A custody order blocking a Maine mother from taking her daughter to Calvary Chapel is now under review by the state’s highest court, raising constitutional questions about religious freedom, parental authority, and the limits of family court discretion.
On November 13, 2025, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in Bickford v. Bradeen, a case involving Emily Bickford, who was barred from taking her 12-year-old daughter to her evangelical church during her custodial time. A December 2024 District Court ruling had granted exclusive authority over the child’s religious activities to the father, Matthew Bradeen, after the judge found that the teachings of Calvary Chapel Westbrook posed psychological risks to the child.
The mother’s attorneys, including Liberty Counsel, argue the order is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They cite longstanding precedent that fit parents have a right to direct their children’s religious upbringing. The father’s position is that the court acted to protect the child from distress and emotional harm caused by the church’s teachings, based on expert testimony.
Religion and custody in conflict
At issue is whether the trial court overstepped by treating a parent’s religious beliefs as harmful. The lower court relied in part on expert testimony from Dr. Janja Lalich, who described the church as “cultic,” based on its biblical literalism, teachings on spiritual warfare, and structure under a so-called “Moses model” leadership style. Lalich testified that the church’s messaging—on hell, demons, salvation, and persecution—could have a detrimental effect on a child’s psychological development.
Judge Jennifer Nofsinger concluded that Bickford’s religious decisions were no longer in her daughter’s best interest. The court cited both the content of Calvary Chapel’s sermons and the behavior of its pastors during services, including a recorded prayer in which the congregation was asked to support Bickford and her daughter during the custody battle. The prayer referred to Bradeen as potentially being used by “the enemy” to “dismantle” the child’s faith.
In response, Bickford’s legal team pointed out that Calvary Chapel is a nationwide evangelical denomination, and that the contested teachings—such as belief in salvation through Jesus Christ, the existence of hell, and the concept of spiritual struggle—are not unorthodox. These beliefs are common across many Protestant traditions and familiar to most American Christians. Sermons referencing biblical judgment, the second coming of Christ, or the need for personal repentance appear in churches across the country.
In court filings, her attorneys emphasized that “there is zero interest, much less a compelling one, in prohibiting a mother from attending church with her child.”
The custody order bars the daughter from attending services at Calvary Chapel, reading its literature, or interacting with church members other than her mother. For other religious organizations, both parents must agree on the child’s involvement, though Bradeen has tie-breaking authority in the event of disagreement.
Legal implications and constitutional analysis
This case tests how far a court may go in using the best-interests standard to limit religious parenting. While family courts have broad discretion in custody matters, that authority stops where constitutional protections begin.
Courts may not censor or punish a parent for holding common Christian beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that fit parents have the right to guide their child’s religious upbringing, including in Wisconsin v. Yoder and Troxel v. Granville. Family law does not operate in a constitutional vacuum.
The commentary raised by legal observers centers on one question: can a family court declare a set of widely accepted religious teachings psychologically harmful based solely on doctrinal content and the interpretation of an expert? If allowed to stand, this ruling may create a path for courts to evaluate—and restrict—religious parenting based on whether a judge or expert agrees with the theology involved.
In the words of the appellate brief, “What the district court’s order has done is essentially compel what shall be orthodox in matters of religion for minor children.” That argument reflects concerns that courts should not be in the business of judging religious truth or appropriateness, especially in the absence of direct abuse or harm.
The Supreme Court has held that courts may not evaluate the truth of religious belief (United States v. Ballard, 1944), and that government neutrality—not hostility—is required under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), the Court reaffirmed protections for public religious expression, even in front of minors.
This case also implicates what some lawyers call a “heckler’s veto” in custody law. By giving the disapproving parent total control over religious decisions, the court may be enabling one parent to silence the other’s religious practice during lawful custody time.
As one line of argument in the appeal puts it: “Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.”
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court must now decide whether the psychological-harm finding was supported by sufficient evidence, and whether that finding can justify what amounts to a ban on parental religious instruction for one side of a split family.
What comes next
No timeline has been announced for the court’s ruling, but the mother’s counsel stressed urgency, particularly with the holiday season approaching. If the decision upholds the lower court’s order, the mother may consider seeking review in federal court.
Case caption: Emily A. Bickford v. Matthew A. Bradeen, Law Court Dkt. No. CUM-25-29, appeal from Portland District Court (Dec. 13, 2024)
Links:
If you found this article helpful, please like, share, and subscribe to the ReligiousLiberty.TV blog at religiouslibertytv.substack.com. Subscribers receive access to breaking case alerts, court filings, and constitutional analysis on religious-freedom issues nationwide.
AI Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a licensed attorney about their particular situation.
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read Summary)
A Maine custody order barred a mother from taking her daughter to Calvary Chapel, citing psychological harm from teachings about hell, salvation, and spiritual warfare. The mother appealed, arguing these are familiar and widely accepted beliefs among Christians and that the order violates her constitutional rights to raise her child in her faith. On November 13, 2025, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments. A decision is pending.
SEO Tags: Calvary Chapel, parental rights, religious freedom, child custody, Maine Supreme Court
