Recent events in a Maine custody case highlight a troubling trend: the targeting of religious beliefs in family courts. The case involves Emily Bickford and her daughter Ava, who is approaching her 13th birthday. Emily is a Christian who has worked hard to instill her faith in her daughter, but her ex-partner, Matt Bradeen, appears to oppose this foundation. His actions have raised alarms about the intersection of custody rights and religious freedom.
Bradeen, described as having a strong animosity toward Christianity, questioned Emily’s parental rights in court. He enlisted the help of a former ACLU president turned judge, who issued a custody order that many see as overtly anti-Christian. This order restricts Ava’s ability to engage with her faith in numerous ways. It forbids her from associating with church friends, attending services, or even discussing her beliefs with her mother.
The level of control exerted by this court order is astonishing. It specifically prohibits Ava from participating in any Christian holiday activities, including Christmas and Easter, effectively severing her ties to an important aspect of her community and culture. Emily and Ava have been regular attendees at Calvary Chapel in Portland for over three years, and this abrupt shift has potentially far-reaching implications for their relationship and Ava’s emotional well-being.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, has pointed out significant flaws in the judge’s reasoning. He noted, “The judge found that Emily is a fit parent EXCEPT for the fact that she is a Christian.” This blatant discrimination raises serious questions about the motivations behind such rulings. Additionally, the judge’s decision to mock the family’s faith—refusing even to capitalize the word “God”—serves as an unsettling indicator of bias within the court.
The implications of Bradeen’s strategy, which involved bringing in a Marxist sociology professor as a witness to label Calvary Chapel a “cult,” speak volumes about the lengths some will go to undermine religious practices. Such testimony is not only unfounded but reflects a broader trend of dismissing traditional beliefs as harmful without substantial evidence.
Moreover, the order strikes at the very heart of not only Emily’s parental rights but also at Ava’s development during a critical time in her life. The court’s requirements could lead to social isolation, stripping away Ava’s support network just when she needs it most. The prohibition against any engagement with religious organizations—whether that’s taking part in service projects or even visiting friends related to her church—is a form of emotional deprivation that can impact a child’s growth and sense of identity.
Liberty Counsel presented oral arguments last week before the Maine Supreme Court seeking to overturn this custody order. The justices recognized the order’s hostility toward religion. They characterized it as using a “nuclear option” that completely removes decision-making from a fit parent concerning her child’s religious upbringing. This acknowledgment is a glimmer of hope for those concerned about the erosion of parental rights and religious freedoms.
The significant backdrop of this entire situation raises important questions about the role of the judiciary in matters of personal belief. As Emily and Ava await the Maine Supreme Court’s decision, their case underscores a growing need for vigilance over the interaction between family law and religious freedom. Judicial overreach, particularly when it involves such deeply personal beliefs, should concern every citizen devoted to the principles of individual rights and liberties.
"*" indicates required fields
