To stream NCM on your phone, you need the NCM app.
Next up in 5
Example video title will go here for this video
Next up in 5
Example video title will go here for this video
PORTLAND, Maine — The Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments today in a dispute that puts the rights of parents and religious freedom under the microscope.
At the center of the case is Emily Bickford, who said a lower court’s decision handed over to her co‑parent the power to veto which church their daughter may attend. The mother argues that this ruling infringes on her fundamental right to direct her child’s religious upbringing.
“It affects not only our family, but the families of all Christian children,” Bickford told reporters after the hearing.
The court order in question stemmed from a custody modification request by Matthew Bradeen, the father. He alleged that after the child began attending Calvary Chapel of Portland, she started having severe panic attacks and exhibited alarming psychological signs — like leaving notes around the house that said “the rapture is coming.” Her father said much of her concern came from believing her sister and father would not go to heaven because they did not attend the same church as her.
An expert witness called by the father’s side analyzed the church’s sermons and testified that the teachings likely posed a psychological risk to the child. The district court accepted that assessment and granted the father final decision‑making authority on the child’s religious education.
Bickford’s legal team challenged the move, saying the evidence did not rise to meet the standard of harm necessary to make such a decision.
“It cannot amount to immediate and substantial harm, justifying this drastic change and taking away from a fit parent the right to the religious education of their child,” Mathew Staver, one of her attorneys, told the justices.
The justices pushed back at both legal teams with probing questions. They seemed to struggle with where to draw the line — if psychological effects don’t count, what does? At the same time, they acknowledged that courts are not to sit in judgment of religious beliefs or doctrines.
On behalf of Mr. Bradeen, attorneys argued the case boils down to the familiar legal principle: when there is documented harm, the court may act to protect the child’s best interest — even if it means limiting a parent’s religious education rights.
“The courts also say we don’t have to wait for it to be so severe that a child suffers irreparable emotional harm,” said Michelle King, an attorney for Matthew Bradeen.
The high court will now review the briefs and arguments and issue a decision in due course.
For more local stories, continue with us on our NEWS CENTER Maine+ streaming app.
For the latest breaking news, weather, and traffic alerts, download the NEWS CENTER Maine mobile app.
