Background

On January 30, 2017, Sarah Hornbeck filed a domestic violence / child abuse petition against Jeff Reichert in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County . That same day, a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) was issued, followed by a Final Protective Order shortly thereafter .

According to Jeff, the allegations arose during a routine evening at home with his son. Hornbeck reported to police that Jeff was using heroin and possessed weapons—claims he maintains were false. Based on those allegations, police intervened and removed his son from the home.

---

Known Facts

• A protective order petition was filed on January 30, 2017, and a Temporary Protective Order was granted the same day
• A Final Protective Order was entered on February 6, 2017, with additional hearings and modifications continuing throughout 2017–2018
• The case involved multiple follow-up proceedings, including modification requests, contempt petitions, and repeated hearings over the next year
• Jeff Reichert was the named respondent in the domestic violence/child abuse action

From Jeff’s account:

• He was hospitalized in the ICU due to a medical emergency at the time of the initial hearing
• The final protective order was entered while he was unable to attend, resulting in a default outcome
• He was unable to timely appeal due to his medical condition
• The order significantly restricted his contact with his son for approximately one year

---

Core Issues

1. Reliability of Allegations
The case centers on whether the initial accusations—drug use and possession of weapons—were truthful. Jeff maintains they were false and used to trigger emergency legal action.

2. Due Process Concerns
A key issue is that the final protective order was entered while Jeff was hospitalized, preventing him from appearing, defending himself, or presenting evidence. This raises questions about whether he was afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

3. Procedural Impact of Default Orders
Because the order was entered in his absence, it carried immediate legal consequences without adversarial testing of the claims—effectively shaping the outcome before Jeff could participate.

4. Prolonged Litigation Cycle
The docket reflects ongoing motions, contempt filings, and modifications, suggesting the protective order became a continuing legal mechanism rather than a one-time emergency measure.

---

Impact on Divorce & Child Custody

The protective order had a direct and lasting effect on the parties’ custody dynamics:

• Immediate Removal of the Child: The initial police intervention resulted in Jeff being separated from his son at the outset.
• Restricted Parental Access: The protective order limited or eliminated Jeff’s ability to communicate with or see his child for an extended period.
• Shift in Custody Leverage: Because protective orders carry significant weight in family court, the order likely influenced custody determinations and parenting arrangements.
• Entrenched Litigation: The continued filings—modifications, contempt actions, and hearings—extended the dispute and reinforced the legal barriers between Jeff and his son.
• Lost Time That Could Not Be Recovered: The most significant impact was the loss of approximately a year of father–son contact during a critical developmental period.

---

Summary

This case arises from a 2017 protective order proceeding that, according to Jeff Reichert, was initiated through false allegations and finalized while he was medically incapacitated. The resulting default order shaped the course of custody and family litigation, leading to prolonged separation from his son and ongoing legal conflict.