In Portland, Maine, a court just ruled against a mother bringing her daughter to church. It did so on the grounds that the child was being “psychologically harmed” by the church’s teachings.
The mother, Emily Bickford, attends Calvary Chapel in Portland. The child’s father, Matthew Bradeen, is a non-Christian. Bradeen brought this case to court, claiming that the church was a “dangerous and harmful environment.” Why? Because after his daughter heard teaching on biblical eschatology (i.e., the end times) and what happens to those who don’t believe in Christ, she began having anxiety and “panic attacks” about what might happen to her father.
In traditional Christian belief, those who reject Christ are sentenced to eternal damnation, eternal separation from God, and the fiery pits of hell.
The daughter, 13, is obviously distraught over the state of her father’s soul. She sounds like a child who loves her father deeply and wants him with her and God in eternity. However, according to the Maine Supreme Court, “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.”
The justices ruled in favor of the non-believing father and banned the child from being around anyone from Calvary Chapel except Bickford. This edict applies only to Calvary Chapel, and Bickford could, of course, take her daughter to another church — but only if her Bradeen agrees. They must decide jointly.
Maine’s Supreme Court is trying to split the baby and give credence to psychological and ideological arguments and apply them to religion. If the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case, as Bickford and her attorneys want, this ruling will likely be overturned because it violates the First and 14th Amendments.
As Matt Staver, one of Bickford’s attorneys, stated:
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. 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.
This is a sad loss for religious liberty and parental rights. Moreover, it’s interesting that the court ruled in the father’s favor. Usually, when it comes to children’s well-being, judges rule in favor of the mother. Ironically, the father won his anti-religion case.
Bickford’s situation is reminiscent of Jeff Younger’s. This father lost custody of his twin sons to his ex-wife (who isn’t even the biological mother) in part because Younger wouldn’t let her “transition” one of his sons. The courts ruled in favor of the ex-wife, Dr. Anne Georgulas, who has since taken the children to California and has been given full authority over their medical needs.
In both cases, the law favored the parent with the most secular and immoral take on the issue. Hopefully, in Bickford’s case, SCOTUS will take up the ruling and overturn it. Perhaps it will even become a testimony of faith that God uses to help change Bradeen’s heart.
