I don't know how well that would work.
There are legal theories that can be used to find liability through association--given that the association is reasonably direct (defining reasonability in the legal world is pretty much equivalent to answering the question 'why' for scientists--its definition changes, readily, according to the situation).
The important thing to remember is that the court is not always deaf dumb and blind to games of administrative hide and seek. A court's hands are often, but not always tied in these matters, and getting away from liability simply by declaring bankruptcy, changing names and ownership is not a cure-all. If it was, very few corporations would ever choose to settle, or find themselves on the losing side of a decision.
Even if this church escapes monetary obligation, this sort of 'free speech' has now been officially painted in a tortious light. This church, its successor, or any similar group is on notice that this behavior is actionable, and any efforts to carry on this practice will likely be met with a strong civil suit, backed up by current, relevant precedent.
Like I said earlier, perhaps a hollow victory for the dad, but definitely a significant footnote in caselaw.
