Maryland’s Parent-Erasure Pattern

Introduction

The recent Anne Arundel County ruling in Reichert v. Hornbeck—where Judge Elizabeth S. Morris granted John H. Michel de facto legal standing in a child custody matter without setting forth any factual basis or evidentiary support—reflects more than judicial oversight: it mirrors a growing trend in Maryland law that risks sidelining fit biological parents.

1. ‘Reichert v. Hornbeck’: A Precedent Run Amok

On August 7, 2025, Judge Morris allowed Mr. Michel to intervene and effectively be recognized as a respondent in a custody/emancipation petition—without marriage, consent, or any findings justifying such a role. The order is devoid of reasons or analysis, yet it confers standing—and the ability to derail a fit biological father’s case—purely by judicial fiat.

This stark omission of rationale or evidence isn’t just procedural sloppiness; it's a judicial deception under the guise of family law.

2. Maryland’s De Facto Parentage Expansion

Maryland’s legal landscape shifted dramatically with Conover v. Conover (2016), which introduced the possibility of "de facto parents"—non-biological individuals who may gain equal legal footing if they satisfy a rigorous four-factor test, including consent and fostering of the relationship by the legal parent.

Later cases, like Katelyn McMorrow v. Vernon King, III (2025), affirmed that de facto parentage can be used to bypass the traditional need to prove unfitness or exceptional circumstances—provided the proponent clears the Conover threshold.

3. Third-Party Interventions: A Rigid Threshold—Until It Isn’t

Absent de facto parent status, third-party intervenors—grandparents, aunts, or friends—must demonstrate parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances before a court even considers their claim. This high bar is designed to protect constitutional parental rights.

Still, Burak v. Burak and subsequent rulings confirm that intervention is permitted if the petition makes a prima facie case—even before a hearing—though basic due process requires factual grounding.

4. Ad Hoc Trends Eroding Transparency

A 2023 Montgomery County case illustrates that even when de facto parentage or unfitness claims fail on substance, courts may still reassign custody if they determine parents are “unfit”—but those judgments are reached following extensive hearings, not with a pen stroke.

Moreover, the emerging tension in cases like EN v. TR(2) raises unresolved questions: Must both legal parents consent for de facto status? Can unfitness substitute for consent? The lack of clarity is government impulse unchecked—laws being reshaped quietly by judges.

5. The Threat: De Facto Parentage Without Due Process

Reichert v. Hornbeck distills all of this complexity into a dangerous blur. By granting standing without any finding under Conover, without parental consent, and without asserting unfitness or exceptional circumstances, it skips the guardrails entirely.

If one judge can do it, another can—and without evidence or transparency, fit parents might find themselves erased by judicial whim.

Conclusion & Call to Action

Maryland’s move toward recognizing de facto parents—even where justified—is understandable in the digital age of blended families. Yet Reichert crosses the line from reform to recklessness. Lacking evidentiary support or statutory grounding, it undermines fundamental parental rights—rights the U.S. Supreme Court deems among the “oldest of the fundamental liberty interests”.

This is not isolated: it's symptomatic of a trend. The General Assembly must step in—clarify the Conover standard, mandate explicit findings of fact, and safeguard due process—before unchecked judicial expansion dismantles the rights of biological parents.

Michael Phillips is a writer, advocate, and investigative journalist focusing on family court reform, parental rights, and due process. Drawing from personal experience and extensive research, he exposes systemic failures and legal loopholes that threaten parents and children across the United States.