Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Psychological Evaluation Of Children In Custody Disputes
If you're tracking child rights cases, this one's worth knowing. The Supreme Court has laid down broad principles for when courts can order a psychological or psychiatric evaluation of a child in custody and visitation disputes. The big idea is minimum intrusion, so courts must avoid re-traumatising the child, and they should also look at the mental state of the parents, not just the kid. The judges said these aren't rigid rules, just guidance for the child's best interests. So for your CLAT prep, just remember the courts treat the child's welfare and minimum intrusion as the deciding test in custody matters.
The Supreme Court today laid down a set of broad principles for courts dealing with requests for psychological or psychiatric evaluation of children in custody, visitation and parental access disputes, holding that “minimum intrusion” into a child's life should be the norm and courts must remain sensitive to the risk of re-traumatisation.
A bench ofJustice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singhmade the observations in a case involving a custody dispute where the child is also an alleged victim of sexual abuse. The Court clarified that its observations are not intended to be exhaustive or inflexible guidelines to be applied mechanically in every case. Instead, they are intended to assist courts dealing with similar disputes involving the psychological welfare of children.
The broad principles in the judgment are –
Psychological condition of parents relevant
The Court also said that when considering psychological assessment of a child, courts should not focus exclusively on the child. The psychological condition of the parents may be equally relevant in determining what is in the child's best interests, it noted. It observed that assessment of parental mental health may provide important inputs for deciding claims relating to custody, visitation and parental access.
“While it is important to make an assessment as to how the child will respond to either of the parents, it is equally important to ascertain the mental and psychological conditions of the parents themselves to deal with the need of the growing child. Thus, assessment of the psychological condition of both the parents assumes importance before subjecting the child to any further psychological assessment”, the Court held.
Judges obligated to protect child's welfare regardless of parents' claims
Highlighting the role of courts as parens patriae, the Court observed that judges bear an independent obligation to protect the dignity and welfare of children irrespective of the competing positions adopted by parents. Even where one or both parents seek psychological evaluation, courts must independently assess whether the proposed process is genuinely necessary.
“The Court, while exercising jurisdiction in such matters, rather, exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, bears an independent and overriding obligation to protect the dignity and welfare of the child irrespective of the competing positions adopted by the parties. Consequently, even where one or both parents seek evaluative or therapeutic intervention, the Court must independently assess whether the proposed process is genuinely necessary, proportionate and conducive to the welfare of the child”, the Court said.
The Court also observed that the impact of psychological evaluation cannot be assessed merely by looking at the formal nature of the process. Factors such as the number of professionals interacting with the child, the frequency of sessions, the context in which the evaluation is undertaken and the surrounding adversarial environment may together affect the child's emotional experience, the Court said. A process that appears clinically benign in isolation may become psychologically stressful when conducted amid contentious litigation involving allegations of abuse, the Court emphasised.
Psychological evaluation must remain neutral and non-adversarial
The Court further stressed that there must be institutional neutrality in court-directed evaluations. It held that the moment a psychological assessment begins to resemble an adversarial exercise aimed at validating or discrediting allegations against either parent, the process risks losing its welfare-oriented character and may undermine the child's confidence and sense of security. The Court observed that it is desirable for courts to appoint neutral experts, who may interact with professionals suggested by parties if necessary.
Concluding, the Supreme Court reiterated that matters involving the psychological condition and emotional welfare of children require a flexible, child-centric approach.
Case Title – Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora
Amisha Shrivastava is a Correspondent with LiveLaw, covering the Supreme Court of India