The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is weighing whether a lower court overstepped constitutional limits when it barred a mother from taking her 12-year-old daughter to church services and restricted her from exposing the child to Bible teachings.
The case, Bickford v. Bradeen, has drawn attention for its unusual scope and the broader questions it raises about parental rights, judicial neutrality toward religion, and the evidentiary standards used in family-law disputes.
At the center of the case is an unusually sweeping custody order that barred a Maine mother from taking her daughter to church or exposing her to Bible teachings—restrictions the mother argues violate her constitutional rights and exceed the authority of family courts.
The state’s high court must now determine whether judges can curtail a fit parent’s religious practices based on findings of potential psychological harm. Legal experts say this question could reshape how courts across the country weigh parental rights, religious freedom, and expert testimony in custody disputes.
Emily Bickford, the mother, is appealing a December 13, 2024, order issued by the Portland District Court. That ruling granted the child’s father, Matthew Bradeen, exclusive authority over all religious decisions concerning their daughter, Ava. The two parents never married and separated before Ava was born. Bickford has primary custody; Bradeen has visitation rights.
The order followed testimony about Calvary Chapel, the evangelical Christian church in Portland that Bickford and Ava had been attending for over three years. Bradeen went to court after Ava told him she wanted to be baptized, claiming that her church attendance was causing emotional distress.
Court records say the judge relied in part on the testimony of Dr. Janja Lalich, a former sociology professor who studies religious groups and cult-like influence. Lalich reportedly described the church’s pastor as “charismatic,” and stated the messages at Calvary Chapel were presented as “objective truth,” leading her to conclude the church had “cultic” features.
The court found that images and teachings used in Calvary’s youth ministry—including depictions of fallen angels and messages about eternal suffering—had allegedly caused fear and psychological stress in the child. Based on that, the court concluded that exposure to the church posed a risk of psychological harm.
As part of the order, Bickford was prohibited not only from taking Ava to church but also from exposing her to any Bible teachings or Christian literature. According to her attorney, Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, Ava was also barred from attending Christian events, associating with church friends, or even participating in community service through religious organizations.
During oral arguments before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on November 13, 2025, Staver argued the restrictions amounted to a “total veto” over the mother’s religious rights. “There is no finding of abuse or neglect,” he told the justices. He said the record showed only that the child had once experienced a panic attack and had written about scary imagery. “That cannot be a compelling interest,” Staver said.
Staver also contended that the court had gone far beyond what is legally permissible. “This order gives one parent absolute, unreviewable authority to deny any kind of association, Bible reading, or participation in any church or religious organization,” he said. “Such breadth cannot under any circumstances survive narrow tailoring.”
Matthew Bradeen’s attorney, Michelle King, defended the lower court’s ruling. In her brief, she said the trial judge found compelling reasons to act, including the child’s psychological distress. She wrote, “The court’s decision correctly focused on the minor child’s best interests, including weighing the present psychological harm she was suffering.”
The justices challenged both attorneys during oral arguments. One asked whether the standard of “best interest of the child” could conflict with constitutional protections for religious freedom. Another asked how courts should decide when a religious practice becomes potentially harmful.
Staver responded that courts can intervene when there’s abuse or neglect, but said spiritual guidance and religious expression—particularly by a parent deemed fit—deserve strong constitutional protections.
The court’s eventual ruling is expected to clarify how Maine judges may consider psychological harm claims when they involve religion and whether content-based judgments of religious teaching can be used to limit a parent’s custodial rights. Legal observers say the outcome could set a precedent nationwide.
Because of an unconstitutional custody order, Emily Bickford is prohibited from bringing her preteen daughter to Calvary Chapel, a church they had attended since May 2021. Matthew Bradeen (the dad and non-custodial parent) now has total authority over their preteen’s religious… pic.twitter.com/uXTUOSV1lB
— Liberty Counsel (@libertycounsel) November 19, 2025
Mathew Staver told the court, “I’ve never seen in the history of my career an order as hostile as this one.” In contrast, Michelle King told Newsweek, “Any court decision regarding the welfare of minors must always be focused on minimizing harm to the child.”
Now that oral arguments have concluded, the justices have begun private deliberations. A written opinion is expected in the coming months. The court may affirm the order, reverse it, or return it to the lower court for further consideration. Until then, the original restrictions remain in place.
