Maine Supreme Court Reviews Controversial Ban on Church Attendance

UPDATE: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is urgently reviewing a controversial custody order that bans a mother from taking her 12-year-old daughter to church. This unprecedented case, Bickford v. Bradeen, raises critical questions about parental rights and religious freedom, with implications that could affect families across the nation.

The appeal centers around a December 13, 2024, ruling from the Portland District Court that granted exclusive control over all religious decisions to the child’s father, Matthew Bradeen. This order not only prohibits Emily Bickford from exposing her daughter to any Bible teachings but also restricts her from attending church services altogether. The court’s decision followed testimony that claimed the child experienced psychological distress from the teachings at Calvary Chapel in Portland, leading to concerns about potential psychological harm.

During oral arguments on November 13, 2025, Bickford’s attorney, Mathew Staver, argued that the ruling imposes an unconstitutional “total veto” over the mother’s religious practices. Staver emphasized that the court’s findings did not meet constitutional standards, stating, “There is no finding of abuse or neglect.” He pointed out that the evidence only indicated the child had previously shown signs of anxiety, which he argued did not justify such sweeping restrictions.

In contrast, Bradeen’s attorney, Michelle King, defended the lower court’s actions, claiming they were necessary to avoid substantial harm to the child. She highlighted the emotional impact of the church’s teachings, arguing that the court acted within its legal discretion to protect the child’s well-being.

The justices are now grappling with the balance between judicial authority and religious freedom, questioning how far courts can go in regulating religious practices in custody cases. One justice raised concerns about whether the “best interest of the child” standard could conflict with constitutional protections for religious expression.

The ruling from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court is expected to clarify how courts handle psychological harm claims against parental rights and religious freedoms. A decision could reshape the legal landscape regarding custody disputes involving religious teachings and set significant precedents for similar cases nationwide.

As the court deliberates, the emotional stakes are high for Bickford, who views the restrictions as not only a violation of her rights but also a detrimental impact on her daughter’s spiritual upbringing. Staver described the order as “hostile” and unprecedented in his legal career, emphasizing the profound implications it could have on family law.

What happens next is critical. The court will issue a written decision in the coming months, which could affirm, reverse, or send the case back for further proceedings. The outcome could redefine the intersection of parental rights, religious freedom, and psychological assessments in custody disputes.

The national spotlight on this case underscores the urgent need to protect both parental rights and the freedom to practice one’s faith without judicial interference. As this story develops, it remains a focal point for advocates concerned about the implications for families across the United States.