By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
A recent federal court ruling granting disability accommodations to a Maryland parent has raised pointed questions about how the state’s family courts handle access-to-justice obligations when accommodation requests are disputed or delayed.
On January 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted Jeffrey Reichert the right to participate remotely in all pretrial proceedings as a reasonable accommodation under federal disability law. Yet filings show that while the accommodation issue was pending, Reichert’s related family court case in Anne Arundel County continued to advance—despite multiple hearings occurring without his participation.
The sequence of events highlights a growing tension between family-court procedure and federally protected disability rights.
Federal Court Confirms Accommodation Was Reasonable
In Reichert v. Hornbeck, U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson found that Reichert, who has a documented diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), qualifies as an individual with a disability under federal law.
The court concluded that remote participation—by video or telephone—for hearings, conferences, and discovery matters constitutes a reasonable accommodation that enables meaningful access to judicial proceedings.
The ruling did not address custody or family-law merits. Instead, it focused on a threshold issue: whether a disabled litigant can access the court system without exacerbating medical conditions or being excluded from proceedings altogether.
Hearings Proceeded While Access Remained Unresolved
Despite the pending accommodation requests, court filings indicate that at least five hearings in Reichert’s Anne Arundel County family court case proceeded without his participation.
According to the filings, Reichert requested remote access in advance, citing his disability and the impact of in-person appearances and interstate travel. Those requests were denied or left unresolved as hearings continued.
The proceedings moved forward as if the absence were voluntary—even though a federal court later concluded that remote access was a reasonable accommodation necessary for meaningful participation.
The filings further indicate that the minor child at the center of the case was not heard during those hearings.
Emergency Motions Warn of Punitive Outcomes
Following the federal ruling, Reichert filed multiple emergency motions in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, including requests to prohibit dismissal of the case for non-appearance while ADA issues remain pending.
In those filings, Reichert warned that dismissing the case under such circumstances could amount to punitive treatment of a disabled litigant whose absence resulted from denied access rather than neglect or refusal to appear.
The motions also note that the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court is named as a defendant in a separate federal civil-rights lawsuit alleging exclusion of a disabled litigant from judicial proceedings.
Accountability Questions for Maryland Courts
The case raises several unresolved questions for Maryland’s judicial system:
- What safeguards exist to prevent family-court proceedings from continuing when accommodation requests remain unresolved?
- How should courts distinguish between voluntary non-appearance and absence caused by denied access?
- What protections prevent dismissal or adverse rulings against litigants whose disabilities limit physical attendance?
- How should state courts reconcile expedited family-law timelines with federal ADA obligations?
Legal observers note that family courts operate with broad discretion and relaxed procedural standards, even as they adjudicate fundamental rights involving parenthood and family integrity.
When accommodation disputes arise, those same procedural flexibilities may allow cases to move forward before access issues are resolved—potentially undermining due process for disabled litigants.
Why This Matters for Maryland Families
Family court cases move quickly and often involve high-stakes decisions affecting parental rights, custody, and family stability. When accommodation requests for disabled parents remain unresolved, proceedings may continue in ways that effectively exclude a parent from meaningful participation.
For Maryland families, this raises broader concerns:
- Access to Justice: Parents with disabilities may face structural barriers to participation if courts treat accommodation requests as discretionary rather than mandatory civil-rights obligations.
- Due Process Risks: When hearings proceed without a parent’s participation, courts may rely on incomplete records or unchallenged assertions.
- Impact on Children: Decisions made without hearing from both parents—or the child—can affect long-term family outcomes.
- Systemic Precedent: How courts handle accommodation disputes may shape expectations for future cases involving mental health conditions, mobility impairments, or other disabilities.
- Public Trust: Confidence in the family court system depends on fairness, transparency, and the assurance that all parties can be heard.
As Maryland courts increasingly confront disability-related access issues, cases like this test whether procedural efficiency is being balanced against fundamental rights.
Broader Implications Beyond One Case
Disability-rights law has long recognized that courthouses and judicial processes must be accessible. However, enforcement often occurs only after harm has already taken place.
The Reichert case underscores how access failures can compound quickly in family court, where hearings are frequent and consequences accumulate rapidly.
As of publication, it remains unclear whether the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court will continue proceedings, grant remote access, or pause the case pending resolution of the accommodation dispute.
What is clear is that the case has placed a spotlight on how Maryland courts handle disability accommodations—not as a matter of convenience, but as a matter of civil rights.
MDBayNews will continue to follow developments in both the federal and state proceedings.
Further Reading: Analysis: What Maryland Could Change to Prevent ADA Access Failures in Family Court
You can learn more about the case at FreeGrantReichert.com.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Explainer: What Maryland Law Requires Under the ADA
Under federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, state courts are required to ensure that individuals with disabilities have meaningful access to judicial proceedings.
For Maryland courts, this generally means:
- Reasonable Accommodations Are Mandatory: Courts must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities unless doing so would fundamentally alter proceedings or impose an undue burden.
- Access Cannot Be Conditional: Courts may not require disabled litigants to choose between their health and their right to be heard.
- Timely Consideration Matters: Accommodation requests must be addressed promptly. Delays that result in missed hearings or exclusion can raise access and due-process concerns.
- No Penalty for Denied Access: Litigants should not face dismissal, default, or adverse rulings for non-appearance when absence is caused by unresolved accommodation requests.
- Federal Standards Apply in State Court: ADA obligations apply fully to state and local courts, including family courts, regardless of procedural discretion.
Courts retain discretion over how accommodations are implemented—but not over whether meaningful access must be provided.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.