This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
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 the coming weeks.
