The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court order granting Matthew Bradeen sole decision-making authority over whether his 13-year-old daughter could attend Calvary Chapel Greater Portland, where her mother Emily Bickford is a member.
The ruling affirmed a 2024 district court decision that gave the father final say specifically regarding the girl's participation in that congregation. The parents share decision-making rights on all other religious matters.
Bickford appealed through attorneys including Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, arguing the restriction violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment protections for religious exercise and parental autonomy. Her legal team claimed the lower court demonstrated bias by labeling the church a "cult."
The state's highest court rejected those arguments, finding the limitation stemmed from documented harm to the child rather than opposition to Christianity itself.
What the Right Is Saying
Religious liberty advocates, including those representing Bickford, argue the ruling sets a dangerous precedent by allowing courts to restrict a parent's ability to share their faith with their child based on the other parent's objections. They contend this undermines constitutional protections for religious exercise.
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said following the ruling that granting one parent veto power over religious decisions "fails to give proper protection to parental rights and religious freedom under the First Amendment." He announced plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the implications pose a serious threat to religious liberty across custody cases nationwide.
Conservative commentators have framed the decision as judicial overreach into family religious life. They argue that unless a specific church teaches illegal activities, courts should not restrict a child's access based on one parent's disagreements with its theology or worship style.
What the Left Is Saying
Civil liberties advocates on the left argue that courts must prioritize children's psychological well-being over parental religious preferences. They note that when one parent uses faith as a vehicle to alienate a child from the other parent, courts have an obligation to intervene.
Organizations focused on family law say this ruling appropriately distinguishes between protecting religious freedom and preventing emotional harm. "A parent's right to practice their faith does not include the right to weaponize that faith against the other parent or damage a child's relationship with them," said one family law attorney quoted in legal commentary on the decision.
Progressive legal scholars argue the court's reasoning provides important precedent for handling custody disputes where religion becomes a factor in parental alienation. They say the ruling correctly identified that restricting attendance at one specific church is not equivalent to restricting religious practice broadly.
What the Numbers Show
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruling drew from a 2024 district court finding that documented evidence of harm to the child justified limiting Bickford's religious decision-making authority. The appellate court's opinion cited testimony indicating the daughter experienced "panic attacks and debilitating anxiety" after hearing teachings about the Rapture.
Religious custody disputes represent a small but consistent category of family law cases. According to data from the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, disputes involving religious upbringing rank among the top five most contentious custody issues brought before family courts annually. The organization notes that such cases often involve deeply divided courts attempting to balance competing parental rights.
The Liberty Counsel, which is representing Bickford, has previously brought several religious freedom cases to federal courts, with varying outcomes. This marks one of the first times a state supreme court ruling on this specific issue has drawn national attention in the current custody and religious liberty debate.
The Bottom Line
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision establishes that courts may restrict a child's participation in a specific religious institution when evidence demonstrates harm to the child, without violating the other parent's constitutional rights. The court was careful to specify it did not find Christianity itself harmful, but rather found that messages characterizing the father as an enemy contributed to parental alienation.
The ruling leaves open whether the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to hear Bickford's case if Liberty Counsel files its anticipated petition. Legal experts say the high court's decision on whether to take the appeal could determine whether this precedent applies nationally or remains limited to Maine and similar jurisdictions.
What happens next: The district court order giving Bradeen sole authority over his daughter's attendance at Calvary Chapel Greater Portland remains in effect pending any further appeals. Parents navigating custody disputes involving religious differences will be watching closely for Supreme Court action on the petition.