Today is Father’s Day, but Jeff Reichert won’t see his son, hear his voice, or have any contact.
Unfortunately, this isn’t new.
He told me this will the fourth Father’s Day where he’s kept away.
Earlier this week, he filed an emergency motion, hoping for a legal hail Mary.
On Wednesday June 11, 2025, the emergency motion was scheduled to be hearing.
Janice Grenadier is Jeff’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) advocate.
She was at the hearing and told me the court has “blackballed” Jeff.
{For more on Janice’s ADA advocacy, check out the interview I did with her and Malinda Sherwyn another ADA advocate}
His motion was not denied, but rather, it wasn’t heard.
This is also not new. Since Jeff’s ex-wife, Sarah Hornbeck, got custody in 2022, he’s brought approximately forty motions. Never has he gotten a hearing.
Jeff is supposed to see his son once a week, but that hasn’t happened in over three years. Despite that flagrant violation of the court order, the courts refuse to give Jeff a hearing.
This time, Jeff told me, the court denied his ADA accommodation and required him to appear in court in person. Since he was in Virginia, approximately six hours away from the court in Maryland, when this ruling came down, that wasn’t possible.
His emergency petition was dismissed.
His lawyers then informed Sarah’s attorney, Brennan McCarthy, that they were planning on filing another emergency motion.
McCarthy responded in kind.
Thank you for your email. This will confirm your client's intention to bring a Third Emergency Petition for Emergency Relief regarding the Minor Child in this case in the space of a week. The basis of this latest filing is that following the Court's denial of your client's Second Petition for Emergency Relief at which he failed to appear for a second time, your client contacted the Baltimore County Police and had them perform a wellness check at my client's home. The officer came to the home, discovered the child was fine, and left. It was, contrary to your client's assertion, quite successful, and further succeeded in wasting police resources as a result of your client's request for the visit in the first place. This had nothing to do with the Minor Child, it was intended as harassment which was likewise successful on your client's part.
Your client is restricted to telephonic communications with a Court appointed supervisor because he over-involves the child in litigation to such a degree that it constitutes mental and emotional abuse on his part. Your client's complaint documents a consistent contempt of the Court's Order, laid out in painful detail, and this case is itself a constructive contempt of the Court's Order by directly involving the child in litigation between these parties. The Court in the Family Law case has further instructed Mr. Reichert and his counsel, including Mr. Grove, that the child will only be produced to testify if requested by the Court. Under no circumstances will the Minor Child be produced for Court without express instruction from the Court accordingly.
I asked Jeff if McCarthy had a point. Filing one emergency petition after another seems like harassment, however, he told me that he’s doing everything possible to see his son.
Jeff said that if he was in jail- Sarah has attempted several times- he would see his sone more.
Jeff said that in jail visits would be coordinated; a prisoner has more rights than he does, even though he’s the only stable figure in his son’s life.
His son Grant made it clear in 2022 that he wanted to live with his father.
Jeff also said that McCarthy was inserting himself into a legal situation despite a clear conflict.
The latest emergency motion was regarding a petition to emancipate Grant. If successful, Grant would be considered an adult and no longer under the thumb of the courts.
McCarthy informed the court that he would represent Grant and Hornbeck, even though the two are at odds over Grant’s wishes.
Jeff has filed a motion to recuse McCarthy.
Today, McCarthy complains about legal harassment, however, his strategy was legal harassment when he was trying to get custody for his client, Sarah Hornbeck.
After a near decade long battle, the two settled on a custody arrangement where Jeff would have sole custody while Sarah would have supervised visits in 2019.
The agreement also had a clause requiring all disputes to be settled with a mediator and kept out of court.
About nine months after this agreement was signed, Sarah went to court to get a protective order, the first of many. She employed the silver bullet technique.
She also called numerous welfare checks and had Jeff arrested several times.
Violating the agreement, she also relitigated custody.
Mr. McCarthy knows a few things about legal harassment.
Share this post