Maine’s high court says mother can’t take daughter to Calvary Chapel without father’s permission
Maine Supreme Court Grants Father Final Say Over Daughter’s Church Attendance
In a unanimous decision released this week, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower‑court ruling that gave Matthew Bradeen sole authority over whether his daughter may attend services at Calvary Chapel of Greater Portland. The ruling also affirmed Bradeen’s control over all of the child’s medical decisions, including vaccinations.
The case began in 2024 when Bradeen, a resident of Cumberland County, petitioned Judge Jennifer Nofsinger of the district court. He argued that his co‑parent, Emily Bickford, was taking their daughter to events at the Westbrook‑based evangelical congregation without his knowledge or permission. Bradeen said the daughter suffered a panic attack after a sermon, and he was concerned that the church’s teachings were “confusing and troubling” for a child of her age and that her attendance was not entirely voluntary. An expert hired by Bradeen testified that the structure and doctrine of Calvary Chapel were potentially detrimental to young children.
Judge Nofsinger agreed with Bradeen’s concerns and granted him final authority over whether the daughter could attend Calvary Chapel. The judge also extended that authority to all medical matters, including vaccines. Bickford appealed the decision, asserting that it infringed on her First‑Amendment rights as a parent and that the order was hostile to her religion. She was represented by attorneys from Liberty Counsel, a Florida‑based firm known for its involvement in high‑profile religious freedom cases.
In its opinion, Chief Justice Valerie Stanfill explained that the court’s decision was rooted in the child’s best interests. “The parties are unable to co‑parent on matters of religion,” the opinion read, “so it was necessary to allocate decision‑making to one parent, and Bradeen is better suited to determine whether certain religious activities serve the child’s best interest.” The court found no conflict with constitutional guarantees, emphasizing that the allocation of authority was based solely on the parties’ inability to cooperate.
Liberty Counsel, in a press release, said its attorneys plan to petition the U.S. Supreme Court. “By depriving one parent their right to instill their religious views into their child and granting sole authority to the other parent fails to give proper protection to parental rights and religious freedom under the First Amendment,” attorney Matthew Staver wrote. “The implications of this opinion pose a serious threat to religious freedom.”
Bradeen’s legal team welcomed the ruling. Michelle King, Bradeen’s attorney, told reporters that the court’s decision was “well‑reasoned” and that it affirmed the lower court’s authority to make child‑focused determinations, even when religion is involved. King also said she was not surprised that Bickford would seek review at the Supreme Court, noting that “It has been anticipated all along. That’s why the church hired Liberty Counsel for Ms. Bickford.”
The case highlights a growing legal debate over the balance between parental religious rights and a child’s welfare. While Bickford’s appeal was rejected, her attorneys have not ruled out further legal action, and the matter remains a touchstone for families grappling with co‑parenting disputes over religious participation.
