The Supreme Court has laid down an extensive framework governing psychological and psychiatric evaluation of children in custody, visitation and parental access disputes, holding that any such assessment must follow the principle of minimum intrusion and minimum exposure.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh emphasised that the welfare, emotional security, dignity and psychological well-being of a child must remain the paramount consideration in all proceedings, particularly where the child is an alleged victim of sexual abuse under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The verdict was delivered on an appeal filed by a mother challenging orders of the Bombay High Court directing the constitution of a panel of experts to assess her 10-year-old daughter and facilitate restoration of the child’s relationship with her father. The father has been accused of sexually abusing the child when she was around two years old.
The Court observed that the dispute required a careful balancing of competing considerations, namely the father’s desire to reconnect with his daughter and the need to shield the child from any process that could aggravate existing trauma. Referring to the underlying objectives of the POCSO Act, the Court noted that the legislation was founded on the principle that a child who has allegedly suffered sexual abuse should not be exposed to procedures capable of causing further emotional harm, humiliation, distress or secondary victimisation.
The Bench underscored that the issue extended beyond a conventional custody or visitation dispute and raised important concerns about how the justice delivery system should engage with child victims while preserving their dignity, emotional safety and psychological well-being. Invoking the doctrine of parens patriae, the Court reiterated that the rights and claims of litigating parents must remain subordinate to the best interests of the child.
Cautioning Family Courts against routinely directing psychological evaluations of children, the Court held that psychological or psychiatric assessment of a child should never be ordered as a matter of course. If a court considers such an evaluation necessary, it must record specific reasons demonstrating why the exercise is required. The Court stressed that repeated, overlapping or multi-layered evaluations should ordinarily be avoided as they carry the risk of re-traumatising the child.
As part of the framework laid down, the Supreme Court directed that Family Courts should first appoint a psychologist to assess the mental and psychological condition of both parents, particularly the parent having custody of the child. The Court observed that parental mental health significantly affects the welfare and development of a child and, therefore, an assessment of the parents should precede any psychological examination of the child.
The court-appointed psychologist has been directed to interact with the psychologist presently treating the child and submit a report to the Family Court. Based on the findings contained in those reports, the Family Court will determine whether any further psychological assessment of the child is necessary. If the Court concludes that such an evaluation is warranted, it must be conducted by a single independent and neutral child psychologist rather than a panel of experts, unless exceptional circumstances justify a different approach.
The Court further directed that any assessment of the child must involve the minimum number of interactions necessary to achieve its purpose. The process must remain child-centric and welfare-oriented and should not assume the character of an adversarial, investigative or evidence-gathering exercise designed to strengthen the case of either parent in custody proceedings or related criminal litigation.
The Bench directed Family Courts to periodically review the child’s psychological needs, recognising that a child’s developmental requirements, emotional circumstances and social environment evolve over time. Courts were also instructed to remain vigilant against parental alienation and false memory creation. The Court observed that judges must examine whether either parent is influencing the child against the other parent, while ensuring that such scrutiny does not itself result in unnecessary interactions with the child.
Emphasising confidentiality, the Supreme Court directed that all documents, disclosures, therapeutic records, session notes, audio-visual recordings and information relating to the identity of the child must remain protected. The Court also discouraged replacing an existing qualified therapist, counsellor or support professional who is already assisting the child, unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
The Bench further held that in cases involving virtual or hybrid interactions, courts must ensure privacy, emotional safety and protection from external influence. Courts should also retain continuing supervisory jurisdiction over the evaluation process and remain empowered to modify, suspend or discontinue it if it is found to adversely affect the child’s welfare.
The Court observed that psychologists and child welfare experts can play a valuable role in assisting courts dealing with emotionally complex custody disputes. However, the ultimate determination must be made on a case-to-case basis after considering the specific facts and circumstances of each matter, preferably with assistance from the treating psychologist, counsellor or an independent expert wherever necessary.
The ruling arose from a long-running custody dispute between two United States citizens. According to the record, the mother left the matrimonial home with the child in December 2019 following an alleged incident of domestic violence and subsequently initiated divorce proceedings. The father responded by filing a habeas corpus petition before the Bombay High Court seeking custody of the child. Thereafter, the mother lodged a complaint under the POCSO Act alleging that the father had sexually abused the child.
In February 2021, a Family Court granted custody of the child to the mother. Subsequently, the Bombay High Court permitted limited virtual interaction between the father and the child. The father later sought psychological intervention and requested appointment of expert psychologists to evaluate the child and facilitate restoration of the parent-child relationship. After multiple rounds of litigation before the Family Court, the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court ultimately constituted a four-member panel of experts, including professionals suggested by the father and experts located outside India.
Challenging that direction, the mother approached the Supreme Court contending that repeated and intrusive psychological assessments would expose the child, an alleged victim of sexual abuse, to avoidable re-traumatisation. Accepting these concerns, the Supreme Court set aside the approach adopted by the High Court and remitted the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment.
The Court clarified that the guidelines are not exhaustive or inflexible and must be applied having regard to the facts of each case. It observed that child custody and access disputes often involve unique emotional complexities and, therefore, rigid formulas or uniform standards may not always be appropriate. The overriding consideration in every case must remain the best interests, dignity, emotional security and psychological welfare of the child.
The post Supreme Court lays down guidelines for psychological evaluation of children in custody disputes appeared first on India Legal.