Maine's Supreme Judicial Court has sided with a father who sought to block his ex from taking their daughter to an evangelical church, a ruling her attorneys call an unprecedented assault on parental religious freedom now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court issued its opinion on Tuesday, affirming a lower court custody order that strips Emily Bickford of the right to bring her 12-year-old daughter to Calvary Chapel Greater Portland in Westbrook, Maine. The ruling hands sole authority over the child's involvement with that church to the girl's father, Matthew Bradeen. For any other religious activity, the parents must jointly research and discuss whether participation serves the child's best interests, but Bradeen gets the final word if they disagree.
Liberty Counsel, the legal organization representing Bickford, has announced it will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision, arguing it guts First Amendment free-exercise protections for parents in custody disputes and contradicts rulings from courts in other states.
The case began in a Maine district court, where a judge described as a former president of the American Civil Liberties Union sided with Bradeen. That judge concluded that some of the church's teachings could be psychologically harmful to the girl and gave Bradeen sole parental rights over the child's connection to Calvary Chapel.
The New York Post reported that the lower court order dates to December 2024. Bradeen had argued the church was a "dangerous and harmful environment" that caused his daughter anxiety and panic attacks.
Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and one of Bickford's attorneys, painted a sharper picture of what happened at the trial level. He said Bradeen hired a witness Staver described as a "former Marxist professor" to testify that Calvary Chapel is a "cult." Staver also alleged the judge "mocked Emily's faith by writing 'god' in lowercase throughout the ruling" and "condemned the church for praying over mother and child."
None of those specific claims were addressed in the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's written opinion, at least as described in available reporting. The higher court focused instead on the question of parental alienation.
The Supreme Judicial Court, which heard oral arguments in November, upheld the lower court's findings but took care to reframe the rationale. The court wrote that "the child was harmed by Bickford's decisions to expose the child to messages that characterized Bradeen as an 'enemy' who seeks to 'persecute' the child and her faith, and by Bickford's unwillingness to prevent the child from receiving those messages or to take any other steps to reduce the risk of alienating her from Bradeen."
AP News reported that a pastor at the church led a prayer naming the father nearly 30 times and calling him someone "in need of salvation." The court pointed to that kind of messaging, not to Christian doctrine itself, as the source of harm.
The ruling stated directly: "Thus, far from 'declar[ing] that the Christian religion is psychologically harmful,' the court's finding reflected simply that it is harmful for a child to hear negative and frightening messages about one parent from the other parent or the other parent's authority figures."
That distinction matters legally. But it does not change the practical result: a mother cannot bring her daughter to the church she attends, and the father holds veto power over every other religious decision if the two parents cannot agree.
Staver has been blunt about what he sees at stake. In a statement issued when he presented oral arguments in November, he said:
"A Maine trial judge has issued a shocking order: Emily Bickford cannot take her own 12-year-old daughter to church. Even worse, the judge gave the hostile father sole authority to prevent this young girl from reading the Bible, saying the Lord's Prayer, or associating with any 'religious philosophy' or Christian teaching, stripping Emily of her God-given and constitutional right to raise her child in her faith."
After the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling, Staver broadened the argument. He told Just The News that the decision "goes against other state court decisions involving custody in the context of religious free exercise rights and ignores precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court." He called it "astounding" that the court concluded a fit parent has no First Amendment free-exercise rights in custody disputes.
That legal point sits at the heart of the planned appeal. The Maine court applied a "best interest of the child" standard, a common framework in family law, rather than the strict scrutiny courts typically use when the government restricts a fundamental constitutional right. Liberty Counsel argues that standard is far too low when a parent's free exercise of religion is on the line.
Staver framed the national implications plainly:
"What Maine has done in this decision is put the Supreme Court of Maine at odds with the courts of a number of other states. I think it will be a case that will be very significant and catch the attention of the Supreme Court because of how far-reaching it is with regards to the First Amendment exercise clause."
Liberty Counsel has said it intends to file its petition within 90 days of the ruling. Whether the justices take the case will determine if this stays a Maine custody fight or becomes a national precedent on religious liberty and parental rights.
Staver also issued a broader statement about the constitutional principle at play. He argued that stripping one parent of the right to pass on religious beliefs while granting the other parent sole authority "fails to give proper protection to parental rights and religious freedom under the First Amendment," as the Fox News report noted.
The case has drawn attention from legal commentators across the spectrum. National Review described the ruling as an example of courts struggling to handle religious freedom questions under existing legal frameworks, noting the broader tension between family court authority and constitutional protections for religious practice.
The Standing for Freedom Center had flagged before the ruling that the case's outcome could carry ramifications for Americans nationwide. That warning now looks prescient. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal, it would address an unresolved question: whether a family court can effectively ban a parent from practicing her faith with her child by applying a lower legal standard than the Constitution normally demands.
The high court has shown willingness in recent terms to take up cases involving fundamental rights and government overreach. It unanimously struck down a federal gun ban applied under a different constitutional amendment, signaling that the justices remain attentive when lower courts apply standards the Bill of Rights does not permit.
Several facts remain unclear. The district court judge who issued the original order has not been publicly named in reporting on the case, despite the detail that the judge previously served as president of the ACLU, a fact that raises obvious questions about impartiality in a dispute over religious practice. The "former Marxist professor" Staver says Bradeen hired as a witness has likewise not been identified.
Whether the Supreme Judicial Court's opinion addressed Staver's claims about the lower court judge writing "god" in lowercase or condemning the church for praying is not clear from available reporting. Those allegations, if accurate, would paint a picture of a trial court that went well beyond weighing the child's best interests and into open hostility toward religious exercise.
Staver also claimed that Bradeen went to court specifically to stop the girl's baptism after the child told her father she wanted to be baptized. That claim has not been independently confirmed, but it adds another layer to what Liberty Counsel frames as a father using the legal system to override his daughter's own religious choices.
The court's opinion draws a careful line between harmful messaging and religious belief. But when the practical effect of a ruling is that a mother cannot take her child to church, and the father holds a veto over every alternative, the line between regulating conduct and suppressing faith gets thin fast.
A government that can strip a parent's religious rights under a "best interest" standard, without applying the constitutional scrutiny those rights normally demand, has given itself a tool with no obvious limit. The Supreme Court will have to decide whether that tool belongs in any judge's hands.