Investigative Journalism | Exposing What Lies Beneath
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.
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 explanation of the five unreported opinions and their impact.
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.
Five Appeals, No Precedent: How One of Maryland’s Most Litigated Custody Cases Disappeared Into the Shadows Read More
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 were more about control than safety.
Sarah Hornbeck’s Deposition Disaster: Five Admissions That Expose a Reckless Witch Hunt Masquerading as Justice Read More