https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/11/anti-christian-judge-prevents-mother-taking-daughter-church/
shame on
Judge Jennifer Nofsinger 👎😡
AI GENERATED CRITIQUE:
What Happened — Key Facts
1. Custody Dispute
The case is Bickford v. Bradeen. The mother is Emily Bickford, the father is Matthew Bradeen.
They never married.
Emily has primary custody;
Matthew has visitation rights.
2. Religious Conflict
Emily and her daughter "Ava" (12 years old) have been attending Calvary Chapel in Portland, Maine, for several years.
Ava expressed a desire to be baptized.
The father strongly opposed this and claimed that the teachings at the church (including biblical teachings on hell, demons, spiritual warfare) are psychologically harmful to their daughter.
He brought in an expert (a California sociology professor, Dr. Janja Lalich) who testified that Calvary Chapel's teachings are "cult-like" and could be harmful.
3. Custody Order Restrictions
According to the lower court's custody order (December 2024):
Ava is not allowed to attend any church service, event, or gathering associated with Calvary Chapel unless Matthew (the father) gives permission.
She can't associate with her church friends or other members of Calvary Chapel.
She is prohibited from reading the Bible or religious literature, or being exposed to any "religious philosophy."
She cannot attend Christian holiday events (Christmas, Easter) at any church, including weddings, funerals, hospitals, etc.
The judge also reportedly refused to capitalize "God" in the opinion, which Liberty Counsel argues shows hostility toward Christianity.
4. Legal Challenge
Liberty Counsel (a Christian legal advocacy group) is representing Emily in the appeal.
They argue the order violates her First Amendment right to religious exercise and her parental right to raise her child in her faith.
The Maine Supreme Court has heard oral arguments.
Liberty Counsel argues that the court applied a "heckler's veto" — essentially allowing the father's objections (and his expert) to silence religious practice.
They also argue that there is no finding of abuse or neglect, just some observations of anxiety and a panic attack.
5. Broader Implications
If this ruling stands, many religious-freedom advocates argue it could set a dangerous precedent: courts might restrict a parent's ability to pass on their faith if the other parent claims "psychological harm."
It raises questions about where courts draw the line between "protecting a child" and "infringing religious freedom."
---
Analysis: Legal & Constitutional Issues
First Amendment / Free Exercise: This is fundamentally a free-exercise case. A parent has strong rights to raise their child in their faith. But courts also have to consider the child's best interests.
Parental Rights vs. State/Third-Party Intervention: Courts generally defer to parents on how to raise their children, including religious upbringing. But if there's credible harm, courts may limit those rights. The question here is whether the court's restrictions are justified by actual, serious harm.
Expert Testimony: The use of a sociology professor (not a psychologist) to label the church as "cultic" is legally contentious. Is her testimony reliable, especially around "psychological harm"?
Lower Court's Bias: Liberty Counsel argues the lower court showed bias (e.g., lowercasing "God") — which, if true, could undermine the legitimacy of the court's analysis
---
Why This Is Getting Attention
Religious Freedom Precedent: This may set a precedent in Maine (and possibly influence other states) for how far a court can go in limiting a parent's ability to expose a child to religion.
Parental Rights: Many see this as a test case for whether fit parents can be restricted purely based on their religious beliefs when the other parent objects.
Public & Media Interest: Religious legal groups like Liberty Counsel are framing this as a major fight for Christian parental rights. Media outlets covering the case include CBN News.