Choosing her religion

Maine’s highest court on Thursday heard arguments over whether to restore a single mother’s right to guide the religious upbringing of her preteen daughter.

A Maine district court in December stripped Emily Bickford of her parental power in decisions over her then-11-year-old daughter’s religious training and healthcare, giving total control to the child’s father, Matthew Bradeen. The parents, though never married, shared equal custody for years, but Bradeen aimed to change this after their daughter started attending Calvary Chapel in Portland with Bickford.

Calvary Chapel is a nondenominational evangelical church that belongs to the Calvary Chapel fellowship, which has nearly 2,000 associated congregations internationally. Churches in the Calvary Chapel fellowship hold traditional, Biblical values regarding marriage, sex, and original sin.

Bradeen watched some Calvary Chapel sermons online and took issue with his daughter hearing Biblical doctrine regarding heaven, hell, spiritual warfare, and Christ’s second coming. He petitioned the district court to change the family’s custody agreement, alleging that the church’s teachings were psychologically harming the child.

In her December decision, District Judge Jennifer Nofsinger approved Bradeen’s petition and barred the child from attending church or receiving medical treatment without the father’s approval. The lower court’s order specifically banned the child from attending Calvary Chapel and gave Bradeen the power to stop the daughter from associating with any religious philosophy.

During Thursday’s arguments, Liberty Counsel attorney Mathew Staver petitioned Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court to overturn Nofsinger’s order, alleging it violated Bickford’s constitutional rights under the First and 14th amendments. There was no finding of abuse or neglect to constitute such an order, so the court essentially barred a fit parent from acting in her child’s best interest, Staver argued.

“[The order] goes far beyond what is necessary. Because what they do to Calvary Chapel … applies to any other church,” Staver said. The veto order could apply to any religious organization, like the Salvation Army or the YMCA, and that’s simply too broad, the attorney added.

Staver argued that the evidence Bradeen cited to justify the custody change was insufficient. Over four years, Bradeen cited one occasion where his daughter seemed anxious and another when she suffered a panic attack. The father pointed to a third instance where his daughter was frightened by the image of a demon shown in a workbook. Those instances don’t show enough harm to justify giving one parent veto power over another, Staver said.

Staver pointed out that the order has functioned as a veto against Bickford’s religion for nearly a year. “Mr. Bradeen has not given any consent to anything, to any church, or any organization, despite [Bickford’s] request, and that’s exactly how the order is designed to operate,” he said. “This order vests total discretion into one parent and takes away total discretion and decisions from a fit parent.”

The high court justices noted that a key issue in the case was Calvary Chapel’s alleged public denigration of Bradeen during the custody battle. Travis Carey, the church’s senior pastor, led a congregational prayer about Bickford’s custody case while her daughter was present, describing it as a battle between good and evil. “I pray, as the enemy seeks to destroy and dismantle, that Lord, You would work all things together for good … and bring to nothing the plans and the snares and the tricks of the enemy,” he prayed. The lower court took issue with Bickford for allowing the child to be exposed to someone casting her father as villainous or evil.

The justices seemed to agree that the church’s denigration of Bradeen posed possible harm to the child. Staver countered that the prayer was spontaneous, one-off occurrence and was misrepresented by the lower court.

The high court questioned the metric for deciding how much harm would justify giving one parent veto powers. Michelle King, a lawyer representing Bradeen, said the state should consider harm to the child as a compelling factor. “When harm is demonstrated … an order may be entered that limits the religious rights of the parents,” King said. “To rule that the child’s well-being should be ignored … in favor of the mom’s religion would fly against our statute … and would give any religion unfettered exposure to children regardless of their well-being.”

Several justices took issue with the lower court order’s seeming hostility toward Calvary Chapel. “Is it your position that this decision doesn’t show hostility to the mother’s religion?” Justice Catherine Connors asked King.

“That’s absolutely my position, your honor. This decision was very well reasoned. It was grounded in fact,” King said.

“Doesn’t it kind of reference the mother’s religion as a cult?” Connors rejoined.

King answered that the court itself did not refer to the church as a cult, but was citing expert testimony from cult expert Janja Lalich, who described the church as being cult-like. “The judge didn’t make a finding that the mother’s religion was a cult. She made a finding that that’s what the expert found,” King said.

But Justice Julia Lipez further questioned the lower court’s religious neutrality in its decision, citing language in the order that characterized some of Calvary’s sermons as including hateful or offensive rhetoric. Lipez said it seemed the lower court was deciding what it considered offensive within Bickford’s religion.

King again argued the order was merely a means of protecting the child from demonstrated harms.

Justice Rick Lawrence also cited the court’s removal of Bickford’s medical decision-making as evidence of possible religious hostility from the lower court. While the lower court required Bradeen to consult with Bickford before he made medical decisions about the child, it did not require a similar consultation for religious decisions.

“Does that suggest that there is something more in the way of antipathy that was directed towards the decision in the context of religious decision-making?” Lawrence wondered.

During his court arguments, Staver questioned whether the lower court had considered the harm a child would suffer by being cut off from a community with which she had built a yearslong connection. Staver added that the district court order “reeks” of intentional religious hostility: He noted the order used a lowercase G in every mention of God. That’s an assault on both Christianity and Judaism, he argued.

A ruling from the Supreme Judicial Court is expected in the coming months.