and financial management are cornerstones of custody determinations. A parent who repeatedly loses homes demonstrates an inability to provide consistency for children. Yet Maryland’s courts ignored Hornbeck’s foreclosures while punishing Reichert for fabricated offenses.
This matters because it exposes the double standard at the heart of the Reichert case. While Jeff Reichert has been portrayed as unstable on the basis of lies, Sarah Hornbeck’s actual record of instability—documented through public foreclosure proceedings—has been excused. The result is a child forced into an environment of financial collapse, emotional abuse, and coercive control, all while the courts claimed they were acting in his “best interests.”
XIV. The System on Trial
At its core, the Reichert case is about more than one mother’s misconduct. It is about a system that rewards lies and punishes truth.
When perjury is ignored, when false reports are tolerated, when protective orders are handed out like candy, the result is predictable: chaos. Fathers are erased. Children are harmed. And abusers are empowered.
Maryland’s family courts must answer for why they allowed Hornbeck to run this playbook for years. Law enforcement must answer for why they arrested an innocent man 26 times without evidence. And prosecutors must answer for why they refused to hold Hornbeck accountable.
XV. A Call for Accountability
If Jeff Reichert had committed even one of Hornbeck’s acts—drunk driving with kids in the car, perjury, stealing phones, assaulting an officer—he would be in prison and stripped of all parental rights.
Hornbeck did all of those things. She has custody of Grant. That is not a coincidence. That is protection.
The Reichert case should be a turning point.
- Investigations must be opened into Hornbeck’s perjury, false reporting, and potential wiretap violations.
- Protective order abuse must be criminalized and prosecuted with the same vigor as actual domestic violence.
- Fathers’ rights must be respected in custody disputes, with courts recognizing parental alienation as a form of abuse.
- Grant Reichert’s voice must be heard. A child who has begged to live with his father should not be silenced by lies and procedural games.
Conclusion: Truth Demands Action
For 15 years, Sarah Hornbeck has lied, manipulated, and abused the legal system to erase a father and endanger a child. She has been shielded by John Michel, complicit attorneys, cooperative police, silent prosecutors, and indulgent judges.
The facts are clear. The pattern is undeniable. The only question is whether Maryland—and the nation—will finally act.
Because if a mother can file false reports, kidnap her son, assault an officer, commit perjury, steal property, wiretap calls, and still be rewarded with custody, then family court is no longer about justice.
It is about who has connections. And if that is the standard, no parent—and no child—is safe.
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.
