The Maine Supreme Court is now weighing a case that cuts to the very heart of parental rights, religious freedom, and the limits of judicial power — and the facts are as startling as the implications.
At issue is whether a family court judge can legally bar a 12-year-old girl from attending church with her mother, associating with religious friends, or even reading a Bible — all at the request of a non-custodial father who believes religion is psychologically harming his daughter. That’s exactly what happened to Emily Bickford and her daughter Ava, after Ava’s father, Matthew Bradeen, persuaded a lower court judge to strip Bickford of her ability to involve her daughter in any religious activity, without his approval.
The ruling — which legal experts have described as sweeping, unprecedented, and hostile to religion — stems from Ava’s participation in Calvary Chapel Portland, a nondenominational evangelical church she had attended for three years. After Ava expressed a desire to be baptized, Bradeen sought an emergency order to prevent it, claiming that the church’s teachings had caused her psychological distress, including panic attacks and anxiety.
His argument leaned heavily on testimony from Dr. Janja Lalich — a self-described cult expert and former Marxist sociology professor who admitted she is not a licensed psychologist. Her conclusion? That Calvary Chapel was “cultic” because the pastor spoke with confidence and claimed to preach objective truth. Based on this and other evidence, the judge issued an order giving Bradeen sole authority over Ava’s religious exposure, essentially exiling the child from any and all faith-based communities and practices.
The restrictions go far beyond Sunday services. Ava cannot attend religious events, visit faith-based charities, associate with friends who go to Calvary Chapel, read religious materials, or even accompany her mother to a church wedding or funeral. These are not minor limitations — they are a total religious quarantine.
Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver, representing Bickford, argued before the Maine Supreme Court that the order is unconstitutional and directly contradicts longstanding precedent affirming the right of each parent — especially a custodial parent found to be fit — to instill their religious values in their children. He noted the absence of any allegations of abuse or neglect, and the extraordinarily light evidence of “harm” cited by the court: a single panic attack, notes about the rapture, and one disturbing image in a workbook.
More than that, Staver revealed a pattern of judicial hostility to religion itself. The judge, he said, refused to capitalize the word “God” in court documents, chastised Bickford for allowing her pastor to pray with Ava, and placed restrictions that not only undermine parental rights but isolate Ava from nearly all social and spiritual support systems.
Even justices on the Maine Supreme Court seemed concerned. One justice described the lower court's actions as a “nuclear option,” and several openly questioned how such a sweeping order could be reconciled with First Amendment protections. Still, they also probed the broader conflict between protecting a child’s well-being and honoring constitutional freedoms.
The court’s decision is pending, but its consequences could ripple far beyond Maine. At stake is whether faith-based parenting must now pass psychological scrutiny — and whether judges get to decide which beliefs are safe enough for children to hear. For now, Ava remains barred from her church, her friends, and her faith. The question is whether the law — or the Constitution — will bring her back.