A Federal Lawsuit Raises Questions About How Private Schools Handle Custody Disputes
By Michael Phillips | Thunder Report
A federal lawsuit filed in Maryland is raising uncomfortable questions about the role private institutions play when parents are locked in high-conflict custody disputes.
The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleges that officials at Concordia Preparatory School in Towson improperly involved themselves in a parental conflict by restricting a father’s access to his child and relying on a protective order that had never been formally served. 1
The lawsuit — brought by Virginia resident Jeffrey W. Reichert — accuses the school and several individuals associated with it of interfering with parental rights and acting on legal documents that, according to the complaint, were not yet enforceable.
Concordia Preparatory School has not publicly commented on the allegations.
The case is now moving through federal court.
But the dispute highlights a broader issue rarely examined outside the courtroom: what responsibilities private schools have when parents bring custody conflicts onto campus.
A School Drawn Into a Family Conflict
According to the complaint, the conflict began in the fall of 2025, when Reichert discovered that his child had been enrolled at Concordia Preparatory School without his knowledge. 1
The lawsuit alleges the enrollment occurred despite an existing custody order and without notification to the father.
The school’s Director of Admissions at the time — who also served as the varsity lacrosse coach — allegedly played a key role in the process. 1
That dual role becomes significant in the lawsuit because it placed a single administrator in charge of both admissions decisions and the child’s athletic environment.
According to the filing, the father did not learn of the enrollment until weeks after the school year had already begun.
The Protective Order at the Center of the Dispute
The lawsuit’s most serious allegation centers on a temporary protective order.
According to the complaint, the child’s mother filed a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) in October 2025. 1
However, Reichert alleges the order was never formally served, meaning it had not yet taken legal effect.
Despite this, the lawsuit claims school officials obtained a copy of the order and treated it as binding within the school environment.
At one point, the complaint alleges that coaches informed the child that he was no longer allowed to speak to his father.
The lawsuit claims these actions effectively restricted the father’s ability to communicate with his child during school-related activities.
Whether the school had a legal basis to rely on the order — and what verification steps were taken — will likely become central questions in the case.
Conflicting Explanations
The complaint also alleges conflicting statements from school leadership regarding how the enrollment occurred.
According to the filing, the school’s headmaster initially indicated that the admissions director handled the enrollment.
Later communications from school counsel allegedly suggested that the same administrator had no involvement in the process. 1
Those inconsistencies are cited in the lawsuit as evidence of institutional confusion or possible attempts to distance the school from the decision.
It is not unusual for schools to become entangled in custody disputes, particularly when parents provide competing legal documents or requests for access.
But legal experts say institutions must tread carefully when interpreting court filings.
A Legal Gray Area for Schools
Private schools frequently face difficult situations when parents in custody disputes provide different versions of court orders or claim legal restrictions on the other parent.
Unlike courts or law enforcement agencies, schools are not equipped to adjudicate family law disputes.
Yet they must still decide:
- who can pick up a child
- who receives academic information
- who can attend school events
- and what restrictions must be honored.
In many cases, administrators rely on the documentation provided by parents.
But the Reichert lawsuit raises a more complicated question:
What happens when a school acts on a court document that has not yet been legally served?
The answer may depend on whether administrators made reasonable efforts to verify the document’s status — something that could become a key issue as the case proceeds.
The Risks of Institutional Involvement
Family law disputes increasingly spill into institutions far outside the courtroom.
Schools, doctors, youth sports leagues, and even religious organizations often find themselves navigating competing demands from parents who are no longer aligned.
In those situations, institutions must balance several competing concerns:
- child safety
- legal compliance
- parental rights
- and institutional liability.
If a school wrongly restricts a parent’s access, it could face civil claims.
If it ignores a legitimate protective order, it could risk the safety of a student.
The result is a legal gray zone where administrators often make decisions with incomplete information.
The Case Ahead
The Concordia lawsuit is still in its early stages.
The court has not ruled on the allegations, and the defendants will have the opportunity to challenge the claims in court.
For now, the case raises questions that extend beyond one school and one family:
How should private institutions respond when custody disputes cross into their operations?
And more broadly:
Who bears responsibility when those decisions affect the relationship between a parent and a child?
As the case moves forward, those questions may draw attention to a rarely examined intersection between family law and institutional authority.
For schools across the country, the outcome could have implications well beyond the walls of a single campus.
Keep This Reporting Free
If this work matters to you, please consider supporting it.
Your contribution helps fund independent reporting across our entire network.
Discover more from RIPTIDE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
