The Maine Supreme Court recently examined a contentious case that raises serious questions about parental rights and religious freedom. Emily Bickford, a mother seeking to take her 12-year-old daughter to church, found herself blocked by a custody order issued by a lower court. This order forbids her from attending services at Calvary Chapel—a church they had attended since May 2021—and restricts her daughter from reading the Bible. According to constitutional advocates from Liberty Counsel, the order grants Bickford’s ex-husband, Matthew Bradeen, “the sole right to decide” her daughter’s religious exposure. This imposes unprecedented control over spiritual upbringing.
The ruling casts a long shadow, extending beyond the immediate church attendance issue. It allows Bradeen to deny access to any teaching or literature associated with Calvary Chapel or other religious thought. This raises significant alarms about the violations of fundamental rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.
The courtroom drama intensifies with the involvement of Dr. Janja Lalich, a sociology professor identified as an expert on cults. Bradeen’s focus on influencing the judge with claims that Calvary Chapel operates like a cult is troubling. Dr. Lalich described the church’s pastor as having a “charismatic” style and delivering messages she deemed authoritarian. She suggested that exposure to such teachings could result in psychological harm for Bickford’s daughter. This assertion raises the question: is a mother’s desire to pass on her faith to her child a form of abuse?
Liberty Counsel noted that Maine District Judge Jennifer Nofsinger consistently used lowercase “god” in her order, mirroring similar wording from Bradeen’s complaint. Such choices may reflect a deeper discomfort with religious terminology, which can influence the interpretation of the case. It also raises questions about the court’s impartiality regarding religious perspectives.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, has taken a firm stance, asserting that this custody order presents “a breathtaking” overreach that infringes on Bickford’s rights. He argues that disallowing attendance at church and access to religious materials not only violates religious freedom but could also set a dangerous precedent for how courts handle spiritual matters in custody cases. Staver remarked that the implications for religious freedom are severe, as this case challenges the very essence of parental rights when it comes to faith and belief systems.
The case of Emily Bickford has far-reaching implications beyond its immediate concerns. It touches on the fundamental rights of parents to impart their beliefs to their children, the autonomy of religious institutions, and the broader landscape of religious freedom in America. As the Maine Supreme Court considers this matter, the outcome may well influence similar cases across the country, making it a pivotal moment for both families and religious communities. The stakes are high as faith and parenting collide in a courtroom setting, raising questions that resonate with many concerned about the future of religious liberty.
"*" indicates required fields
