[All pictures are posted for Educational Purposes
in accordance with Fair Use]
Posted on 11/17/2025 10:11:40 PM PST by grundle
Emily Bickford is challenging a December 2024 custody order that prohibits her from bringing her daughter to Calvary Chapel in Westbrook
PORTLAND, Maine — Maine Supreme Court justices heard arguments in a parental-rights case on Thursday involving a mother who says she has been unconstitutionally barred from taking her 12-year-old daughter to church.
Emily Bickford is challenging a December 2024 custody order that prohibits her from bringing her daughter to Calvary Chapel in Westbrook. A district court judge sided with the child’s father, Matthew Bradeen, ruling that some of the church’s teachings could be psychologically harmful to the girl.
The order allows Bradeen to solely decide on his daughter's involvement with Calvary Chapel Church. When it comes to any other religious organization, the order states that the parents share rights and must discuss.
Bickford’s attorneys, led by Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, argued that the lower court’s decision violates her First Amendment rights.
“This is a nuclear option, where you give total authority to one parent to make decisions regarding religion over the other parent, who’s a fit parent,” Staver told Maine's Total Coverage outside the courthouse in Portland, where justices heard roughly 30 minutes of oral arguments.
Bickford said after the hearing that the order has prevented her daughter from attending a place that is meaningful to her.
“She would like to come to church. She misses her friends, and I really hope that this gets overturned,” Bickford said. “It needs to be. It’s unconstitutional.”
The Maine justices did not indicate when they would issue a decision but said a ruling would come “in due time.”
Bradeen and his lawyer declined to speak to the media.
>> The Maine justices did not indicate when they would issue a decision but said a ruling would come “in due time.”
No matter how much you think you hate arrogant activist progressive judges, you don’t hate them enough.
This is an outrage. I cannot find a body of law that allows grounds for a decision upon this basis.
Maine justices probably don’t subscribe
to Calvary Chapel’s Biblical teachings
Or at least, it would surprise me if
they did
Lemme guess how this will go...
There’s a claim that Calvary Chapel is LGBTQ+ inclusive.
I would need more proof.
It sounds less like woketardiness than a very strong element of fire and brimstone, demons and spiritual warfare, such that the daughter was having panic attacks about her father and sister going to Hell because they didn’t follow the church’s teachings. Sounds a little cult-like, although I’m relying on what I read on the internet.....
“No matter how much you think you hate arrogant activist progressive judges, you don’t hate them enough.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Hate them ?? Sounds like you’re carrying a heavy burden, which faith in the Savior will resolve.
John 3:7
‘You must be born again.’
Well I would expect that they’re teaching that
Salvation can only be received by Faith in Jesus Christ.
Any time I ever heard Chuck Smith I found him to be rock-solid
AI Overview:
Yes, Calvary Chapel was started by Chuck Smith in 1965 in Costa Mesa, California.
AI Overview:
No, Pastor Chuck Smith was not LGBTQ-friendly; he explicitly denounced homosexuality as a “perverted lifestyle” and held a non-affirming theological stance.
Key points regarding his views and their impact:
Public Denouncement: From his pulpit and in public statements, Smith was openly critical of homosexuality, calling it a sin and a “perverted lifestyle”.
(Picture to follow)
libertycounsel:
“Can a mom be prohibited from taking her daughter to church? Absolutely not. But a mother in Maine is currently facing this reality, bound by a custody order preventing her from taking her preteen daughter to church, religious organizations or even reading the Bible together.
This afternoon, Mat Staver argued at the Maine Supreme Court on behalf of Emily Bickford, a Christian mom who is currently prohibited from raising her daughter, Ava, in accordance with her religious beliefs. The reason? Ava’s father considers Calvary Chapel’s biblical teachings as “psychologically detrimental” to his daughter because the church teaches the Bible, “verse by verse,” including the Bible’s descriptions of hell, demons, and spiritual warfare.
Emily and Ava attended Calvary Chapel Portland from May 2021 to December 2024, when the order was issued. Since then, Ava’s dad, Matthew Bradeen has denied Emily’s ability to take her daughter to any church whatsoever.
The implications of this unconstitutional custody order pose a serious threat to religious freedom. The First Amendment does not allow for this blatant and overt hostility towards religious beliefs, and this unlawful order cannot stand.”
Here, Mat stands outside the court house with Emily Bickford, David Hirchon (our local counsel in Maine), and Pastor Travis Carey (Calvary Chapel Greater Portland).
https://www.instagram.com/p/DRA2By8DvWu/
From the article:
“She would like to come to church.
She misses her friends,
and I really hope that this gets overturned,” Bickford said.
“It needs to be. It’s unconstitutional.”
The daughter WANTS to go. According to the mother. The father it appears does not want the daughter to go.
Matthew 10:33-35
Amplified Bible
33 But the one who denies and rejects Me before men, that one
I will also deny and reject before My Father Who is in Heaven.
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring Peace on the Earth;
I have not come to bring Peace, but a Sword
[of Division between Belief and UnBelief].
35 For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:33-35&version=AMP
Luke 12:51-53
King James Version
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give Peace on Earth?
I tell you, Nay; but rather Division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house Divided,
three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be Divided against the son,
and the son against the father;
the mother against the daughter,
and the daughter against the mother;
the mother in law against her daughter in law,
and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012%3A51-53&version=KJV
Excellent. Praise the Lord. 🛐🛐🙏🙏✝️✝️
Two tame-aways:
1) Shouldn’t the headline read, “taking” her to church?
(and “bringing” her back?)
2) Why couldn’t her attorney take the daughter to church?
(or a friend?)
There are always “work-arounds”...
“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’””
Is that for real?
Father is not against daughter going to church, he’s just against THIS PARTICULAR church and it’s pastor, thinking pastor is a toxic influence.
Not familiar with the church, but father is. I would go with complying with the original agreement, and find another church.
Why is that so bad?
Well what are the choices of
the Mother and the Daughter?
I understand but suppose
hypothetically that one
parent is an ardent atheist?
Or Satanist? Yikes 😳😳😳
Gets REALLY complicated with
“Transgender surgery” where I
personally an against anyone
who is FOR such
I think the ACLJ should get
involved unless they’re already
working with those lawyers
(And, “AVA CANNOT READ THE BIBLE
or religious literature or be exposed
to any ‘religious philosophy’””)
If this is indeed their ruling then
that is darn scary IMHO
YMMV
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.