Emily Bickford has been taking her 13-year-old daughter to Calvary Chapel in Portland, Maine, for years. On September 4, 2026, the Maine Supreme Court told her to stop.

A court, in America, told a mother she is not allowed to bring her child to church.

The ruling stems from a custody dispute between Bickford, a Christian, and the girl's father, Matthew Bradeen, who is not. Bradeen objected to the religious instruction his daughter was receiving at Calvary Chapel — specifically teachings on biblical eschatology, the study of end times — and argued it was harmful to the child. The Maine Supreme Court agreed with him.

The court's written opinion stated that "the court's finding reflected simply that it is harmful for a child to hear negative and frightening messages about one parent from the other parent or the other parent's authority figures." In other words, the court classified a church's theological teaching as psychologically damaging speech — and then barred a parent from exposing her child to it.

The ruling effectively grants one parent veto power over the other parent's religious practice with their child. Bradeen, the non-religious father, now holds sole authority over whether his daughter sets foot inside a house of worship. Bickford, the practicing Christian, has been told by the state's highest court that her faith is a risk factor.

Matt Staver, the attorney representing Bickford through Liberty Counsel, did not mince words. "Depriving one parent of their right to instill their religious views into their child and granting sole authority to the other parent fails to give proper protection to parental rights and religious freedom under the First and 14th Amendment," Staver said. "The implications of this opinion pose a serious threat to religious freedom. Liberty Counsel will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately decide this case."

The First Amendment argument here isn't complicated. The government — through the judiciary — is making a qualitative judgment about the content of religious instruction and then restricting a parent's ability to practice that religion with her own child. It's not a question of abuse. It's not a question of neglect. It's a court deciding that end-times theology is too scary for a teenager, and that this theological assessment justifies stripping a mother's religious authority.

Think about what the Maine Supreme Court actually evaluated here. Not whether the child was in physical danger. Not whether she was being denied an education or medical care. Whether the sermons at Calvary Chapel were too upsetting. A panel of judges in robes weighed the emotional impact of a pastor's interpretation of Revelation and concluded the state should intervene.

The precedent is breathtaking in its scope. If a court can block a mother from taking her daughter to church because the theology is deemed "frightening," then every religious tradition that teaches hell, divine judgment, or spiritual consequences is one custody dispute away from being regulated by a family court judge. Catholic Mass covers the crucifixion. Orthodox Judaism teaches divine punishment. The logical endpoint of this ruling is a judge with a theology degree deciding which denominations are government-approved.

Liberty Counsel's plan to petition the U.S. Supreme Court is the right move, and it may be the only move. The Maine Supreme Court has effectively created a framework where the non-religious parent's comfort level overrides the religious parent's constitutional right to free exercise. That's not a custody ruling. That's an establishment clause problem dressed up as a best-interests-of-the-child finding.

Emily Bickford took her daughter to church on Sundays. Matthew Bradeen didn't like what the pastor preached. And the state of Maine decided that was enough to put a judge between a mother and a church door.

The First Amendment was written for exactly this situation. Whether Maine's judiciary remembers that is now a question for nine justices in Washington.