By Michael Phillips

Earlier this month, Free Grant Reichert reported on a federal civil-rights lawsuit filed in Baltimore County alleging that a disabled parent was systematically excluded from family-court proceedings despite repeated requests for reasonable accommodations under federal law.

Since that report, developments in federal court have significantly raised the stakes—revealing a widening conflict between disability rights and family-court procedure that now extends beyond any single custody dispute.

A federal judge has affirmatively granted ADA-based accommodations to allow the parent, Jeffrey Reichert, to participate remotely in court proceedings. Yet the underlying state family-court case continues in a posture that risks penalizing him for the very exclusion the federal court recognized as unlawful.

This is no longer simply a family-law matter.
It is an access-to-justice issue unfolding in real time.

---

Federal Court Confirms Reichert’s Right to Participate

On January 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order in Reichert v. Hornbeck, granting reasonable accommodations under federal disability law.

The court found that Reichert, who has a documented diagnosis of PTSD, is a qualified individual with a disability and that remote participation constitutes a reasonable and readily available accommodation for pretrial proceedings.

The order permits Reichert to appear remotely for hearings, conferences, and discovery matters—recognizing that forced in-person appearances would exacerbate his condition and undermine meaningful participation in the judicial process.

Importantly, the ruling did not address the merits of any custody or family-law claims. It addressed a threshold issue: whether a disabled litigant can access the courts at all.

---

State Family-Court Proceedings Continued Without Him

While the federal ADA case was pending, the related family-court matter in Anne Arundel County continued to move forward.

Court filings indicate that:

• At least five hearings occurred without Reichert’s participation
• Accommodation requests were denied or left unresolved
• Proceedings continued as though his absence were voluntary
• The minor child was never heard during these hearings

Reichert has consistently maintained that he did not refuse to participate. Instead, he repeatedly requested remote access so that he could appear, be heard, and engage meaningfully in the proceedings.

Those requests, according to filings, were either denied or ignored as hearings continued.

---

Emergency Filings to Prevent Punitive Dismissal

After the federal court granted ADA accommodations, Reichert filed a series of emergency notices in state court:

• A Notice of Self-Representation, following withdrawal of prior counsel
• An Emergency Motion for Remote Appearance as a Reasonable Accommodation
• An Emergency Motion to Prohibit Dismissal for Non-Appearance While ADA Relief Is Pending

These filings did not seek delay or special treatment. They sought to prevent what Reichert warned would be a punitive outcome: dismissal of the case for “non-appearance” while access was still being denied.

The motions explicitly cautioned that dismissing the case under those circumstances could constitute retaliation under federal disability law—particularly given that the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court itself is named as a defendant in a pending federal ADA lawsuit alleging exclusion of a disabled litigant.

---

A Broader Pattern Comes Into View

Taken together, these developments highlight a systemic tension that rarely receives public scrutiny.

Family courts operate with broad discretion, relaxed evidentiary standards, and limited appellate oversight—yet they adjudicate some of the most consequential rights in American law, including parental rights and family integrity.

When disabled litigants request accommodations, those requests are often treated as logistical inconveniences rather than civil-rights obligations. When accommodations are denied, the resulting absence is frequently reframed as non-compliance rather than exclusion.

The Reichert case now places that pattern under a federal spotlight.

---

Not About Delay—About Access

Reichert has not asked the courts to stop moving. He has asked to be allowed to participate.

The emergency motions filed in January emphasize that distinction repeatedly. They frame the issue not as scheduling or procedure, but as a fundamental question of access—whether a disabled parent can be present in his own case without being penalized for asserting federally protected rights.

As of publication, that question remains unresolved in state court.

---

Why This Case Matters

This case matters because it exposes how easily access to justice can collapse when procedure outruns rights.

It matters because disability law does not end at the courthouse door.

And it matters because family courts wield extraordinary power over families—often without the procedural safeguards the public assumes exist.

Jeff Reichert’s case is not an anomaly. It is a warning flare.

Whether the courts choose to heed it remains to be seen.