Legal Issues & Analysis

The Reichert v. Hornbeck case raises numerous serious legal issues—many of which point to potential due process violations, judicial misconduct, and systemic failures in Maryland’s family court system. Based on the public information and research surrounding the case, here are some of the main legal issues:

1. Violation of Parental Rights and Due Process

  • Lack of access to the child: Jeff Reichert has repeatedly been denied access to his son, Grant, for over 3.5 years without a clear, lawful basis.
  • No evidentiary hearing: At least one ruling was made without a full evidentiary hearing, raising constitutional concerns under Mathews v. Eldridge and Santosky v. Kramer.
  • Protective orders and custody rulings have been granted without proper notice, evidence, or opportunity to defend.

2. Judicial Bias and Conflicts of Interest

  • Magistrate Tracey Kelly ruled against Jeff even though Sarah Hornbeck had just been arrested for DUI days before the custody hearing—and this arrest was not disclosed in court, concealing pertinent evidence.
  • Jeff’s motions for reconsideration, to present new evidence, or to request accommodations were allegedly denied without explanation by 16 different judges over the history of this case.

3. Denial of ADA Accommodations

  • Reichert, who has disabilities protected under the ADA, was repeatedly denied reasonable accommodations throughout the custody proceedings.
  • Will the court refuse to honor or review an ADA advocate’s letter submitted on his behalf in violation of federal disability law and constitutional equal protection?

4. Fraud on the Court

  • There are credible and verifiable allegations that Sarah Hornbeck withheld material information, including:
    • Her 2018 DUI arrest;
    • Alleged extramarital affair with a police officer investigating her;
    • Misrepresentations about her son’s schooling, location, and custody status.
  • Her attorney, Brendan McCarthy, is accused of resting the case with no evidence presented, while still securing favorable rulings—an example of courtroom fraud or collusion.

5. Improper Jurisdiction Transfers and Venue Shopping

  • The case has been shuffled between jurisdictions (Baltimore City to Anne Arundel County, for example), raising concerns of venue shopping by Sarah Hornbeck to secure a more favorable judge or avoid scrutiny.

6. Suppression of Evidence and Gag-Like Tactics

  • Evidence regarding Sarah Hornbeck’s arrest, misconduct, and parenting concerns has been excluded or ignored by the court.
  • There are allegations that Jeff Reichert’s efforts to speak out or publish information about the case have been chilled or discouraged, even when based on public records.

7. Violation of First Amendment and Press Rights

  • As a public advocate and media contributor, Jeff Reichert’s ability to expose the case and discuss judicial misconduct may have been targeted or restricted—a violation of First Amendment protections.

8. Failure to Enforce Custody Orders

  • Even when partial visitation or contact has been granted, enforcement has failed. The courts have refused to compel compliance by the custodial parent (Sarah).

9. Unlawful Concealment of the Child’s Whereabouts

  • There is uncertainty as to the child’s current location, with some reports suggesting Grant may be in Maine, living with an unrelated adult male. This constitutes:
    • Violation of custody orders;
    • Unlawful concealment or custodial interference.

10. Potential Civil Rights and Title 42 Violations

  • The accumulation of denials—access to child, fair hearing, due process, ADA rights—raises claims under:
    • 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights;
    • Title II of the ADA – Prohibiting discrimination by public entities.