Maine Mother Pursues Supreme Court Challenge Over Religious Custody Dispute

A legal battle in Maine involving a mother’s right to take her daughter to church may reach the U.S. Supreme Court. This case could potentially involve a conflict between parental rights, religious freedom, and the family court’s authority in religious activities during custody disputes.

Emily Bickford contests a court order that stops her from taking her daughter to church, claiming it violates her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. However, Maine’s highest court dismissed these claims, stating that the restrictions aimed to protect her child’s well-being and were not antagonistic toward religion.

Following the state court’s decision, Bickford’s legal team at Liberty Counsel announced plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue that the ruling threatens parental rights and religious freedom.

Who Is Emily Bickford?

Bickford is involved in a prolonged custody battle with her ex-partner, Matthew Bradeen, concerning their teenage daughter. This disagreement expanded to include religion, healthcare, and parental authority issues.

The dispute centers on Calvary Chapel in Westbrook, Maine, where Bickford attends services. A court order from December 2024 prevents her from taking her daughter there, awarding Bradeen sole authority over the child’s engagement with Calvary Chapel. Both parents retain joint decision-making for other religious organizations. Bickford insists this order unlawfully hinders her from raising her daughter in accordance with her Christian faith.

Represented by Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel contends that the case embodies fundamental constitutional rights. Staver criticized the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s decision for ignoring a parent’s First Amendment rights to raise a child within their faith, citing it contradicts current Supreme Court precedents. It should be noted that Bickford claims her daughter wishes to attend church and maintain her friendships there.

The case has attracted religious-liberty advocates, as it raises questions about court involvement in parental disputes over religious upbringing.

Maine Supreme Court’s Ruling on Emily Bickford Case

On September 1, Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court upheld the lower court’s decision, denying Bickford’s constitutional claims. The court determined that the custody order was lawful under family law principles. It ruled the order was motivated not by religious bias, but by evidence suggesting damage to the child’s relationship with her father due to messages heard in church.

According to the court, the child received messages depicting her father as an antagonist against her faith, which risked alienation from him. The court emphasized that the decision didn’t declare Christianity harmful, but instead highlighted concerns over negative messages from religious leaders that might distress the child.

The court observed that sermons on topics like heaven, hell, and the Second Coming increased the child’s anxiety. Additionally, a pastor’s prayer labeling Bradeen as unsaved framed the custody dispute as a spiritual attack.

The court reiterated that family courts often adjudicate parental disagreements and based its decision on specific case facts. It concluded Bradeen’s actions focused more on the child’s welfare.

Will the Supreme Court Take Up Emily Bickford’s Case?

Liberty Counsel plans to ask the Supreme Court to review this case, arguing it raises significant issues about parental rights and religious practice. They allege the lower courts improperly penalized Bickford for her faith and allowed government intrusion into decisions normally reserved for parents.

The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions annually, selecting only a few for review. Petitioners need to demonstrate crucial constitutional issues or divergent legal interpretations to the justices.

Bickford’s attorneys will assert that this case highlights Supreme Court precedents on religious liberty and parental rights. They claim Maine’s ruling conflicts with judgments in other custody disputes and thus needs Supreme Court intervention.

Opponents argue that Maine’s decision focused on the child’s emotional health and family dynamics, not religion. Until the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, the Maine ruling stands, affecting Bickford’s case and potentially influencing how courts nationwide handle conflicts involving faith, parental rights, and children’s best interests during custody disputes.

If considered, the Supreme Court’s involvement could make this one of the key family-law and religious-freedom disputes in their upcoming term.