Maine Court Weighs Mother’s Rights in Church Attendance Ban

UPDATE: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is urgently deliberating a controversial custody case that could redefine parental rights and religious freedom. A lower court’s ruling has barred mother Emily Bickford from taking her 12-year-old daughter to church or exposing her to Bible teachings, raising critical constitutional questions about judicial authority over religious practices.

The case, Bickford v. Bradeen, has garnered national attention as it touches on significant issues regarding parental rights and the state’s role in family law. Justices are examining whether the lower court’s order, issued on December 13, 2024, overstepped constitutional boundaries by restricting Bickford’s religious freedoms based on claims of potential psychological harm to the child.

At the heart of the dispute is the ruling that granted the child’s father, Matthew Bradeen, sole control over all religious decisions. The Portland District Court’s order followed extensive testimony about the teachings at Calvary Chapel, the church attended by Bickford. The court concluded that the church’s materials, which included depictions of “fallen angels” and messages about “eternal suffering,” posed a risk of “psychological harm” to the child.

During oral arguments on November 13, 2025, Bickford’s attorney, Mathew Staver, argued that the ruling represents an unprecedented “total veto” over the mother’s religious expression. “There is no finding of abuse or neglect,” Staver emphasized, highlighting that the child had only experienced anxiety and panic attacks without any evidence of harm. He insisted that such minor observations cannot justify the extensive restrictions imposed by the court.

In defense, Bradeen’s attorney, Michelle King, maintained that the trial court acted within its rights, citing compelling state interests in protecting the child from substantial emotional distress. She argued that the court’s restrictions were appropriately tailored to address the identified risks, supported by expert testimony regarding the church’s potential coercive influence.

As justices questioned the extent of judicial authority in religious matters, one justice raised concerns about whether the “best interest of the child” standard conflicts with religious freedoms. Staver responded by asserting that constitutional protections necessitate a higher threshold for the state to intervene in religious practices.

The court’s eventual ruling is expected in the coming months and could have sweeping implications not only for Maine but potentially across the nation. The decision will clarify how courts balance claims of psychological harm against the rights of fit parents to engage in religious practices.

This case not only highlights the tensions between parental rights and judicial oversight but also raises critical First Amendment questions. The implications of this decision could set a precedent for how similar cases are approached nationwide.

As deliberations continue, the community and legal experts are watching closely, anticipating how this ruling will shape the future landscape of parental rights and religious freedoms in custody disputes.

Stay tuned for updates as the Maine Supreme Judicial Court prepares to deliver its decision on this pivotal case.