Can a Mother Be Banned From Taking Her Daughter to Church?

A custody battle currently being heard by the Maine Supreme Court is drawing attention not just for its unusual circumstances, but for the far-reaching questions it raises about parental rights, religious freedom, and the limits of state intervention.

The legal fight is between two divorced parents – Emily Bickford and Matthew Bradeen – and centers around one emotionally charged question: which church should their daughter grow up attending?

Last year, Maine courts found that the church Bickford had chosen was so extreme in its beliefs that it was causing psychological damage to the child. They issued a sweeping ruling in favor of Bradeen, putting him in control of their 12-year-old daughter’s religious upbringing.

Bickford thinks this was a legal overreach by the courts, and her lawyers argue it's a clear violation of her First Amendment rights. Now, Maine’s highest court will decide where the lines are between parental rights, religious freedom, and child safety.

Who Controls a Child’s Faith?

Maine courts found that teachings from Calvary Chapel Church in Portland, Maine – a church the child’s mother Emily Bickford has attended since 2021 – were causing her psychological harm.

The father, Matthew Bradeen, raised the issue after noticing his daughter was enduring severe panic attacks over her belief her father was going to hell, and leaving notes around the house reading, “the rapture is coming”. Expert witnesses testified in court that the church’s rapture-ready, fire and brimstone approach to scripture was the cause of the child’s anxieties, leading to the court’s rare decision to bar Bickford from taking their daughter to that church.

Ultimately, they made the unusual move of giving Bradeen sole discretion to bar his daughter from attending church. 

Bickford v. Bradeen

Now the mother is fighting back, arguing the order infringes on religious liberty. 

The court’s decision “affects not only our family but the families of all Christian children,” Bickford told reporters. She’s enlisted Liberty Counsel – a prominent conservative Christian legal group – to argue her case in court.

“The custody order cannot prohibit Bickford from taking her daughter to church. The implications of this order pose a serious threat to religious freedom,” the group wrote in a press release.

The decision, they say, is “a direct infringement on [Bickford’s] right to direct the religious upbringing of her child.”

Yet Bradeen’s lawyers argue that the child’s welfare simply must override all other concerns, even if it supersedes their co-parent’s religious rights.

Attorney Michelle King argued the judge found a “compelling state interests in avoiding substantial harm,” pointing to Bradeen’s testimony as well their expert witness’ analysis of the emotional distress caused by Cavalry Chapel Church’s sermons.

Where Is the Line?

Cases like Bickford v. Bradeen expose just how fraught the intersection of faith, family, and state power can be. On one hand, parents have a long-recognized right to instill their beliefs and traditions in their children – a right many see as foundational to both family life and religious freedom in America.

On the other, courts have a legal and moral obligation to step in when parental decisions may be contributing to real psychological harm.

When do a parent’s sincere religious convictions cross into territory the state can regulate? And who gets to decide what constitutes “harm” in a religious context? These are the questions Maine’s Supreme Court will have to answer.

As the justices deliberate, the rest of us are left wrestling with the same questions.

Where should the line be drawn between protecting a child’s well-being and safeguarding a parent’s right to pass down their faith? What do you think the courts’ role should be in situations like this?