Maine's high court gives father final say over daughter’s church attendance

Maine Supreme Court Upholds Father’s Authority Over Daughter’s Church Attendance

Portland, Maine – In a decision that may ripple beyond state lines, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday affirmed a lower‑court ruling that granted Matthew Bradeen final authority over whether his 11‑year‑old daughter attends services at the evangelical church her mother, Emily Bickford, regularly visits. The court’s decision stems from a dispute over religious upbringing and a claim that messages delivered at the church harmed the child.

The case began when Bickford began taking her daughter to Calvary Chapel Greater Portland, an evangelical church in Westbrook, multiple times each week. Bradeen contended that the church’s teachings, particularly its emphasis on the Rapture, created a “dangerous and harmful environment.” He said his daughter had a panic attack after hearing the sermon and that the church’s messages painted him as an enemy, potentially alienating the child.

Judge Jennifer Nofsinger of the Portland District Court ruled in 2024 that the messages were psychologically damaging and that the mother had failed to protect the child from the negative language. The lower court granted Bradeen the right to decide whether the child attends services or participates in activities at Calvary Chapel, while allowing the parents to share responsibility for exposure to other religious groups. If the parents could not agree on a child’s religious exposure, the father was deemed the final decision‑maker.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, in a 3‑2 decision, upheld Judge Nofsinger’s ruling. The majority held that the father’s authority was justified by the parents’ inability to co‑parent religious matters, not by a disagreement about the mother’s faith itself. The court emphasized that “the order was based on the parents’ inability to co‑parent on religion, not on the substance of Bickford’s religious beliefs.”

The decision also noted that Bickford had not taken steps to remove her daughter from the service. A sermon led by pastor Travis Carey included a six‑and‑a‑half‑minute prayer that repeatedly named the child and the parents, stating that Bradeen “is in need of salvation” and branding the legal proceedings an “attack on God’s Word.” The court found that such messages could harm a child who hears negative and frightening words about one parent.

Bradeen’s attorney, Michelle King, praised the decision. “The court’s ruling is well‑thought‑out and reasoned,” King said. “Anytime you’re in court, it’s stressful, but this case has garnered a lot of media attention, and that’s always difficult for parents.”

Bickford’s lawyer, Matthew Staver of Liberty Counsel—a firm that describes itself as a Christian ministry focused on religious freedom—has announced plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Maine has put its Supreme Court at odds with the courts of a number of other states,” Staver told reporters. “I think it will be a case that will be very significant and catch the attention of the Supreme Court because of how far‑reaching it is with regards to the First Amendment exercise clause.” Bickford and her legal team have 90 days to file the appeal.

Liberty Counsel has a record of litigating religious‑freedom cases at the highest level, including a 2022 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a private religious group that Boston officials had prohibited from flying a Christian flag.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion clarified that the final authority was not an attack on Bickford’s First Amendment rights. Instead, it was a response to the mother’s “inability to co‑parent” and the risk of the daughter being alienated from her father due to the church’s language. The court wrote 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.

The case raises broader questions about how courts balance parental authority, religious freedom, and a child’s well‑being. While the state court found that the father’s authority was warranted under state law, the U.S. Supreme Court’s potential review could clarify the extent to which a court can assign final decision‑making power in religious matters.

For now, the ruling affirms that, when parents cannot agree on a child’s religious upbringing, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court may grant one parent final authority, provided that decision is based on the child’s welfare rather than on the substance of the other parent’s beliefs. The outcome will likely be closely watched by families, religious groups, and legal scholars across the country.