Staff Reports
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court this week handed down a unanimous decision that will make religious‑liberty advocates sit up straight. The high court affirmed a lower court order that bars a mother from taking her 13‑year‑old daughter to Calvary Chapel Greater Portland and gives the father final say over that church’s involvement in the child’s life. Liberty Counsel says it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to step in. This ruling touches the raw nerve where parental rights, free exercise of religion, and family courts meet.
What the court actually decided
Chief Justice Valerie Stanfill wrote the opinion affirming the Portland District Court’s findings. The judges relied on evidence that the girl suffered fear, anxiety and panic attacks tied to sermon content about Hell and the Second Coming, and that the mother, Emily A. Bickford, repeatedly took the child to church events without conferring with the father, Matthew A. Bradeen. The court limited the father’s sole decision‑making power to the child’s involvement with Calvary Chapel Greater Portland, while telling the parents to jointly discuss other religious options. The opinion also stressed that the district court’s use of the word “cult” summarized expert testimony by Dr. Janja Lalich, not a naked doctrinal judgment by the judge.
Why this matters for parental rights and religious liberty
This is not just a custody squabble about who gets to choose Sunday school. The ruling sets a legal reference point for when a family court can step in, assign decision‑making to one parent, and cite the child’s psychological harm as the reason. Courts applying the “best interest of the child” standard can and will use this opinion as a template. Liberty Counsel, led by Mat Staver, is calling the decision a rejection of the First Amendment for a “fit parent” and is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in. If the high court declines review, expect other judges to point to this case when one parent claims religious instruction is harmful.
What to watch next
Liberty Counsel’s promise to seek U.S. Supreme Court review is the predictable next step. The opinion says the allocation would survive strict scrutiny because of a compelling interest in protecting a child from immediate and substantial psychological harm, so the legal fight will turn on how the justices view parental‑rights claims against a backdrop of child welfare. This could become a landmark cert‑petition: either the Supreme Court reaffirms family courts’ discretion under best‑interest tests, or it renews protections for parental religious choice. Either way, religious liberty groups and family‑law practitioners will be watching closely.
Bottom line
The Maine ruling walks a tightrope between protecting a vulnerable child and constraining a parent’s right to raise a child in her faith. Conservatives who care about religious liberty should be wary of permitting family courts to micromanage religion unless there is clear, convincing harm. If the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case, it may have to draw a clearer line between legitimate child‑protection measures and overbroad limits on parental rights. Until then, expect the phrase “best interest” to get a lot more legal mileage—and expect lawyers on both sides to make hay out of every anxious teenager and every sermon that offends a co‑parent.
