The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday affirmed a lower court ruling that grants a father final decision-making authority over whether his daughter attends her mother’s evangelical church, marking the latest development in a custody dispute over the child’s religious upbringing.
The state’s high court upheld a Portland District Court judge’s December 2024 decision, which prohibited the mother, Emily Bickford, from taking her daughter to Calvary Chapel Greater Portland and gave the father, Matthew Bradeen, sole authority over the child’s involvement with the church. The parents retain shared decision-making authority regarding other religious organizations.
The dispute centers on the child’s attendance at Calvary Chapel, where Bickford had been taking her daughter multiple times per week. Bradeen argued that church teachings, including discussions of the Rapture, caused his daughter anxiety and a panic attack, describing the environment as psychologically damaging. The lower court sided with Bradeen, finding that messages from the church characterized him negatively, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court agreed.
Under the ruling, Bradeen has the final say if the parents disagree on the child’s exposure to any religious group. The court stated that the allocation of decision-making authority stemmed from the parents’ inability to jointly make decisions about the child’s religious upbringing.
Custody Dispute Background
The conflict between Bradeen and Bickford began as a broader custody dispute over their teenage daughter, which later expanded to include medical decisions and religious upbringing. The case has drawn attention to the intersection of parental rights, religious liberty, and family court authority in determining a child’s exposure to religion.
Bickford has maintained that the court order unlawfully interferes with her ability to raise her daughter according to her Christian beliefs. Her legal team, Liberty Counsel, has argued that she is a fit parent who has never been found abusive or neglectful and that government officials should not restrict a child’s participation in a parent’s religious practices.
Bradeen’s legal representatives have not publicly commented on the ruling beyond the court’s findings regarding the child’s well-being.
Legal and Policy Implications
The case raises questions about the limits of family courts in regulating religious exposure during custody disputes. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s decision hinges on the best interests of the child, as determined by the lower court’s assessment of psychological harm.
Legal experts note that such rulings can set precedents for similar cases, particularly in states where courts weigh parental rights against a child’s exposure to religious environments. The case also highlights the tension between religious freedom and state intervention in family matters.
Bickford’s attorneys have indicated plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Maine ruling threatens religious freedom and parental rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The appeal would test whether family courts can restrict a child’s religious activities based on concerns about psychological harm rather than hostility toward religion.