A mother from Maine, Emily Bickford, faces a court dispute that might be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case touches on parental rights, religious freedom, and family court authority in restricting a child’s religious activities during custody battles. Bickford asserts that a court order stopping her from taking her daughter to church violates her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. However, Maine’s highest court recently dismissed these claims, stating that concerns about the child’s well-being drove the restrictions, not religious hostility.

Legal representation and arguments

Bickford’s legal team, from Liberty Counsel, plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue that the decision poses a threat to religious freedom and parental rights. The custody conflict with Bickford’s former partner, Matthew Bradeen, involves not only parenting disagreements but also issues regarding religion, medical decisions, and parental authority.

Central conflict

The dispute involves Calvary Chapel in Westbrook, Maine, where Bickford worships. A Maine district court’s custody order from December 2024 prohibits Bickford from bringing her daughter to the church. It also grants Bradeen sole authority over his daughter’s involvement with Calvary Chapel while both parents share decision-making about other religious engagements. Bickford argues the order unlawfully interferes with raising her daughter based on her Christian beliefs.

Bickford contests that she has never been deemed an abusive or neglectful parent. Her legal team emphasizes that the state should not decide if a child can partake in a parent’s religious activities.

Liberty Counsel’s position

Liberty Counsel, led by Mat Staver, argues this case is about fundamental constitutional protections. Staver criticizes the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling as a rejection of the First Amendment rights of a fit parent practicing Christian faith. The legal team highlights the daughter’s purported wish to attend church and connect with friends there. They maintain that the restrictions obstruct the child’s involvement in religious activities.

Maine Supreme Court’s ruling

On September 1, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court unanimously upheld the lower court’s decision, rejecting Bickford’s constitutional claims. The court determined that the ruling was not based on religious objection but on evidence suggesting the child received harmful messages. These messages allegedly portrayed Bradeen negatively, risking alienation from her father. The court noted that the conflict was rooted in specific facts, including sermons causing child anxiety.

The ruling clarified that family courts often mediate parental disputes over children. It perceived Bradeen’s approach as prioritizing the child’s welfare more objectively than Bickford’s.

Potential Supreme Court involvement

Liberty Counsel plans to request Supreme Court review, arguing the case presents significant national questions about parental rights and religious freedom. The group contends lower courts unfairly penalized Bickford for her faith and allowed unwarranted state interference.

It remains uncertain if the Supreme Court will consider the case. Petitioners must demonstrate a significant constitutional issue or previously conflicting court resolutions. Bickford’s attorneys are poised to argue acceptance, while opponents stress the Maine court’s focus on the child’s emotional health rather than Christianity itself. For now, the Maine ruling stands, which might influence how courts navigate parental authority, religious liberty, and child welfare in future custody cases.