Liberty Counsel filed an appeal to the Maine Supreme Court on behalf of a single mother barred by an unconstitutional custody order from taking her 11-year-old daughter to an evangelical Christian church. A state district judge declared the church’s biblical teachings to be “psychologically harmful” and granted the father, who objected to the teachings, the sole right to govern the girl’s religious activities. Liberty Counsel seeks a reversal of this unlawful custody order and restoration of the mother’s First Amendment right to pass on her religious beliefs to her child.

Under the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and numerous Supreme Court precedents, unmarried parents both have the right to instill their religious beliefs into their children during their respective custodial time. Yet, in her order, Maine District Judge Jennifer Nofsinger denied the mother’s religious freedom based solely on the objections of the child’s father. 

According to Judge Nofsinger’s order, the father took issue with his daughter attending Calvary Chapel Church in Portland because it teaches the Bible “verse by verse, chapter by chapter,” including teaching on the Bible’s descriptions of hell, demons, and spiritual warfare. He hired California sociology professor, Dr. Janja Lalich, an “expert on cults,” to help convince Judge Nofsinger to stop his daughter attending this church. Dr. Lalich told the judge that cults usually have a charismatic, authoritarian leader who teach about a “transcendent belief system” that offers answers, and “promises some sort of salvation.” She further testified that she had “studied” Calvary Chapel Church and found that the church’s pastor was a “charismatic” speaker, spoke “authoritatively” in his messages, and that he asserted his messages were objective truth. Because of this, Dr. Lalich perceived the church to be a “cultic” organization.” Despite not being a psychologist, Dr. Lalich testified it was “evident” that the church posed a potential for psychological harm to the girl.

In addition, Judge Nofsinger interpreted the pastor’s public prayer over the custody situation, which referenced spiritual warfare, as putting the father on the side of “evil” and the mother on the side of “good” in the daughter’s eyes. Relying on both this interpretation and the “expert” testimony, the court order states that this church is “psychologically detrimental” to the girl. The court decided the remedy was giving the father the sole authority to make “final decisions” regarding the girl’s religious instruction. Specifically, the order allows the father to deny his daughter access to Calvary Chapel Church’s services, events, messages or anything else associated with it. The order also gives the father sole control over his daughter’s participation in any other churches, even during the mother’s custodial time. 

In the appeal, Liberty Counsel stated the decision makes a dogmatic assertion without any proof that the Christian religion is “psychologically harmful.” In so doing, the order adopts a “heckler’s veto” over the mother’s fundamental religious rights to take her daughter to church.

“Contending that [the mother’s] religious beliefs, which include prayer, reading the Bible, attending a mainstream Christian church that teaches from the Bible, that teaches there is a path to salvation, and that believes in objective truth is psychologically harmful to a minor is, quite simply, outside the realm of judicial authority,” wrote Liberty Counsel. “The order explicitly…forces the mother to remain away from church against her will, punishes the mother for professing certain religious beliefs, and punishes the mother for church attendance solely on the basis of the religious beliefs that are professed at that church.”

The First Amendment does not allow for this blatant and overt hostility towards religious beliefs and the order cannot stand, concluded Liberty Counsel.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Calvary Chapel is not a cult. This custody order banning a mother from taking her child to a Christian church because of its biblical teachings regarding marriage and human sexuality violates the First Amendment. The custody order cannot prohibit the mother from taking her daughter to church. The implications of this order pose a serious threat to religious freedom.”