Tomorrow, the Maine Supreme Court will hear oral arguments where Liberty Counsel will argue on behalf of Emily Bickford who has been barred by an unconstitutional custody order from taking her 12-year-old daughter to church or religious organizations. The order also allows prohibiting the daughter from reading the Bible. Bickford, a single mother, is appealing the custody order that declared her church’s mainstream biblical teachings to be “psychologically harmful” and granted the child’s father, who objected to the teachings, the sole right to govern the girl’s religious activities.

The order gives Matthew Bradeen the sole right to decide about whether his daughter may—(1) Attend “any services, gatherings, or events associated with Calvary Chapel;” (2) What “material, literature, video, or other messaging associated with or created by Calvary Chapel” she reviews; and (3) Whether she can “associate or communicate with any member” of Calvary Chapel.      

The order includes “any other church or religious organization, or exposure to the teachings of any religious philosophy or of the Bible in general.” The order then gives Bradeen “the right to make final decisions regarding [the daughter’s] participation in other churches and religious organizations.”

Every time God is mentioned in the court order, the judge spells it with lower case (god), which is what Bradeen also did in his complaint. The hostility toward Christianity is obvious and unconstitutional.

Liberty Counsel seeks a reversal of this unlawful custody order and restoration of the mother’s First Amendment right to pass on her religious beliefs to her child.

Under the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and numerous Supreme Court precedents, unmarried parents both have the right to instill their religious beliefs into their children during their respective custodial time. In a brief to the Maine Supreme Court, Liberty Counsel stated that legal precedents protect a parent’s custodial rights even when one parent’s religious beliefs are in opposition to the other parent, or even in opposition to the American mainstream. Here, where Bickford is taking her daughter to a church that holds mainstream biblical views, the court’s total prohibition on her religious decision-making authority giving the father total veto power is a direct infringement on her right to direct the religious upbringing of her child.

Essentially, the lower court impermissibly entered the “private realm of family life” and “punished” Bickford for her biblical beliefs, wrote Liberty Counsel.

“Constitutionally, American courts are forbidden from interfering with religious freedoms or to take steps preferring one religion over another,” reads the brief.

According to the custody order, issued by Maine District Judge Jennifer Nofsinger, the father took issue with his daughter attending Calvary Chapel Church in Portland because it teaches the Bible “verse by verse, chapter by chapter,” including teaching on the Bible’s descriptions of hell, demons, and spiritual warfare. He hired California sociology professor, Dr. Janja Lalich, an “expert on cults,” to help convince Judge Nofsinger to stop his daughter attending this church. Dr. Lalich told the judge that cults usually have a charismatic, authoritarian leader who teaches about a “transcendent belief system” that offers answers, and “promises some sort of salvation.” She further testified that she had “studied” Calvary Chapel Church and found that the church’s pastor was a “charismatic” speaker, spoke “authoritatively” in his messages, and that he asserted his messages were objective truth. Because of this, Dr. Lalich perceived the church to be a “cultic” organization.” Despite not being a psychologist, Dr. Lalich testified it was “evident” that the church posed a potential for psychological harm to the girl.

Relying on both this interpretation and the “expert” testimony, the court order states that this church is “psychologically detrimental” to the girl. The court decided the remedy was giving the father the sole authority to make “final decisions” regarding the girl’s religious instruction even during the mother’s custodial time.

In the appeal, Liberty Counsel stated the decision makes a dogmatic assertion without any proof that the Christian religion is “psychologically harmful.” In so doing, the order adopts a “heckler’s veto” over the mother’s fundamental religious rights to take her daughter to church.

The First Amendment does not allow for this blatant and overt hostility towards religious beliefs and the order cannot stand, concluded Liberty Counsel. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Calvary Chapel is not a cult. This custody order banning Emily Bickford from taking her child to a Christian church because of its biblical teachings violates the First Amendment. The breadth of this court order is breathtaking because it even prohibits contact with the Bible, religious literature, or religious philosophy. The custody order cannot prohibit Bickford from taking her daughter to church. The implications of this order pose a serious threat to religious freedom.”