A state supreme court backed a custody order that can stop a mom from taking her 13-year-old to church unless the dad agrees.
Story Highlights
- Maine’s high court upheld giving the father final say on the child’s church attendance.
- Judges tied the decision to the parents’ conflict and the child’s best interests, not theology.
- Reports say the child was harmed by messages casting the father as an “enemy”.
- The mother’s lawyers argue the order violates her First Amendment rights and plan to appeal.
What The Maine Court Actually Decided
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a lower court order that assigns final religious decision-making to the father, Matthew Bradeen, after finding the parents cannot jointly decide on religion. The ruling says the parents must research churches and teachings together and discuss what is best for the child, and if they cannot agree, the father decides. The court framed the decision as a custody management choice based on the child’s best interests, not disapproval of the mother’s beliefs or her church.
The decision came from a long conflict over the child’s exposure to messages that reportedly painted the father as an “enemy” who would persecute the child for her faith. Reporting on the case states the courts accepted findings that this messaging harmed the girl. The court also addressed medical choices in the same dispute, assigning the father final say there as well, citing the same breakdown in co-parenting and the need for a single decision-maker for the child.
Why This Case Hits Home For People Of Faith
Parents across the country worry when courts come close to church doors. Many hear “no church” and see an attack on faith. The Maine court said it was not judging any church’s teachings. It said it was solving a parenting deadlock that hurt the child. Still, the effect is real. If the parents do not agree, the father can block the child’s attendance at the mother’s church. That practical result alarms families who value religious liberty.
Advocates for the mother, Emily Bickford, say the order crosses a constitutional line. Her brief argues there is no compelling state interest to bar a mom from taking her child to church during her time. Her lawyers at Liberty Counsel say the order punishes her for her beliefs and plan to ask the United States Supreme Court to step in. Their public framing claims a judge labeled church teachings “psychologically harmful,” which, if true, would raise free exercise concerns. The appellate opinion, however, grounds the result in co-parenting failure.
How Family Courts Often Handle Religious Disputes
Family courts often face split households where parents share legal custody but cannot agree on religion. Courts then choose one parent to have final say, using a best-interest standard. That is a common path when joint decision-making breaks down. The Maine high court followed that model here. It said shared governance failed, so one parent must decide for the child, and it chose the father based on the record before it.
This pattern does not mean faith is safe from pressure. Orders that control a child’s church time can chill a parent’s ability to live out faith with their own child. That is why the line matters. If the state is picking a parent to break a tie, courts have cover. If the state is judging doctrine, courts have a problem. The record shown in public sources is thin on exhibits, so the precise scope of limits, and how narrow they are, remains unclear.
What To Watch Next
Watch for a petition to the United States Supreme Court that presses two claims. First, that the order burdens a parent’s free exercise right to attend church with her child without clear, compelling proof of harm. Second, that less restrictive steps were not tried first, such as counseling, targeted speech rules, or supervised transitions. The high court rarely takes custody cases, but it may review if it sees a First Amendment conflict worth clarifying.
For many readers, the bottom line is simple. Parents should raise their kids in faith without government second-guessing. This case shows how fast that space can shrink when family conflict meets a courtroom. President Trump has championed religious liberty, but state courts control custody fights day to day. The best safeguard is clear law that protects both the child’s welfare and a parent’s right to share church, Scripture, and prayer during their time—without state labels or bias getting in the way.
Sources:
thegatewaypundit.com, courts.maine.gov, pressherald.com, newsweek.com
