Here’s the full case.
Living case files — structured, ongoing coverage of specific people, events, and disputes.
Each case brings together reporting, documents, timelines, and key actors in one place.
- Featured case hubs (Lynch, Reichert, Fishman)
- Legal filings, timelines, and key players
- Person-centered and dispute-centered reporting
- Ongoing updates as cases evolve
When Parental Alienation Becomes Child Abuse, and No One Can Cite It
The Appellate Court of Maryland issued an unreported opinion in Reichert v. Hornbeck, determining critical family law questions about mental abuse and custody. Despite extensive findings against Jeff Reichert’s parenting, the opinion’s unreported status limits its legal precedent, affecting future family law cases significantly regarding parental conduct and child custody evaluations.
The Therapist the Court Ordered
Dr. Rebecca Bailey, a family therapist, has faced numerous complaints regarding her controversial practice, Transitioning Families, which reunites families amid troubled custody disputes, often in abusive contexts. Critics claim her methods prioritize affluent parents, sidelining protective ones, while courts continue to endorse her, perpetuating a flawed system linked to a broader problematic industry.
“I Can’t Breathe”: The Cases Legacy Media Decided Not to Cover
The phrase “I can’t breathe” became a global rallying cry after George Floyd. But what happens when similar pleas come from victims whose stories never become headlines? This Riptide investigation examines three cases—from Virginia, England, and California—that raise difficult questions about media attention, accountability, and selective public outrage.
The Criminalist and the Coerced Plea
Former criminalist Rhonda Reyna once testified for prosecutors in homicide cases. Years later, she says the same justice system ignored exculpatory evidence, pushed her into a no contest plea, and helped separate her from her daughter. Part one of Riptide’s investigation into California’s broken public defense system.
The Judge Who Wasn’t Ready
Judge Vivian Wang, recently appointed with no family law experience, denied motions in a complex custody case involving alleged fraud and disability accommodations. Critics argue her procedural ruling lacked thorough legal analysis, particularly regarding limitations and equitable tolling. The upcoming trial may test her judicial capabilities and the fairness of the process.
Two Courts, Two Answers: How a Federal Accommodation Order Exposed the Anne Arundel Circuit Court’s ADA Defiance
In January 2026, a federal magistrate granted Jeffrey Reichert remote ADA accommodations for pretrial hearings, while the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court repeatedly denied his requests, even barring him from future filings. This stark contrast raises questions about court compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and retaliation against disabled litigants.
Court Denies Brenna Gano’s Motions — But Sets the Stage for Trial
A San Mateo judge rejected attempts by Brenna Gano to overturn a 2022 settlement, citing statute of limitations concerns. Gano argued she was coerced into the agreement without proper accommodations for her disabilities. While the denials were procedural, a full-day trial is set for December 28, 2026, where core issues will be examined.
The Gatekeeper
Brenna Gano alleges that Samantha Esver-Poon, a Family Court Services counselor in San Mateo County, fabricated agreements and neglected evidence, leading to her estrangement from her son Jacob. Despite ongoing complaints, including violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Esver-Poon remains employed, and the county has yet to address the allegations.
The San Mateo Syndicate
A document-driven investigation reveals how a tightly connected network of lawyers, therapists, and a private judge operated inside a single custody case—coordinating decisions, shaping evidence, and extracting more than $350,000 while independent advocacy became nearly impossible.
They’re Adults Now. He Still Can’t Call Them.
Marc Fishman’s children are no longer caught in a custody battle — they’re adults. And yet the silence remains. His case exposes a reality rarely discussed: when parental alienation succeeds, it doesn’t end. It becomes permanent.
The ‘Mom Yells’ Playbook
A two-word claim — “mom yells” — became the foundation for a seven-year custody battle that ended in total estrangement. This investigation traces how a narrative, once introduced into the family court system, can be repeated, reinforced, and ultimately weaponized until it replaces documented reality.
A Father’s Silence: How Jeffrey Reichert Lost His Son to a System That Stopped Listening
Jeffrey Reichert hasn’t seen his son since 2022. Every criminal charge filed against him failed. Yet he lost custody—and contact. This investigation examines how it happened, and what it reveals about Maryland’s family court system.
The Mother the System Called the Problem
On Parental Alienation Awareness Day, Rhonda Reyna’s story exposes a disturbing inversion inside the family court system: the very label meant to protect children from manipulation is increasingly used against the parent raising legitimate safety concerns. As documented warnings go ignored and protective actions are reframed as “alienation,” the system meant to safeguard families instead…
The Ambush
Brenna Gano’s tumultuous experience in San Mateo County family court culminated in a misleading Zoom mediation on February 15, 2022, where she faced undue pressure to sign a Memorandum of Agreement regarding custody and finances. This occurred amid a financial disparity and lack of proper legal representation, leading to claims of duress and calls for…
Locked Out
A father who once had primary custody now finds himself locked out—not just of his child’s life, but of the courtroom itself. As proceedings move forward without his participation, filings raise urgent questions about jurisdiction, due process, and whether access to justice in Maryland depends on who the system allows through the door.
The Wrong County
A Maryland custody case involving Sarah Hornbeck and Jeffrey Reichert experienced prolonged legal battles due to a contentious address issue. Hornbeck’s initial emergency petition, filed under an incorrect Anne Arundel County address, led to years of hearings and appeals. Despite numerous jurisdiction challenges, the court upheld jurisdiction without addressing the misrepresentation of Hornbeck’s residence.
The 90-Day Order: How an Unprecedented Custody Decision Became Invisible Law
In February 2022, Judge Alison L. Asti ordered Jeffrey Reichert to have no contact with his son, G.R., for ninety days, disrupting their long-established custody. The unreported appellate opinion overlooked crucial case history, raising concerns about judicial consistency and transparency in contested custody cases involving allegations of parental alienation.
The Standard Nobody Published: Maryland’s Amended Protective Order Law, Eight Years Without a Reported Case
A Maryland custody case once made law. Then, over six years and five more appeals, Reichert v. Hornbeck generated a body of unreported family-law rulings that resolved recurring questions but never entered the state’s published precedent. This article examines what that means for litigants, lawyers, and the public. Grounded in the article’s opening and its…
Five Appeals, No Precedent: How One of Maryland’s Most Litigated Custody Cases Disappeared Into the Shadows
In 2013, the Maryland custody case Reichert v. Hornbeck set legal precedents but generated five unreported opinions that became invisible in family law discussions. These opinions addressed crucial issues like protective orders and child support yet lacked publication, highlighting systemic transparency problems in Maryland’s family law, affecting future cases significantly.
Inside the California Custody Cartel
Brenna Gano’s experience in California’s family court highlights a troubling system where justice is influenced by financial interests. Misled and pressured into signing agreements, she faced excessive costs and neurological biases that labeled her as unstable. Her case exemplifies a broader pattern of exploitation for profit within family court practices, jeopardizing families’ well-being.
When Family Court Leaves the Courtroom
The article highlights the risks parents face in private judging during family court proceedings, often unaware of its binding nature. Many experience significant pressure and confusion, leading to irreversible agreements without fully understanding the consequences. It emphasizes the need for clarity and proper legal guidance before consenting to such processes.
She Slipped the Cuffs, Fought Two Officers, Drove Impaired — Then Walked Away Clean. Years Later, Under Oath, She Said She Didn’t Remember.
A deposition revealed that attorney Sarah Hornbeck admitted under oath to a 2018 DUI arrest and a guilty plea, contradicting her legal filings. Despite her claims, the records raise concerns about probation violations and her inconsistent memory regarding significant incidents, all occurring amid an ongoing custody dispute.
Sarah Hornbeck’s Deposition Disaster: Five Admissions That Expose a Reckless Witch Hunt Masquerading as Justice
In the custody case Reichert v. Hornbeck, attorney Sarah Hornbeck’s deposition revealed alarming admissions that undermine her accusations against ex-husband Jeffrey Reichert. Her reckless actions, including reporting incidents without knowing the child’s location and relying on hearsay from biased witnesses, raise serious questions about her credibility. All charges against Reichert were dismissed, suggesting her motives…
Disabled Father’s Explosive ADA Lawsuit Slams Maryland Court for Systemic Discrimination—Will AG Brown Defend the Indefensible?
Disabled veteran Jeff Reichert’s federal lawsuit against the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court reveals alleged systematic discrimination and retaliation in his custody battle. Despite his disabilities, the court denied reasonable accommodations required under the ADA, raising significant concerns about bias and access to justice within Maryland’s family court system.
Hornbeck’s Panic Play: Motion to Dismiss Filed Days After Deposition Raised Questions About Basis for Criminal Charges
Sarah Hornbeck has filed a Motion to Dismiss in the federal case Reichert v. Hornbeck after a deposition where she faltered under questioning regarding the evidence for her criminal charges against ex-husband Jeff Reichert. Critics claim her motion is a desperate attempt to avoid accountability in a long custody battle that alienated Reichert from their…
“I Don’t Recall”: Inside the Deposition That Could Unravel a Maryland Attorney’s Protective-Order Case
A recent deposition in the federal case Reichert v. Hornbeck is raising serious questions about the credibility of key accusations that once led to dozens of criminal charges against a father locked in a custody dispute.
During questioning, Sarah Hornbeck repeatedly stated she did not recall critical events surrounding those allegations—events that ultimately led to…
The Reichert Files: What the Defendant Admitted Under Oath
A February 2026 deposition in the federal case against Jeffrey Reichert revealed significant details about his contentious custody battle with Sarah Hornbeck. Hornbeck admitted her past DUI arrest and expressed memory gaps regarding critical events, raising questions about the reliability of her prior legal filings. The deposition highlights the complexities and ongoing nature of their…
When Institutions Pick a Parent
A federal lawsuit in Maryland challenges how private schools manage parental custody disputes, focusing on Concordia Preparatory School’s alleged improper involvement in a custody conflict. The case raises critical questions about school responsibilities in such matters, particularly surrounding the enforcement of unserved protective orders and how institutions handle conflicting parental claims.
Disability Advocates Condemn New York Court of Appeals and Judge Anthony Cannataro for Denying Disabled Father Access to Justice
The New York Court of Appeals dismissed Marc Fishman’s appeal regarding ADA violations during his seven-year litigation, claiming it lacked jurisdiction. Despite a federal judge’s order for accommodations, Westchester courts denied necessary support, highlighting systemic issues in New York’s justice system that prevent disabled litigants from obtaining fair treatment and redress. Advocates call for legislative…
The Psychiatric Weapon: How Mental Health Was Turned into a Weapon of Control
California’s family courts exploit psychological diagnoses to control parents, monetizing their trauma under the guise of therapy. The interconnected system—comprising judges, evaluators, and therapists—creates dependencies that perpetuate conflict and financial burdens on families. Brenna Gano’s case exemplifies this abuse, revealing systemic failures and calls for urgent reform to protect vulnerable individuals.
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.