A mother whose constitutional rights were violated by a Maine judge hearing a custody dispute has taken the fight to the state Supreme Court.

The case involves a radical ruling from Jennifer Nofsinger, a judge who heard a custody case, who ordered that the mother was not allowed to take her 11-year-old daughter to an evangelical Christian church.

That was based on “objections” from the child’s father, who like the mother and daughter was not identified in the report from Liberty Counsel, which is working on the case.

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.”

The judge granted the father, who objects to the Christian teachings of the church, “the sole right to govern the girl’s religious activities.”

The high court is being asked to reverse the “unlawful custody order” and to restore the mother’s First Amendment right to pass on her religious beliefs

The judge adopted the ideology of a leftist teacher from California who was hired by the father. That teacher, Janja 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.,” Liberty Counsel reported.

That meant, Lalich claimed, the church was “cultic.”

”Despite not being a psychologist, Dr. Lalich testified it was ‘evident’ that the church posed a potential for psychological harm to the girl,” the report said.

However, the legal team noted that, “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.”

The Liberty Counsel report continued, “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 judge radically gave the father control of the daughter’s exposure to any churches even during the mother’s custodial time.

On appeal is Nofsinger’s claim “without any proof” that Christianity is “psychologically harmful.”

”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.”

Those unconstitutional ideological choices by the judge, simply, are not allowed by the First Amendment, the report said.