A Diagnosed Mental Illness the Courts Refuse to See
Sarah Hornbeck is not merely a litigant in a prolonged family court case—she is the subject of a years-long legal and psychological crisis that has put her diagnosed mental illness, history of substance abuse, and erratic behavior at the center of one of Maryland’s most disturbing child custody battles.
Despite evaluations from licensed mental health professionals and multiple court orders mandating psychological assessment, the Maryland judiciary has refused to formally acknowledge the risks Hornbeck poses to her child, Grant, or to her ex-husband, Jeff Reichert. Instead, the court has repeatedly enabled her to maintain primary custody—despite an extensive history of arrests, violent outbursts, child abuse and neglect, false accusations, and clinical indicators of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD).
Diagnosed by Multiple Doctors, Ignored by Multiple Courts
Over the course of nearly two decades, Hornbeck has been evaluated by a long list of professionals. These include, but are not limited to:
- Dr. Alice Dvoskin (court-assigned therapist)
- Dr. John Gartner (Johns Hopkins)
- Dr. Richard Perlmutter (psychiatrist specializing in BPD)
- Dr. Scott Holtzman (parenting coordinator)
- Dr. Anthony Wolff
These professionals cited serious mental health concerns, including:
- Histrionic, compulsive, and turbulent personality characteristics
- Adjustment disorder with anxiety
- High levels of emotional volatility
- Persistent non-disclosure and manipulative testing behaviors
- Projections of these behaviors onto others- especially their partners.
According to court testimony, Dr. Perlmutter reportedly stated he would have recommended inpatient treatment. Dr. Dvoskin allegedly called Jeff Reichert personally after meeting with Sarah to express alarm at her instability. Dr. Gartner referred Sarah to specialists. Jeff Reichert has asserted that these diagnoses were so severe, doctors at one point were preparing for involuntary commitment.
And yet, in court, none of these professionals’ findings were treated as determinative. The nature of BPD is to NEVER accept accountability so treatment is very difficult and medicine does not control the issues. Sarah continued to present well in court, benefit from procedural delays, and exploit the court’s reluctance to weigh mental health diagnoses against her polished public demeanor.
A Pattern of Dangerous Behavior
Hornbeck’s actions over the years align with classic BPD symptoms. Her behavior includes:
- A March 2018 DUI arrest where she rammed two cars, assaulted a police officer, and resisted arrest while scheduled to pick up her son from school.
- Over 40 missed or non-compliant Soberlink tests between May 2019 and early 2020.
- Reports from Grant that his mother passed out drunk, left him alone with a toddler, and drove while intoxicated.
- Filing of false missing persons reports, resulting in wrongful police involvement.
- Multiple arrests of Jeff Reichert—based on Hornbeck’s allegations—all charges later dismissed.
In affidavits and testimony, Jeff describes how Sarah tried to kill him. She once attempted to run him over with her car, smashed his belongings in drunken rages, stabbed him on one occasion, and created such a threatening environment that their son often barricaded himself in a closet. Therapists and custody evaluators have expressed concern about the environment Grant is subjected to while in Sarah’s care.
Grant has also experienced physical and emotional neglect during periods where Sarah failed to follow up on therapy, missed appointments, or reportedly prioritized relationships with romantic partners over parenting responsibilities. Multiple emails, affidavits, and case documents support the account that her behavior has at times bordered on criminal negligence.
Borderline Personality Disorder: A Clinical Crisis in Plain Sight
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is one of the most difficult and dangerous personality disorders to manage in family court settings. It is characterized by:
- Fear of abandonment
- Volatile relationships
- Impulsive and reckless behavior, including poor spending habits
- Emotional instability and rage
- Manipulation and distortion of reality
- Chronic feelings of emptiness
- Unstable sense of identity
- Paranoia or dissociation under stress
Professionals have testified or reported that Hornbeck’s behavior includes:
- Alternating between idealizing and devaluing Jeff and Grant
- Using the child as a pawn during emotional swings
- Making false accusations to control legal proceedings
- Exhibiting chronic rage, paranoia, and breakdowns
- Erratic spending habits
Sarah has also shown an unusual ability to navigate the legal system, using legal filings and protective orders as weapons to inflict emotional harm or delay proceedings. This weaponization of the court is not uncommon in untreated BPD cases.
Experts noted her tendency toward manipulation, her lack of insight, and her impulsive behaviors as indicative of a high-conflict personality. Dr. Holtzman reportedly told colleagues that Hornbeck’s emotional instability was a constant source of disruption in parenting coordination and ultimately led to the end of his involvement.
Regarding her spending and money issues, Sarah has filed for bankruptcy and been foreclosed on, with active cases still being litigated. The IRS has investigated her as she is known to have cheated on her taxes.
A Son’s Cry for Help, Silenced by the System
Grant Reichert has been diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and PTSD. He has reportedly experienced flashbacks, expressed fear of his mother, and has tried to run away from her home on multiple occasions. His therapist noted that after time with Sarah, Grant displays confusion, guilt, and fear, and recommended that he have limited interaction with her.
He has told professionals that his mother drinks excessively and makes him feel unsafe. Police once found him after he fled his mother’s home during an argument involving Sarah and her boyfriend, John Michel, who was allegedly intoxicated.
Protective order petitions describing these incidents were dismissed by the court. In one instance, a judge dismissed concerns over Grant’s therapy interruptions and behavioral distress, despite reports from multiple mental health professionals.
Grant’s emotional language reflects the influence of his experiences. He once referred to his mother as a “psychopath” and the “devil in human skin”. He has been described by family therapists as articulate, but emotionally cautious—traits common in children subjected to prolonged emotional trauma. Notes from his individual therapist describe a child who carries enormous guilt and shows signs of parentification, having taken on a caregiver role during Sarah’s episodes.
Jeff Reichert: A Father Fighting Alone
Jeff Reichert is a veteran, a respected basketball coach, and a father who has spent the last 15 years trying to shield his son from harm.
He supported Sarah through therapy, rehab, and co-parenting until her outbursts and refusal to seek inpatient help led him to file for divorce. He alleges he was pushed to the brink—not only by her behavior, but by a court system that failed to protect him or their son.
Jeff has been arrested four times due to false claims filed by Sarah. Thirty-eight criminal charges have been filed against him—all dismissed. These arrests often occurred in front of Grant.
Sarah also allegedly attempted to sabotage Jeff’s professional and social life by making defamatory claims to neighbors, employers, and even his coaching associations. Despite these tactics, Jeff has remained committed to maintaining contact with his son, attending therapy sessions, and complying with court orders.
He has also taken steps to document every violation, contradiction, and lapse of judgment in the case—from Sarah’s failure to notify him of major medical and religious events in Grant’s life, to court transcripts that reveal glaring inconsistencies in her sworn testimony.
Shady Romances and Shadowy Protection
One of the most disturbing elements of this case is the web of powerful romantic connections surrounding Sarah Hornbeck.
Her past and present relationships include, but certainly are not limited to:
- A top T. Rowe Price fund manager, with whom Sarah had an affair while working for him right out of college. He was married with 3 kids and 20 years his senior.
- Daniel “Beau” Engle, a former bartender and father of one of her children. Jeff later helped Beau in his own custody battle against Sarah. He has primary custody of their son.
- Roy Kirby, a multimillionaire developer 25 years Sarah’s senior, who hired and proposed to Sarah after a month of knowing her, before a dramatic breakup.
- John Michel, her current partner, allegedly pays her legal bills using his late wife’s life insurance. Jeff and his son believe Sarah was romantically involved with John while he was still married, evidenced by her moving into the marital home a week after his wife was buried in August 2020.
- Dave and Doug Brandeen, twins with a history of substance abuse. Sarah reportedly lived with Dave and had romantic relationships with both, all after Jeff began a relationship with Dave’s ex-wife, Jen..
- A Federal Hill cop, Sarah, allegedly had a relationship with while involved in custody enforcement and immediately following her and her father’s arrests after both had assaulted Jeff in 2011.
- A 70-year-old friend of her father’s.
- Thiru Vignarajah- a married former candidate for Mayor of Baltimore, David Karceski- whose father, Richard, tried to represent Sarah in her criminal exploits.
These associations have raised concerns about undue influence and favoritism, and certainly Sarah’s promiscuity and character. In a system where perception influences decisions, Sarah’s proximity to power may be the factor shielding her from consequences.
A Family Law System Built to Fail
Despite repeated protective order petitions, therapist letters, Soberlink records, and psychological evaluations, Maryland’s family court system has persistently failed to act.
Examples include:
- Granting Sarah shared custody just five days after her DUI arrest—without notifying Jeff or the court of the arrest until after trial.
- Denying post-trial motions on procedural grounds instead of substance.
- Refusing to acknowledge Borderline Personality Disorder as a material factor in custody rulings.
Court-appointed therapists have openly questioned the court’s reluctance to take clinical evidence seriously. Several legal filings point to procedural abuses, unexplained judicial delays, and bias in evidentiary rulings.
Helen Laird, one of the custody evaluators, confirmed in open court that Sarah displayed characteristics consistent with severe personality dysfunction. And yet, the court maintained its narrative: Sarah was fit to parent. Jeff was wrongly labeled as angry, overreactive, and uncooperative.
This failure is not only about ignoring diagnoses—it’s about a systemic bias that disfavors fathers, protects image over substance, and enables weaponized mental illness to dictate outcomes.
Conclusion: Who Is Sarah Hornbeck?
She is a woman diagnosed by multiple professionals with a severe personality disorder.
She is a mother with a history of substance abuse, violent behavior, and repeated manipulation of the legal system.
She is also the custodial parent in a system that punished the safer parent—and protected the unstable one.
What began as a custody dispute has become a cautionary tale: when courts refuse to face mental illness, everyone suffers—especially the child caught in the middle.
The question isn’t just, “Who is Sarah Hornbeck?” It’s: Why is she still the one calling the shots?
This is a story of mental illness running unchecked in Family Law at its core. The shame is that Sarah obviously needs a lot of professional help. Yet, Maryland courts have made her sicker and most likely to the point of no return. They have not only failed Grant Reichert and his father, but they have also failed Sarah by not ensuring she gets the help she needs.
The information in this article is based on public records, court filings, and firsthand statements from those involved. All subjects are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
For documentation, sources, and exhibits referenced in this article, see supplemental court filings available through public records requests in Anne Arundel and Baltimore County.
The Republic Dispatch 