Court Bans Mom from Taking Her Daughter to Church or Teaching Her the Bible

WHAT HAPPENED: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is reviewing a case involving a custody order that barred a mother from taking her daughter to church or exposing her to Bible teachings, raising constitutional questions about parental rights and religious freedom.

WHO WAS INVOLVED: Emily Bickford, the mother, and Matthew Bradeen, the father, are at the center of the case, with attorneys Mathew Staver and Michelle King representing them, respectively.

WHEN & WHERE: The custody order was issued on December 13, 2024, by the Portland District Court; oral arguments before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court occurred on November 13, 2025.

KEY QUOTE: “I’ve never seen in the history of my career an order as hostile as this one… that order reeks with that kind of hostility.” – Mathew Staver

IMPACT: The decision could set a national precedent on how courts balance parental rights, religious freedom, and claims of psychological harm in custody disputes.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is considering whether a Portland District Court judge violated constitutional limits by preventing a mother, Emily Bickford, from taking her 12-year-old daughter to church or introducing her to Bible teachings. The dispute, Bickford v. Bradeen, has drawn national attention because it touches on the intersection of parental rights, religious liberty, and judicial power in family law cases.

The lower court’s December 13, 2024, order gave the child’s father, Matthew Bradeen, exclusive authority over all religious decisions. The judge relied on testimony that the child experienced emotional turmoil connected to material presented at Calvary Chapel, the church Bickford attends. Expert witnesses described the church’s imagery, such as depictions of “fallen angels” and messages about “eternal suffering,” as sources of anxiety and confusion for the child. The judge concluded that exposure to these Christian teachings risked “psychological harm.”

During oral arguments on November 13, 2025, Bickford’s attorney, Mathew Staver, said the restrictions were unconstitutional and imposed a “total veto” on the mother’s ability to share her faith with her daughter. Staver argued that the court failed to meet the constitutional threshold required to restrict a parent’s religious expression, emphasizing, “There is no finding of abuse or neglect.” He warned that the order granted the father sweeping, unchecked control over any religious activity involving the child. “I’ve never seen in the history of my career an order as hostile as this one… that order reeks with that kind of hostility,” Staver said.

Representing Bradeen, attorney Michelle King defended the order as a narrowly tailored measure intended to protect the child’s well-being. She said the court relied on “expert” testimony showing a direct link between the child’s distress and the specific content of the church’s teachings. King argued that the judge acted within the broad discretion traditionally afforded to family courts.

The justices questioned attorneys on both sides about where courts should draw the line when ruling on parents’ religious practices. They examined whether the “best interest of the child” standard can justify significant restrictions on constitutionally protected religious activity and how much evidence of harm is required before the state may intervene.

The case comes amid broader national debates over government involvement in religious matters. In recent years, lawmakers in several states advanced proposals intruding on core religious practices, including attempts to compel Catholic and Orthodox priests to report information heard during confession. Such efforts prompted federal lawsuits, Justice Department interventions, and, in some cases, states backing down after courts or religious leaders challenged the measures.