Maine Court Weighs Mother’s Appeal Over Church Attendance Ban

UPDATE: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is currently deliberating a highly controversial custody case that has significant implications for parental rights and religious freedom. Emily Bickford, a mother from Portland, is appealing a sweeping court order that prohibits her from taking her 12-year-old daughter to church or exposing her to Bible teachings. This case, Bickford v. Bradeen, raises urgent questions about judicial authority and parental rights amid claims of psychological harm.

The Portland District Court issued its order on December 13, 2024, granting exclusive religious decision-making authority to the child’s father, Matthew Bradeen. The court’s ruling stemmed from a determination that teachings from Calvary Chapel, the church attended by Bickford, could potentially cause the child psychological distress.

Bickford’s attorney, Mathew Staver, argued before the justices on November 13, 2025, that the order is unconstitutional, representing a “total veto” over the mother’s ability to engage in her daughter’s religious education. He emphasized, “There is no finding of abuse or neglect,” pointing out that the evidence only indicated the child had previously experienced anxiety, not harm from religious exposure.

The court’s decision to limit Bickford’s parental rights has ignited public debate. Critics argue that the ruling imposes excessive restrictions on a fit parent’s religious practices. Staver highlighted that the restrictions are excessively broad, allowing Bradeen to deny any religious association, which he claims “cannot under any circumstances survive narrow tailoring.”

In defense, Bradeen’s attorney, Michelle King, asserted that the trial judge acted within statutory discretion, citing “compelling state interests in avoiding substantial harm” to the child. King argued that the emotional consequences suffered by the child due to certain church teachings justified the court’s decision.

The justices are now tasked with balancing the constitutional protections for parental rights and religious freedom against claims of psychological harm. During the oral arguments, one justice questioned whether the “best interest of the child” standard conflicts with religious-freedom principles, highlighting the complex interplay between parental rights and judicial oversight of religious practices.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling is expected in the coming months and could set a significant precedent on how courts address psychological harm claims in custody disputes involving religious upbringing. As the justices ponder the limits of judicial authority in these matters, the outcome may reshape the landscape of parental rights not just in Maine, but across the nation.

WHAT’S NEXT: The justices have commenced private deliberations, and their ruling will clarify the balance between parental rights, religious freedoms, and psychological harm claims. The decision will be closely watched, as it has the potential to echo far beyond Maine, influencing similar cases nationwide.

The urgency of this case cannot be understated, with implications that reach into the very heart of family law and religious expression. As developments unfold, this case will undoubtedly remain at the forefront of public interest and debate.