Law Court Affirms Trial Court’s Authority to Allocate Parental Decision-Making in the Best Interests of the Child.

Attorney Michelle R. King successfully argued at the Law Court that the lower court properly analyzed the best interests of the child when allocating medical decision-making to the Father, and by allowing the Father final decision-making as to whether the minor child could attend Calvary Chapel. The Law Court also determined that the lower court did not evince any religious bias or hostility in its decision.

The Law Court specifically determined that: “We . . . conclude that courts may always use the best-interest standard to allocate rights between two parents, and that the Constitution protects the religious rights of parents by prohibiting religious bias or hostility from influencing a court’s best-interest analysis.” In addressing whether the lower court in this case exhibited religious bias or hostility, the Law Court stated: “[D]espite Bickford’s efforts to recast the court’s order as a judgment about the substance of her religious beliefs, the court’s allocation of religious decision-making to [the Father] ultimately rested on no more than its findings that the parties are unable to coparent on matters of religion, such that it was therefore necessary to allocate decision-making to one or the other.”

Full decision can be found here: https://www.courts.maine.gov/courts/sjc/lawcourt/2026/26me094.pdf