Court Lets Dad Ban Church

Maine’s highest court upheld a custody order that lets a father block his 13-year-old daughter’s church attendance and limit her exposure to Bible teaching at her mother’s home.

Story Snapshot

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the father’s final say over the child’s religious involvement after years of conflict.
The order covers attendance at Calvary Chapel Greater Portland and, if parents disagree, other religious exposure.
The mother argued the order violates the First Amendment, but the court focused on the child’s best interests.
The ruling reflects how courts act when co-parenting on religion breaks down and harm is alleged.

What The Court Actually Decided

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a Portland District Court order that gave the father, Matthew A. Bradeen, final decision-making power over his daughter’s religious involvement. The order specifically covered Calvary Chapel Greater Portland and extended to other religious exposure when the parents could not agree. The court said the record showed deep conflict over religion and that joint decision-making failed, so it allocated authority to one parent in the child’s best interests.

The justices framed the outcome as a custody allocation, not a statewide speech rule. The opinion did not ban the Bible or church for all parents. It held that, in this case, the father has the final say on these choices. That means the mother cannot take the child to Calvary Chapel or read religious material to her over the father’s objection, under the current order. The ruling leaves room for modification if facts or the child’s needs change later.

Why The Mother Appealed And Lost

The mother, Emily A. Bickford, argued on appeal that the order violates the First Amendment. She said attending a mainstream Christian church and hearing the Bible is not harm as a matter of law. Her brief asked the court to reverse because the order chilled protected religious speech and practice in her own home. The high court rejected that framing and treated the order as a narrow best-interests fix in a high-conflict case.

The opinion cited findings that the parents could not co-parent on religion and that the child experienced distress tied to the dispute. The trial record included testimony describing sermons with vivid language about Hell and salvation, which the father said harmed the child. The Supreme Judicial Court relied on the trial court’s credibility calls and upheld giving one parent final authority on this disputed topic to reduce conflict for the child.

How Family Courts Handle Religion Conflicts

Family courts weigh religion issues under the “best interests of the child.” Judges try to avoid picking theology and instead ask what promotes the child’s health, stability, and development. When parents split and constant conflict follows, courts often assign one parent final decision-making power on key topics like school, health care, or religion. Many states follow similar approaches to limit harm from stalemates and ongoing fights.

A Christian mom in Maine has been prohibited from taking her 13-year-old daughter to church or even read the Bible to her for nearly two years — not even for an Easter or Christmas service or a Bible study.

Today, the Maine Supreme Court rejected the First Amendment and… pic.twitter.com/eUYIXwRpar

— Farm Girl Carrie™️👩‍🌾 (@FarmGirlCarrie) September 2, 2026

Legal guides note courts are more likely to step in when there is evidence of harm, entrenched conflict, or failed joint decision-making. Here, the Maine court said the order was targeted to this family’s record, not a general ban on church or faith. Still, the outcome alarms many people across the spectrum who fear the state can reach into the home and control parental speech when the other parent disagrees. That tension will keep this case in public debate.

What This Means For Parents And The Broader System

Parents in high-conflict cases should expect courts to assign final authority to one side when cooperation fails, even on sensitive subjects like religion. That power can include limiting the other parent’s activities with the child when those activities are at the heart of the conflict. The Maine ruling shows that judges will affirm such limits when supported by evidence and framed as a child-welfare choice, not as the government picking winners in matters of faith.

Both conservatives and liberals often worry that powerful systems overrule families. This case feeds that concern. Supporters of the ruling see a court protecting a child from conflict and distress. Critics see the state curbing a fit parent’s right to share her faith at home. The narrow legal holding may be sound, but the larger trust gap remains. When courts manage values disputes, many citizens see one more sign that institutions answer to insiders, not to parents.