Transcription
All right, this is a wild story coming out of the state of Maine. And basically, the gist of it is that the Maine Supreme Court will soon decide whether a father has the right to veto which church the mother takes their child to. And the mother says, "If you give the dad veto power, you're infringing upon my religious rights." And this is a fascinating situation here.
Okay, so the mother in question is this woman right here. Her name is Emily Bickford. Uh, the father in question is a guy named Matthew Bradine. And they have a 12-year-old daughter named Ava. And basically, I don't need to know, I don't care to know the situation between the father and the mother, but they had this child well over, you know, a little over a decade ago. They were never married and then they decided to separate. It happens. Okay.
When they separated and they had this child, they agreed to share parental rights and responsibilities with regards to religious education and upbringing. So, anytime you get separated and there's a child involved, you've got to figure out the custody agreement and whatever it is they worked out between themselves and their lawyers and whatever, they decided when it comes to religion, "We will make the decisions together." Okay, fine. And you know what? For years, none of that was a problem until 2021 because the mother, Emily Bickford, she began taking Ava to Calvary Chapel, which is a church in Portland, Maine. Okay, again, maybe that's not a problem either, but Bradine soon noticed some changes in his daughter after she began going to this church, uh, harmful ones. And so he asked the judge, "Hey, can we modify that custody agreement because I think I need either more control or total control over her religious upbringing because she's in a bad place right now?" And that's a big ask for a judge to say, "I'm going to modify your parenting agreement to do that." Um, so he had to make some pretty good arguments as to why he deserved to have total control here. But guess what? In 2024, that is what a judge agreed to. It was an 18-page ruling. I will show you to you right here.
In this ruling, a district judge basically said last December, um, you know what? All the reasons Bradine is giving me here, they're really compelling and I think he deserves to have control of Ava's religious upbringing. So, I'm not going to read you like that whole decision, but it boils down to a handful of issues.
Number one, Bradine argued that the church's teachings were frightening and psychologically harmful. And he basically said, "The pastor of this church routinely delivers sermons where he's preaching fire and brimstone. He's talking about hell and hellfire and the way everyone's going to suffer if they don't accept Jesus." He talks about burning and torment. He focused a lot on the book of Revelation, so the Antichrist, all that stuff. And apparently, all of this scared the bejesus out of Ava. So she started having panic attacks. She tried to convert her father every time she was spending time with him. And she kept asking her dad, "Why aren't you going to heaven? 'Cause the priest says you're not." And basically, the dad is saying, "My daughter is experiencing fear and anxiety because of the church's teaching." And it didn't help that Ava went to this church a lot. They had multiple services during the week. They had multiple services on Sunday. And the mother, Emily, was taking her daughter to like all of them. Um, on some of the Sundays, Ava apparently had to listen to people testify about how Jesus saved them from sexual and physical trauma, gay and lesbian relationships. Oh, no. And infidelity. And yet, despite all of this, whenever Ava was with her father, her father never said, "Your mother's wrong. Your mother's brainwashed." He basically just told Ava that different people believe different things and he doesn't agree with the mom.
Okay. So, um, so that's the first reason this was a problem. Then, uh, it turns out the mom was hiding from the father how much she was indoctrinating the daughter. Okay. So, for example, and this is all stuff the judge lays out in this decision. There was a time when the mom told the dad, "Hey, I'm going to take Ava out of school to visit the state capital." And so, okay, that sounds fine. Except that was a lie. The mom actually took Ava to attend an anti-abortion protest. That's part of the church. Uh, she also apparently sent Ava to a church-sponsored overnight retreat without telling him. And the father was not told the location. The daughter was not allowed to have a phone there, so he had no way of communicating with her. So that's disturbing. What happened to a 50/50 split? What happened to "We're both on the same page with her religious upbringing?" And at one point, Emily, the mom, was on the verge of baptizing their daughter, but she did not tell the dad. He only found out through like a third party. So, like, when your custody agreement says you have shared control over your daughter's religious upbringing, those are all the sorts of things that should be discussed together. That was not happening here. And even when Ava was at her dad's house, apparently the mom was sending her to his house with more religious paraphernalia than typical. She demanded they homeschool Ava so that she could avoid public schools, which her church had taught were dangerous for kids.
Um, I, I really do appreciate this line from the judge, uh, right over here, which I will show you. Look at the top of your screen. "Miss Bickford also started to advocate for homeschooling Ava as she believes that public schools pose a danger to children. Ironically, her explanation is that she wants to be able to review what her child is learning, but she has not given Mr. Bradine the option to weigh in on events that Ava attends." So, the judge is catching on to what the dad has been thinking this whole time. Okay, so that was the second thing the judge was like, "Ah, yeah, this is problematic."
Here's number three. There was an expert witness who testified in this custody battle. And at one point, they brought in this person. Her name is Dr. Jen, I don't know, Jenja Leich. But all you need to know is this is an expert on cults and like closed social networks. And basically, when the dad and his lawyer said, "We'd like to bring in this person who understands how this church works to testify about it," the mom's side did not object. They did not have a problem with it. After this witness spoke to the judge, the mom's side is like, "Can we like erase everything she just said?" And the judge is like, "No, it's too late for that. You had your chance to object earlier. You did not."
But what did this doctor say? Specifically, the doctor said that closed social systems like this church have certain things in common. They have a charismatic and authoritarian leader, and that person cannot be questioned. They have the promise of salvation. They have a demand for loyalty. They also promote hateful rhetoric against science and public schools and homosexuality. And she was not saying this church is a cult. Never said that. She just said, "I know cults and there's a lot of things that cult-like groups like have in common. These are some of the things they have in common. The church does these things." So, yeah, the church is, is a pretty disturbing place to be. And specifically, what that expert said is that that kind of indoctrination could have a serious impact on a developing child. It might fill her with inferiority or doubt. And it's also clear that Ava does not have a say in this. She is pressured to comply and conform.
Okay, so that was the third thing. Number four, the dad said, "The mom's new church is basically causing her to make very bad medical decisions for our daughter." So, there was a time when Ava was up to date on all of her vaccines. She had an inhaler that she used for allergies and asthma. But after they joined this church a couple of years ago, the mom, Emily, she became an anti-vaxxer. She rejected COVID shots. She rejected flu shots and she even fought Matt when he wanted to give their daughter the HPV vaccine, which is something you want girls to get when they're like 11 or 12. So, all of this also extended the anti-science mentality extended to antibiotics, too. At one point, Ava got pneumonia. Well, you need antibiotics for that. Bickford, the mother, would not let her take the proper medicine to treat it. And the only reason she got better is because Ava's doctor was like, "I think there's an alternative she could take and maybe that passes the mom's test." And thankfully, it did. But like the primary medicine the doctor wanted to give Ava, the mom's like, "No, you're not getting it because she's anti-science."
Now, what about Ava's anxiety that she was actually experiencing? Not hypothetical, like she was experiencing anxiety. The mom never even considered allowing Ava to see a professional about that because she doesn't believe anxiety is a real thing. She believed prayer alone would solve any medical issues and that she argued mental health care was a hoax. In short, the dad's decision-making when it came to medicine and health, the judge saw that as more rational and more in the interest of Ava's health, in her best interests, than the mom's decision-making.
And here's the last thing I wanted to point out. This is unbelievable. Shortly after their custody trial began in front of that judge last year. It turns out the mom took Ava to that church and the pastor of that church, Travis Gentry, he said, "I want to, I want to say a little prayer right now to open our church service. I'm going to play you a short clip of what turned out to be a six to seven minute prayer because he didn't pray. He decided to go off on like a six, seven minute tangent on how awful the dad was by name while the daughter was in the audience." Let me play this clip and then we'll talk about it.
>> Let's begin by prayer. There is a dear sister in the church. You guys know Emily Bickford and uh for months in preparation for what really is a, I guess, a custody battle. There's been 50/50 with dear Ava, 11-year-old Ava, who's been with the church family. She's had teen camp with the with the teenagers this past weekend. And Ava's grown in the Lord. And Emily has made a priority that when she has the custody over her daughter, that they're here. And they're here all the time. But um Ava's father has had a difficult time with that. We've been praying for Matt in his salvation for a long time. It's a unique situation because you guys probably are aware that uh justice is so much now in the hands of a judge and no matter what area of civilization, culture or politics you're looking at, that can go one way or the other depending on who appointed that judge. Matt's side, uh Ava's father has uh hired what they call a, an expert witness. And this expert witness out of California was hired for a large sum of money to find any dirt they can on Calvary Chapel, on Pastor Ken Graves, and on on myself, uh and on on Ava's faith and uh Emily's faith. And depending on where this judge stands with God and his word will depend on how the decision goes forth. So, it's hard to imagine though when you're 11 year old, 11 years old and you're dealing with the level of persecution that uh young Ava's dealing with.
So this guy is just talking about the case openly, just trashing the father on stage. Not just in, like, spiritual terms. Did you hear what he said? Like, "Ava's father has a difficult time with that when they come to church. We've been praying for his salvation for a long time." Oh, that father hired an expert witness who's, who's hired for a large sum of money to find any dirt they can on us. Uh, how the judge rules is entirely based on whether or not that judge, where that judge stands with God, as if like an atheist judge would inherently be biased or something against the church. And he pointed out too, Ava is dealing with a level of persecution. Like, oh my god, what the hell?
The judge was so appalled by that sermon. Check this out. This is what, this is page what, eight of 18. Look at what the judge did here. "The prayer involves several minutes of Mr. Gentry's reflections on the custody battle and what it meant for Miss Bickford and Ava, referring to them by name. Contrary to Miss Bickford's belief, it was objectively inappropriate for Ava to hear Mr. Gentry's comments. To avoid taking any of Mr. Gentry's comments statements out of context, the entire prayer is repeated as follows." And this judge includes the entire transcript of what that judge said because it's so appalling. And after that, in this statement, Mr. Gentry does several things. He characterizes the disagreement between mom and dad as a battle. This is of concern to the court because it suggests to Ava that there's a right or good side and a wrong or evil side, just as there are good and evil sides in the battles about which he has sermonized. He then defines good and evil sides, placing the mom squarely on the side of good and dad on the side of evil. The risk of psychological harm to Ava from hearing her church leader characterize her father's actions as bad or evil is apparent."
So, this goes on for a while. "Mr. Gentry reinforces this fear by likening Mr. Bradine to the enemy who seeks to crush, quench, and strangle the church and Ava's faith. He refers to Bradine's actions as the snares and tricks of the enemy. He makes direct reference to his belief that Mr. Bradine is persecuting Ava. The risk of psychological harm to a child from learning that their parents are in conflict, especially conflict relating to them, is well-known." And I'll just jump down here. "Sadly, Mr. Gentry went far beyond simply referencing the litigation." And this is important. "This court, the court is further influenced by the fact that at no point did the mom remove Ava from the congregation once it became clear that this pastor was not going to offer a simple prayer. Instead, she allowed Ava to receive the message that her father was the enemy and was persecuting her. The court finds that more likely than not, Ava's receipt of this message delivered with the blessing of her mother was psychologically detrimental." Holy.
That is unbelievable. I mean, I've never seen a judge be like, "Hey, the pastor said something weird. Let me just reproduce the entire thing right here." So, after considering everything I just told you, the judge came to the only logical conclusion, right? When it comes to Ava's health, to begin with, the dad, Matt Bradine, he gets to make all final decisions since the mother is clearly not interested in following the advice of medical experts. So, what's in the daughter's best interest? Letting her father make all the medical decisions.
Now, what about the religious decisions? Because again, they had a 50/50 on this. When it comes to a religious upbringing, even though the legal reasoning is a little more complicated, the judge said, "Look, it's clear that Ava's psychological health is in danger here, too." And so, the judge said, "Bradine, the dad, he should be allowed to make those decisions as well." And this is specifically, uh, if I could pull this up here. This is what the judge said about that. Uh, let me show you this at the top of your screen. "In the past few years, only one parent, the mom, has exercised control over Ava's religious upbringing. The court finds that the mom's unquestioning loyalty to the church and abdication of independent decision-making has placed Ava in situations where she receives messages that pose an immediate risk of significant psychological harm. Further, the court finds that due to her level of commitment to the church, there is little to no room for the parties to co-parent on religious decision-making."
So, how can you have a 50/50 shared agreement when it comes to religious upbringing if the mom isn't involved in any of the decision-making? 'Cause the contract is not between the dad and the church. It's between the dad and the mom, and the mom has made it clear, "I don't make the decisions here. That guy you saw on stage does." So, uh, the judge pointed out after all this, um, here we go. Let me make sure I'm getting this right. Um, at the top of your screen, "Because the parties cannot effectively co-parent on this issue, one of the parties must be vested with the right and responsibility to make decisions. The mom has handed over that right and responsibility to the church and is no longer exercising independent decision-making regarding the messaging that her daughter receives. Accordingly, um, this factor weighs in favor of allocating decision-making to Mr. Bradine."
So, basically, the dad gets to do it. There is some, uh, slight legal ease that is also here, which I will show you just in case you're a legal nerd. "Accordingly, the court concludes that a narrowly tailored restriction of the mom's rights is as follows: The dad is allocated the right and responsibility to make decisions regarding whether Ava attends any services, gatherings, or events associated with Calvary Chapel; whether and what material, literature, video, or other messaging associated with or created or published by Calvary Chapel she reviews; and whether she associates or communicates with any member of Calvary Chapel other than her mom. As to her participation in any other church or religious organization or her exposure to, uh, the teachings of any religious philosophy or of the Bible in general, the parents shall continue to share parental rights and responsibilities and are required to jointly research the church organization or teachings and discuss whether Ava's participation and exposure is in her best interest. However, given the mom's history of relinquishing her independent decision-making to the church, the dad is awarded the right to make final decisions regarding her participation in other churches and religious organizations if they are disputing that."
Okay. So, as you could see, this is not just some anti-Christian decision. This is a very tough but thorough analysis of a very complicated issue. Like, the judge weighed the extremism of this church's beliefs, how it's quite literally harming Ava. And the judge came to a very thoughtful, reasonable decision. Notice they did not say you're not allowed to read the Bible. You're not allowed to go to another church. Nothing like that. The parents still share custody and decision-making powers on that regard. But when it comes to this church, Calvary Chapel, no, it's very clear this church is a bad influence on this child. And that seems reasonable.
Um, okay. And I also want to be clear, the mother still has contact with her daughter. They didn't like say, "We're removing her from mom's custody. The mom is evil." Nothing like that. Only with regards to medical and religious decision-making. So, when that decision was handed down a year ago this month, it honestly didn't make that much news because why would it? Like, why would some couple's custody battle make the news anywhere else? It shouldn't. It didn't. But it created a firestorm in the conservative Christian cinematic universe because the right-wing legal group Liberty Council, the same people who defend Kim Davis, the four-time married, uh, Kentucky clerk who wants to preserve the sanctity of marriage by denying same-sex marriage licenses. Um, Liberty Council's like, "Oh no, the Supreme Court ruled against Kim Davis. We need a cash cow." So, they decided to jump on this case and they decided to make it their next culture war battle. And for months now, they have been fighting to overturn that judge's decision. And they recently got the Maine Supreme Court to consider their appeal. And not only that, I got to show you this. The insanity of Liberty Council's emails, which by the way, I'm on their mailing list. I don't know why. I don't know how, but I get all of their emails, including their fundraising emails, and each one is more insane than the last. But I got to show you some of these fundraising emails. This is from October, uh, if I can find it here. Here we go. "Maine Supreme Court to hear oral arguments." Look at the highlighted bit here. "Liberty Council is headed to the Maine Supreme Court to overturn this outrageous child custody order and the religious freedom of the mother and her daughter. Judges must not be allowed to prevent parents from taking their own children to church." Give us money. No one's stopping the mom from taking her child to church. Just not this one because it's harming the daughter. But you see how they're spinning this.
Here's another fundraising email from, uh, a few weeks ago. "Maine." Look at the headline. "Maine judge bans 12-year-old from church, Bible, and even from her Christian friends." All of that is, she can't attend this one church. No one said she can't read the Bible. No one said she can't attend another church. And honestly, the dad has the power to say, "Okay, if you have friends from the church who are like your age, you can hang out with them." The dad can do that. No one has banned the girl from anything. But look at what this fundraising email says. "Imagine being forbidden to read the Bible with your daughter, pray with her, attend Easter or Christmas services, or even allow her to hang out with her friends from church." Yeah, you have to imagine it because that's not what's actually happening in this case because the Christians at Liberty Council are liars. Apparently, nothing in the Ten Commandments taught them, uh, to tell the truth. "If this ruling stands, it will set a dangerous precedent for all future child custody cases. No, allowing non-believers to block fit parents from raising their children according to their Christian beliefs." Do you see how they are distorting everything that is going on here? I don't even know if Matt is a non-believer, but clearly, based on what we heard and from the mother's medical decision-making, uh, things, she's clearly not a fit parent in that regard. So, I don't know where they're getting that from. And also, no one is stopping anyone from raising this child in Christianity. No one's doing that. That's something these people made up because the truth hurts their narrative and their fundraising abilities. And do you see this right here? That's literally them saying, "Give us money. Give us money so we can go to court." I'll show you one more right here. This is also from November. "Court order prevents mom from taking her daughter to church or even reading the Bible." And I just want to scroll down here. "The judge found that Emily is a fit parent except for the fact that she is a Christian." That is not even close to what the judge said. You know that because I literally read you what the judge said. Apparently, the lawyers who work for Liberty Council don't know how to read a judge's decision. And me, an idiot who's definitely not a lawyer, but knows how to read, saw what they didn't.
The judge mocked Ava and Emily's faith. Oh, this is, this is unbelievable. This is something Liberty Council has been harping on for some time now. "The judge mocked Ava and Emily's faith by purposely refusing to capitalize the word God, something I have never seen. The judge even chastised Emily for allowing the church pastor to pray for Ava." That's not what the pastor did. I showed you the video. 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.
The, I know you think they're not, this idea that they did not capitalize God in the judge's decision-making. Like, I want to go back to that decision for a second because if you look for the word God, this is what you end up finding here. Like, okay, "The church teaches that people can only be be saved by meeting God on God's terms." That is an accurate depiction of what the church believes. What else? "Miss Bickford's response was that she lived under God's law because the pastor is only accountable to God. The members cannot question him." Like, she's just stating what the church believes and what the pastor says and what the mom says. And Liberty Council is like, "Excuse me. Um, I know what some of our members believe, but we swear we're only grammar Nazis over here. Um, if you don't capitalize the word God, that is the worst form of persecution we've ever experienced." I know you think that's not that big of a deal, but because I like going down crazy rabbit holes, I watched the 30 minutes in which these two sides presented their case to the Maine Supreme Court because I don't have a life. And Liberty Council made such a big deal of the lack of capitalization of God. Like it was their main argument for why this judge was biased and why that decision should be overturned.
Um, I also want to show you this is how bad the journalism has been around this matter. Like, it's not just Liberty Council spreading this propaganda. Look at the headlines. This is from the Christian Post. "Single mom battling custody order barring her from taking daughter to church." Like, that's not exactly what's happening. And I will say, the Christian Post generally, when it comes to religion, is, uh, stories, they do a decent job of reporting on it, but that headline is unfair. But look at them. They, they just gave space to Liberty Council's, uh, founder Matt Staver, to just tell lies. "Calvary Chapel is not a cult." Which, listen, the second you have to say that, you've lost that battle. But also, no one said it was a cult. No one, including the expert they brought in. "Calvary Chapel is not a cult. The custody order banning Emily Bickford from taking her child to a Christian church because of its biblical teachings, that's not a thing, that's not what the judge said, violates the First Amendment." Like, they're just lying. Because if they told the truth about what the judge said, no, it's insane.
There's another website, Focus on the Family. They have a site where they comment on legal news. Look at what they said about this case. "Parents, this is an op-ed. Parents should be allowed to take children to church." We are so far beyond what this case is about. And these people are just making up as if a judge said they won't allow Christian parents to have custody of their kids anymore. Like, that's not what's happening. But all of you are liars.
So anyway, um, what else is there to say about this? Uh, this case was heard in front of the Maine Supreme Court just like a couple of weeks ago. And really, Liberty Council is asking the Maine Supreme Court to overturn that decision from last year. Um, they said this all boils down to a single question. "Does a district court have the authority to prohibit a parent from taking her child to church?" Which is not the question because the order did not ban her from taking her child to church. Um, legally, their argument is that religious beliefs don't have to be logical to warrant First Amendment protection, which is funny because they're almost admitting the church's beliefs are illogical. But, uh, anyway, this is their argument. Their entire thing was like as if they never read the judge's decision. They just looked for a handful of buzzwords, blew them out of proportion, and basically argued that any insane belief, as long as you say it's in the name of religion, has to be respected. And this judge, the earlier judge, did not respect it.
One of the funniest things in this, I mean, it's a long, boring oral argument, so I'm not going to share a clip with you, but at one point, one of the justices asked Matt Staver, "So, like, what's an acceptable line regarding when a church causes harm? 'Cause you're basically arguing that you can't say this church causes harm because of its religious teachings. Well, is there ever a line that can be crossed? Can a church ever go too far?" And Matt Staver responded, "Well, if the church sexually abused a child, of course that would be a bridge too far." And the judges were like, "Okay, but like anything else?" And Staver did not answer. And I don't think the judges liked that on the Supreme Court. Uh, Matt Staver also pointed out, like, he's like, "I have some cases that my side has won and this is legal precedent that you should follow." And he's like, "There's a church that, uh, there was a custody battle that involved taking a kid to a snake-handling church and the judge said that's okay." And there's another case in which, uh, a kid was supposed to go to a church where you have underage brides and the court said that's okay for the child to go to." Mind you, in both of those cases, the child did not handle a snake and the child was not asked to be an underage bride. But Matt Staver's like, "Look, these are people on my side." Which again, I don't think is the flex he thinks it is.
So, from my non-expert vantage point, I don't think the Maine Supreme Court justices were really going for what he was selling them. And they noted that the lower court's, uh, decision, they documented actual harm to the child, not theoretical harm. They're saying, like, she has anxiety, she has panic attacks, and shouldn't that be taken into consideration? Uh, and Matt Staver said, "Nope, that's not sufficient." And the judges also pointed out, "This isn't about whether a certain religion is not acceptable to the courts. It centers, this is a quote, it centers on the inability to co-parent and the denigration of the other parent." And Matt Staver is like, "Well, she didn't denigrate the other parent." And the chief justice jumps in to say, "But she allowed others to." Like, how bad is your argument when the justice is like, "Are you stupid? We saw the video of the pastor."
Anyway, uh, the dad's lawyer, when she spoke up, she's not fighting a culture war battle. She just said, "Look, this is all about preventing harm to the child and maintaining her best interests and well-being." She also pointed out, "No one is saying prayer is inappropriate, only that the pastor's diatribe was not." She said it's wrong to dismiss the expert witness because everyone agreed she is an expert in her field. Uh, and finally, when there are religious differences between co-parents, you do have to draw the line when there is harm to the child, and this is a case where there is harm. Um, the only thing the judges said in response to, like, that lawyer is, "Is there any evidence that the judge exhibited hostility toward religion? Like, is the judge being neutral?" And basically, the only answer we heard is, "It looks like it. It's not like the judge is trashing Christianity or anything. It's there. The judge was worried about harm to the child." So, we will see what the Maine Supreme Court says. They will issue a decision in the coming months. I hope the decision is just to affirm what the thoughtful judge said a year ago.
But I think this cuts to the heart of a bigger problem. Are courts allowed to admit when religion causes harm to a child? Or is religion immune from that sort of criticism just because it's religion? Like, when you have a religion that crosses a line into fear and coercion and medical neglect and psychological terror, the damage is real. I don't care if it stems from the Bible. Like, this mom, she's not just practicing her faith. She's seeding her parental judgment to this church that tells people to fear eternal torture and reject science and view her own father as a spiritual enemy. That's not good co-parenting. That's not good parenting, period. That's not good adulting. That is just you not being responsible. I, I don't think anything the dad argued was radical or anti-religious. He just wants to protect his daughter. And honestly, I'm sure the mom wants to protect the daughter, too. The difference is he's actually doing it and she is not. That's why the dad's side is better for the daughter.
And can you imagine how dangerous things could get if the Maine Supreme Court does overturn that ruling? Like, it would mean that any sort of faith-based terror, medical neglect, coercion, abuse, it's all legally untouchable perhaps as long as the pastor says, "Yep, this is what we believe." I mean, I hope that's not what happens here. That judge from last year, she understood what Liberty Council will not acknowledge, which is that the daughter is not some pawn in your battle. She's a real person who is struggling because of what this church is doing. And because of that, her dad should have the right to control what her religious upbringing is like. That's not extreme. That's in the best interest of the child. So, I hope, I hope the Maine Supreme Court makes the right decision here. We will see. I will stop there for now. Thank you for that. Uh, being a member and that's a cult. You know what? I, I won't even, I won't even affirm that. I, as opposed to a cult, I'm sure you can come and go from this church if you want to. They're not going to like send their goons after you if you leave. But some churches can be very coercive. And that's why you bring in that expert who knows the difference between cults and groups that function like cults, even if they don't meet the definition, and why that's harmful to other people. That was a prayer. That was supposed to be a prayer, that video clip I showed you, but clearly it was just a rant against the dad. He's talking about this openly from the pulpit. That's highly inappropriate. Yeah. And even more inappropriate that the mom brought her daughter to that and made her watch the whole thing. That is a very aware judge who sees a power play from a church that wants to administer the law. I, it seemed like it. I mean, it was a, it's weird to call it a joy to read that judge's decision, but it was kind of a a relief, like this judge gets it. It's not anti-religion to point out that a church is causing harm to this child. At least someone gets it. They tend to move that way, but they have picked a poor representative of their cause. This woman is not sympathetic at all. I assume you're talking about the mother in this case. And look, I don't know the mother. I have nothing bad to say about her except in this case, she's harming her child. So, you know, you get, you lose custody. You deserve that. At least when it comes to religious upbringing, you lose decision-making power. How often does psychological damage get acknowledged or weighed in the courts or laws? I don't know the answer to that. Um, I'm sure it comes up a lot, especially in custody cases. I don't remember seeing a case that involves a church causing the damage in this set of circumstances happening, but I'm sure that comes into play quite a bit. So, when will we hear about the mother kidnapping her daughter to keep her away from the father? Yeah, I mean, we did a story last week about a mother fake kidnapping her daughter. Uh, and the father was on board with it all, but, uh, so far it seems like the mother in this case is just waiting for the judges to weigh in. So fine, that's what she should do.