The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday affirmed a lower court ruling that gives a father the final say on whether his then-11-year-old daughter may attend her mother’s evangelical church in the Portland area.
Background of the dispute
The decision stems from a 2024 custody dispute between Matthew Bradeen and Emily Bickford over the daughter’s participation in services and activities at Calvary Chapel Greater Portland, an evangelical congregation in Westbrook. The family conflict escalated after the father raised concerns about the messages his daughter received at the church and the effect those messages had on her mental health.
According to court records, the girl experienced a panic attack after being exposed to teachings about the Rapture — a doctrinal belief held by some Christian groups that describes believers being taken up to heaven at the end of time while others are left behind. Bradeen argued that the church’s teachings created anxiety and characterized the environment as harmful to the child.
What the courts found
A Portland District Court judge concluded that the church’s influence on the child was psychologically damaging and granted the father authority to decide whether his daughter could attend services, join church events or interact with church members aside from her mother. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s recent ruling affirmed that lower-court decision.
“psychologically damaging”
The high court’s affirmation means Bradeen retains the exclusive decision-making power on these specific religious-exposure questions, restricting the mother’s ability to take the child to church-related gatherings without the father’s consent.
Why the ruling matters
- Parental rights and custody: The case highlights how courts may limit one parent’s actions when a judge finds a child’s welfare is at risk, even when the activity involves religious practice.
- Religious instruction and child welfare: The ruling underscores that messages conveyed in a faith setting can be scrutinized by family courts if those messages are shown to harm a child’s mental health.
- Precedent for future disputes: Lawyers and parents will likely watch for how this decision is applied in other custody disagreements involving religion, schooling or therapeutic concerns.
Timeline of key events
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024 | Initial dispute and Portland District Court ruling granting father decision-making authority over church attendance. |
| 2026 | Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirms the lower-court decision. |
Reactions and implications
The parties in the case have framed the matter differently in public filings and commentary. The father focused on his daughter’s emotional response to specific teachings; the mother emphasized her religious practice and involvement with the child. The high court’s ruling prioritizes the child’s immediate psychological welfare in this instance, while stopping short of a broader legal statement about parental religious rights generally.
Attorneys who handle family law say cases that intersect with religion can be complex because courts must balance parents’ constitutional rights with a duty to protect minors. This decision is likely to prompt additional legal analysis as other parents and lawyers consider how the ruling might influence custody arrangements where religion is contested.
What this means for families
Families facing similar disputes should know that evidence of tangible harm to a child — such as psychological distress tied to a particular environment or teaching — can be central to a court’s decision to restrict a parent’s activities on behalf of a child. When religious instruction is at issue, courts will weigh parental rights alongside child welfare concerns.
Those involved in such conflicts are advised to consult family law counsel and, when appropriate, mental health professionals to document concerns. Mediation and negotiated parenting plans that address exposure to particular environments may offer alternatives to prolonged litigation.
The court’s ruling resolves this particular dispute between Bradeen and Bickford, but it leaves open broader questions about how Maine courts will handle future custody conflicts that involve religion and a child’s emotional health.
— Nora Whitfield, State Correspondent
