The highest court in the US state of Maine has effectively banned a mother from taking her 13-year-old daughter to an evangelical church — and even reading or talking about the Bible to her.
The state’s Supreme Judicial Court has unanimously upheld a lower court’s custody order to revoke some of Emily Bickford’s parental rights and responsibilities, by ruling that the child’s father can prevent her from sharing her faith with their daughter Ava.
The court supported that order which granted Ava’s father, Matthew Bradeen, sole authority over whether his daughter can attend the evangelical church or even be exposed to the Christian faith.
His stance during the court ordeal indicates he’s never likely to approve.
“Judgement Rejects Religious Freedom Rights”
The judgement said: “An allocation of rights to one parent inherently limits the authority of the other — but does not necessarily infringe upon the constitutional rights of either parent.”
Ms. Bickford’s lawyers from Liberty Counsel declared: “This opinion rejects the First Amendment right of a fit parent to raise her child consistent with her Christian faith.”
The lower court ruling concluded that Emily Bickford is a fit parent and “there has been no showing of harm to the child associated with a belief system that is rooted in the Bible.”
What Sparked The Court Battle?
Since December 2024, Ms. Bickford has been challenging the custody order that prohibits her from taking Ava to the theologically conservative Calvary Chapel in the city of Portland.
The order ruled that she can’t allow Ava to learn any “religious philosophy or the Bible in general.”
Ava’s parents were never married, with Ms. Bickford maintaining primary custody of Ava while Mr. Bradeen had visitation rights.
The dispute erupted when Ava who had been attending Calvary Chapel for three years, innocently told her father she had decided to get baptised.
He was enraged and the court battle began.
“Church A Dangerous, Harmful Environment”
Mr. Bradeen argued that the Calvary Chapel congregation represented a “dangerous and harmful environment” for his daughter.
He claimed Ava developed anxiety and panic attacks after being exposed to sermons about the rapture.
The Supreme Judicial Court found that: “The child was harmed by Ms. Bickford’s decisions to expose the child to messages that characterised Mr. Bradeen as an ‘enemy’ who seeks to ‘persecute’ the child and her faith.”
It concluded that harm was exacerbated “by Ms. Bickford’s unwillingness to prevent the child from receiving those messages or to take any other steps to reduce the risk of alienating her from Mr. Bradeen.”
“The court’s finding reflected simply that it is harmful for a child to hear negative and frightening messages about one parent from the other parent or the other parent’s authority figures.”
Church Characterised As A “Cult”
The Supreme Judicial Court said the restriction order was based on findings concerning the impact on the child rather than hostility towards Ms Bickford’s religion.
The lower court had expressed concerns about Calvary Chapel’s Christian teachings on Heaven, Hell, eternal salvation, angels, demons as well as its commitment to teach the Bible “verse by verse, chapter by chapter.”
It also accepted an expert’s claim that the congregation was akin to a “cult.”
The Supreme Judicial Court was “unpersuaded by Ms. Bickford’s claim that the lower court had shown “hostility toward her religion by describing her church in offensive terms, including referring to it as a ‘cult.’”
The judgement claimed the lower court only used the word ‘cult’ in summarising the expert’s testimony, and did not otherwise refer to the Calvary Chapel as either a cult or a closed social system.”
Judgement On Parental Rights
Maine’s highest court also upheld the lower court ruling in favour of Mr. Bradeen, writing that the “strict scrutiny” usually given to parental rights arguments about religion “does not apply to allocations of parental rights between a child’s parents.”
“Parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children, including in matters of religion. Importantly, however, the parents share that right.”
The ruling stated that “parental rights and responsibilities must be allocated in whatever fashion best serves the best interest of the child.”
“Breadth Of Court Order Breathtaking”
“The breadth of the court order is breathtaking because it even prohibits contact with the Bible, religious literature, or religious philosophy,” stated Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver.
“The custody order cannot prohibit Ms. Bickford from taking her daughter to church. The implications of this order pose a serious threat to religious freedom.”
“The district court denigrated Ms. Bickford’s religious beliefs as ‘cultic’ and psychologically harmful, and then used that characterisation to strip this mother of her fundamental right to direct the religious upbringing of her daughter.”
“Ruling A Serious Threat To Religious Freedom”
He called the Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision “disappointing” and “a serious threat to religious freedom.”
“This opinion goes against other state court decisions involving custody in the context of religious free exercise rights and ignores precedent from the US Supreme Court.“
“We will ask America’s highest court to take this case and overrule the decision.”
The post Courts Bans Mum From Sharing Faith With Daughter appeared first on Vision Christian Media.