Analysis: What Maryland Could Change to Prevent ADA Access Failures in Family Court

By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews | Policy Analysis

The recent federal ruling granting disability accommodations to a Maryland parent has exposed a structural gap in how family courts handle access for disabled litigants. While the case itself remains unresolved, it has already surfaced a broader policy question for Maryland lawmakers and court administrators:

What reforms could prevent family-court proceedings from moving forward while disabled parents are effectively shut out?

The issue is not unique to one courtroom or one judge. It is a system design problem—one that can be addressed without altering custody law, evidentiary standards, or judicial independence.

---

The Structural Problem: Procedure Outpaces Access

Family courts are built for speed. Hearings are frequent, timelines are compressed, and judges are granted wide discretion to keep cases moving.

That structure works—until access becomes the bottleneck.

When accommodation requests under the ADA are unresolved, family courts often face a binary choice:

• Proceed as scheduled, or
• Pause the case

In practice, courts tend to proceed. The result is a quiet but consequential outcome: hearings occur, records are created, and decisions accumulate—without one party present.

By the time a federal court addresses the access issue, the damage may already be done.

---

Policy Gap #1: No Automatic Pause for Pending ADA Requests

Maryland currently has no uniform rule requiring family courts to pause proceedings while an ADA accommodation request is under review.

A potential reform:

• Automatic temporary stay of hearings when a litigant files a facially valid ADA accommodation request related to court access
• Limited in duration (e.g., 14–21 days)
• Lifted once the request is granted, denied with findings, or resolved

This would prevent exclusion by inertia without creating indefinite delay.

---

Policy Gap #2: No Clear Distinction Between Absence and Exclusion

Family courts often treat non-appearance as a procedural failure. But disability-related absence is not the same as refusal to appear.

A potential reform:

• Require courts to make an explicit finding on whether non-appearance is voluntary or caused by unresolved access barriers
• Prohibit dismissals, defaults, or adverse inferences when absence is linked to pending accommodation requests

This would align family-court practice with due-process principles already recognized in other areas of law.

---

Policy Gap #3: Inconsistent ADA Handling Across Counties

Accommodation practices vary widely by county and even by courtroom. Some courts routinely offer remote access; others require formal motions and repeated denials.

A potential reform:

• Statewide ADA access standards for family court, issued administratively or legislatively
• Clear guidance on remote appearance, timelines, and appeal mechanisms
• Centralized ADA coordinators with authority to act quickly

Uniform standards reduce confusion—for litigants and judges alike.

---

Policy Gap #4: Lack of Early Neutral Review

Currently, accommodation disputes are often decided by the same court whose schedule is affected by the request.

A potential reform:

• Early neutral ADA review, separate from the merits of the family case
• Handled administratively or by a designated judicial officer
• Focused solely on access, not custody or credibility

This separates civil-rights questions from adversarial family litigation.

---

Why Reform Matters Even If Courts “Mean Well”

Most access failures are not driven by hostility or bad faith. They result from:

• Time pressure
• Lack of training
• Overreliance on physical presence as the default

But civil rights law does not turn on intent. It turns on outcomes.

If a disabled parent cannot participate meaningfully—and proceedings continue anyway—the system has failed regardless of motive.

---

A Narrow Fix With Broad Impact

Importantly, none of these reforms would:

• Change custody standards
• Favor one parent over another
• Limit judicial discretion on the merits

They would simply ensure that everyone gets to the starting line before the race begins.

That principle should not be controversial.

---

The Larger Question for Maryland

As family courts increasingly confront mental health conditions, mobility impairments, and trauma-related disabilities, access issues will only become more common.

Maryland now faces a choice:

• Treat ADA access as a case-by-case inconvenience, or
• Treat it as a baseline requirement of justice

The Reichert case has made that choice visible. What policymakers do next will determine whether it becomes an inflection point—or just another warning ignored.

---

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.

👉 Support Local Journalism

Have a tip or documents to share?

We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.

 👉 Submit a Tip