Double Dipping Isn’t Just Maryland’s Problem

When Maryland’s Anne Arundel County Family Court allowed John Michel to step into the role of “de facto father” for Grant Reichert—while keeping Jeff Reichert on the hook for child support—it wasn’t just an outrageous one-off. It’s part of a wider, systemic practice that’s been quietly tolerated (and in some cases, encouraged) in family courts across the country.

This practice—call it parental double dipping—creates the perfect revenue machine:

• Replace a biological parent with someone else.
• Keep the original parent paying support.
• Maintain the illusion that this is “in the child’s best interest” while maximizing enforcement dollars.

Other States, Same Game

1. California – “The Duped Dad” Cases

California courts have repeatedly upheld child support orders against men proven not to be biological fathers—sometimes years after DNA evidence proved otherwise. In one infamous case, Rodney Washington was ordered to keep paying child support even after genetic testing excluded him as the father, because the court ruled it was in the “child’s best interest” to maintain financial stability.

Lesson: Courts often treat financial obligations as permanent—even when the emotional and legal bonds have been severed.

2. Texas – Stepfather Replaces Dad, Dad Still Pays

In Texas, a father lost custody to the mother’s new husband after a court found “change of circumstances” sufficient to modify custody. Despite being stripped of decision-making power and seeing his child only a handful of times per year, he was still required to pay the same monthly support amount.

Lesson: Courts can shift parental authority away from a biological parent without adjusting their financial burden—effectively turning them into a wallet with no voice.

3. Illinois – “Best Interests” Over Biology

Illinois courts have granted “psychological parent” status to step-parents and boyfriends, while leaving the biological parent financially responsible. In one case, the biological father was denied custody in favor of a stepfather but was still ordered to provide support—even though the court ruled he had no say in schooling, medical care, or religious upbringing.

Lesson: “Best interests of the child” is often used as a catch-all to justify contradictory rulings: removing the parent’s role, but keeping their bank account.

The Common Denominator: Title IV-D Funding

Whether in Maryland, California, Texas, or Illinois, the economic incentive is the same:

• States get reimbursed by the federal government under Title IV-D for child support enforcement.
• The more child support orders in place—and the higher the collection rates—the more money flows back into state programs.

Replacing a parent doesn’t reduce this revenue stream; in fact, it can enhance it by eliminating visitation disputes (which sometimes reduce payment compliance) while keeping the financial order intact.

Why Maryland’s Case Is Worse

What makes Reichert v. Hornbeck particularly dangerous is that it’s happening without a finding of unfitness and without consent—and to a father who previously had full custody. That means this precedent doesn’t just target “deadbeat dads” or disputed paternity cases; it targets good-fit, involved parents who’ve already been vetted by the court as capable.

If Maryland gets away with this, it’s a roadmap for every other state:

1. Remove the parent.
2. Replace the parent.
3. Keep charging the parent.

The Pattern Is Clear

Across the U.S., family courts have mastered the art of financially erasing parents—cutting them out of their children’s lives while locking them into payment obligations that have nothing to do with actual parenting.

This isn’t child support anymore. It’s system support—a funding model disguised as family law.