Case over parental rights and worship may head to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court of Maine affirmed earlier order granting Matthew Bradeen sole authority over his daughter's religious worship, citing potential psychological harm from attending an evangelical church. The court also upheld Bradeen's exclusive control over the child's medical care. The case arose from a 2013 shared parental rights agreement and later disputes over vaccinations and religious upbringing. The ruling underscores tensions between parental rights and religious freedom, with implications for custody and faith decisions.
16 days ago
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has upheld an order giving Matthew Bradeen sole authority over his daughter’s religious upbringing and medical care. The ruling followed findings that the child experienced fear and anxiety related to teachings at her mother’s Calvary Chapel church; the mother’s attorneys, Liberty Counsel, have said they plan to petition the U.S. Supreme Court.
Matthew Bradeen and Emily Bickford were never married and separated before their daughter was born in January 2013. Under a 2013 agreement, they initially shared parental responsibilities and were expected to consult about decisions affecting the child.
Bradeen sought sole authority over religious decisions in 2021. The dispute later expanded to medical care after Bickford stopped vaccinating the child, including against COVID-19 and influenza, and did not respond to Bradeen regarding an HPV vaccination.
In December 2024, a trial judge granted Bradeen authority over the child’s religious upbringing and medical decisions. The judge concluded that the child had experienced “fear and anxiety” associated with Calvary Chapel teachings concerning hell, Christ’s second coming, and final judgment.
On September 1, 2026, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court’s order in Bradford v. Bradeen. It recognized that parents possess a fundamental constitutional right to direct their children’s upbringing, including religious upbringing, but treated that right as shared between the parents.
The court rejected Bickford’s claim that the order violated her rights under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. It also rejected her allegation that the trial judge had displayed religious bias or hostility toward Christianity.
The court said the trial judge had not determined that Christianity itself was psychologically harmful. Instead, it characterized the concern as the child’s exposure to frightening or hostile messages about her father, including statements by the church’s pastor describing Bradeen as an “enemy” who sought to persecute the child and her mother.
The Maine court also addressed the trial judge’s description of Calvary Chapel as a “cult,” saying the term referred to the church as a “closed social system” rather than serving as a judgment against its religious beliefs. It similarly rejected objections concerning references to the church’s “Moses model,” alleged homophobic rhetoric, and teachings about moral absolutes.
In the final portion of its ruling, the court upheld Bradeen’s exclusive authority over medical decisions, agreeing that his approach better served the child’s interests.
The case concerns how courts should resolve religious disagreements between parents who share custody. The Maine court acknowledged that parents have constitutional rights in directing a child’s religious upbringing, but the decision allows one parent to control the child’s worship while requiring consultation on involvement with other religious organizations.
The article identifies a further issue involving governmental neutrality toward religion. The Maine court stated that favoring one parent over another because of religion, or casting doubt on the fairness of proceedings because of religious beliefs, could demonstrate hostility toward those beliefs. It nevertheless concluded that such hostility had not been shown in this case.
Bickford’s attorneys have also raised concerns about the trial judge’s treatment of her beliefs. Liberty Counsel Chairman Matt Staver alleged that the judge showed hostility by refusing to capitalize the word “God” in the written order.
The trial court relied in part on testimony from Janja Lalich, a retired sociology professor described as an expert on cults. The article questions whether that background qualified her to assess the child’s potential psychological harm from exposure to religious preaching.
The trial judge found that Bickford’s insistence on independent decision-making exposed the child to messages posing an “immediate risk of psychological harm” and left little opportunity for the parents to cooperate on religious matters.
Liberty Counsel has announced plans to file a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Maine decision. The case presents questions about the scope of parental religious rights, the authority of state courts to restrict a parent’s choice of worship, and the use of alleged psychological harm as a basis for doing so.
The medical component is described as a separate issue. The article states that the Maine courts’ decision on vaccination and other medical care may have a stronger legal basis because of Bickford’s alleged failure to address public-health concerns, while the religious portion presents the more significant constitutional dispute.
Parental authority versus religious freedom in custody disputes
In Catholic teaching, custody disputes should not be framed as a choice between parental authority and religious freedom as though one automatically defeats the other. Parents possess a primary responsibility and right to educate their children, including religiously, but that authority is exercised for the child’s genuine human and spiritual good—not as absolute ownership or control.
Parents are the first educators. The family has its own original rights, and parents may direct their children’s religious upbringing according to their convictions. The state should recognize this freedom and should not impose religious instruction contrary to the parents’ beliefs.
This authority is not merely a delegated privilege granted by government. Catholic teaching describes it as rooted in the parents’ natural responsibility for the life and development of their children, and therefore preceding the state’s educational role.
Parental authority is not absolute. Parents may not treat children as possessions or exercise authority despotically. Their decisions remain subject to the child’s dignity, natural law, divine law, and the child’s bodily, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual welfare.
Religious freedom protects the family from coercion. It does not mean that every religious disagreement between parents must be resolved by eliminating religion from the child’s life. Catholic teaching recognizes both the family’s right to live its religious life and the parents’ right to choose religious education.
A Catholic assessment would normally ask:
A court should distinguish religious disagreement from actual harm. Mere opposition to Catholic worship, baptism, catechesis, or moral teaching is not by itself proof that the child is endangered. Conversely, a parent cannot invoke religious freedom to justify abuse, coercive control, serious neglect, or conduct that gravely damages the child.
The Church also rejects domineering parenting. Pope Francis warns that making children feel that only their parents can be trusted can obstruct socialization and emotional maturity; Christian communities should support, rather than replace, the family’s educational mission.
Where parents have different religious convictions, the ideal is cooperation that avoids turning the child into a weapon. The parent’s right to religious education should be balanced with the child’s need for stability and with the other parent’s legitimate role.
Catholic teaching gives especially strong weight to parents’ ability to choose the child’s education according to conscience and opposes unjust burdens or compulsory instruction contrary to their beliefs. Yet this does not provide a complete legal rule for every custody case. The supplied sources do not determine how a particular civil court should allocate custody, visitation, baptismal decisions, or religious-school arrangements.
The most defensible Catholic conclusion is therefore:
Religious belief alone should not be treated as parental unfitness. Restrictions require a concrete and proportionate justification related to the child’s welfare, while parental decisions about religious upbringing should ordinarily receive serious respect.
In practice, parents should seek mediation, a clear parenting plan, and pastoral or professional assistance rather than using custody litigation to punish religious disagreement. The child’s good—not victory over the other parent—must remain the governing concern.