Posted on 11/17/2025 10:51:54 AM PST by Red Badger
The fight is between two people who never married but whose daughter now is nearly a teen. And the coming decision by the Maine Supreme Court will determine if judges in that state can simply overturn the constitutional religious rights of parents.
The battle has been outlined by Liberty Counsel, which explained the judge’s trial court ruling in the dispute between mother and father is well into the extreme range, or beyond.
For example, the judge ruled that the custodial mother “is a fit parent EXCEPT for the fact that she is a Christian.”
The war erupted over the non-custodial father’s opposition to Christianity, specifically demanding to ban his daughter’s attendance at a Christian church.
But, based on the “counsel” to the court from a “Marxist former sociality professor,” the judge said the daughter “cannot associate with any of her church friends or any member of Calvary Chapel Portland.”
And, “If Ava meets a new friend outside of Calvary and that person begins attending Calvary, Ava must cut ties with that friend.”
And, “Ava cannot attend ANY Christmas, Easter, or any other Christian event or celebration at ANY church, including any wedding, funeral, or even hospital visits with anyone associated with Calvary Chapel.”
And, “Ava cannot have any contact or participation with ANY religious organization (which would include Salvation Army or a food bank, homeless shelter, or crisis pregnancy center.”
And, “Ava cannot read the Bible or religious literature or be exposed to any ‘religious philosophy’”
But even with that extremism, the judge wasn’t done with his anti-Christian agenda, Liberty Counsel reported.
“The judge mocked Ava and Emily’s faith by purposefully refusing to capitalize the word ‘God’ — something I have never seen,” reported Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver, who argued the little girl’s case before the state Supreme Court last week.
“The judge even chastised Emily for allowing the church pastor to pray for Ava. And the judge ruled that Emily could not take Ava to ANY church unless Matt approves. And Matt has steadfastly refused to approve ANY church.”
Newsweek wrote that the judge’s order was “unusually sweeping.”
“The state’s high court must now determine whether judges can curtail a fit parent’s religious practices based on findings of potential psychological harm, a question that could reshape how courts nationwide weigh parental rights, religious freedom and expert testimony in custody disputes,” the report said.
Staver pointed out to the court, “There is no finding of abuse or neglect” in the record, which only shows an incident where the child experienced “anxiety.”
The agenda to comply with the anti-Christian wishes of the father and his advisers violates the Constitution regarding the mother’s rights, he said.
A lawyer for the father, Matthew Bradeen, claimed it is a compelling state interest to violate the rights of the mother, Emily Bickford.
Staver described the lower court’s ruling as reeking of “hostility.”
That decision gave Bradeen totalitarian control over religious decisions for the girl, soon to be 13.
A report from WCSH-TV said Bradeen’s “expert” witness looked at Calvary Chapel’s sermons and then claimed they were a “psychological risk.”
At issue is the fact that courts are not allowed to sit in judgment of religious beliefs or doctrines.
Liberty Counsel explained the background: “Matt Bradeen never married Emily after she became pregnant over a dozen years ago. The relationship ended before Ava was even born. Emily had primary custody of Ava, and Matt had visitation rights. Ava and Emily had been attending Calvary Chapel, an evangelical Christian church in Portland, ME, for 3½ years. Ava informed her father last year that she was excited to be baptized. But whereas most parents would be overjoyed, Matt found an ACLU judge and flew in a Marxist former sociology professor from California to testify that Calvary Chapel (and any church that believes the Bible) are ‘cults’ that cause psychological harm to children.”
Staver explained of the recent court hearing, “The majority of justices said the order is hostile toward religion and that it used a ‘nuclear option’ by taking all decision-making away from an unquestionably fit parent regarding the religious upbringing of her daughter.”
A ruling is expected in coming weeks.
I wish I could say this was unbelievable
It’s got to be overturned. Dad seems like a real sweetie. The daughter is 12, which means in less than six years she will be able to, and will, tell him to get lost forever.
Force his hand, “Convert” to Islam.
This can’t be real.
Since when have Maineiacs ever cared about parental rights or religious rights or The Constitution? If today’s judges were around in the 1770s, they’d still be wearing wigs to court.
How bizarre.
She’d have been better off not telling the guy she was pregnant.
I guess she needed the child support.
That judge can go &$@¥ himself. I’d be damned if a black robed tyrant would tell me when I could or could not go to whatever church I wanted to. I would raise any child in my custody with Christian values, and hizzoner can pound sand. This kind of ruling is what brings out the torches and pitchforks along with tar and feathers.
IMHO Judge Jennifer Nofsinger is testing the waters to see how far left she can go before it’s struck down. Kind of like kids in a classroom seeing how much they can misbehave with a new teacher.
Fake judges everywhere
Convert and let the muslims take care of dad.
“The war erupted over the non-custodial father’s opposition to Christianity, specifically demanding to ban his daughter’s attendance at a Christian church.”
Pretty simple. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution addresses laws concerning religion through two clauses: the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which protects the right of individuals to practice their religion freely. Together, these clauses ensure the government cannot favor or disfavor any religion. Cut and dry. The father has no custody, and the judge cannot hear the case to make a ruling s it is outside their legal parameters.
wy69
Problem with that is this judge would strip you of custody and the atheist dad would be in charge. And you would be in prison, of no good to the child.
I’m curious how one parent would have the right to assert religious dominance over a child.
Maine Supreme Court will determine if judges in that state can simply overturn the constitution.
NO AND HELL NO who died and gave them power to control the constitution.
Dear comrades your constitution belongs to us only.
LORD have mercy and confound the enemy and bring forth the righteous, in the mighty Name of Jesus, amen.
In Maine, the court is supposed to listen to the “reasonable preferences” of a “mature” child regarding religion.
(19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3)).
Normal practice in a joint custody case, if one parents wants religion and the child (age 13) is mature and there is no cult or other concern, the court is obligated to let the child participate in the services with the parent.
The daughter is forbidden even to read the Bible on her own. At what age does a person have First Amendment rights? Do they start only at 18?
SCOTUS has said children under 18 have freedom of speech at school.
Agree
The court is obligated to let the child participate in the services with the parent.
Based on the last paragraph, I’m sure the Maine Supreme Court will rule in favor of the girl and her mother.
Mat Staver just doesn’t lose cases. Even if the Maine court rules for the father, the SCOTUS would absolutely take the case. Mat Staver is very well known and respected by the SCOTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.