Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Psychological Evaluation Of Children In Custody Disputes

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 of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made 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 –The welfare, emotional security, dignity and psychological well-being of the child must remain the paramount consideration in all proceedings, particularly where the child is an alleged POCSO victim. Psychological or psychiatric evaluation of a child should not be ordered routinely merely because custody, visitation or parental access issues arise. Before directing any evaluation, courts must record specific reasons showing:why the evaluation is necessary, what purpose it serves, how it is relevant, and why less intrusive alternatives are insufficient. Courts must follow the principles of minimum intrusion and minimum exposure while directing psychological interaction with a child. Repeated, overlapping or multi-layered psychological evaluations should ordinarily be avoided unless compelling circumstances exist and reasons are recorded in writing. Where evaluation is necessary, it should ordinarily be conducted by a single independent, court-appointed child psychologist, psychiatrist or similarly qualified expert with expertise in child psychology and child trauma. Appointment of a panel of experts should be an exception and only where the facts of the case make it indispensable. The expert must be demonstrably independent and neutral and ordinarily should not have any prior engagement with either litigating party except on a purely professional basis. The evaluation process must remain child-centric and welfare-oriented and should not become an adversarial, investigative or evidence-gathering exercise designed to advance either party's case. Courts must remain conscious of the risk of re-traumatisation from repeated narration of traumatic events and should regulate:the number of sessions, duration of interaction, number of professionals interacting with the child, and the overall manner of evaluation. Any evaluation must be consistent with the child-friendly framework under Sections 24, 33(5), 36 and 39 of the POCSO Act and the principles of trauma-informed adjudication. The child's identity, disclosures during evaluation, therapy records and evaluative reports must remain strictly confidential. Audio or video recordings, session notes and therapeutic material should not ordinarily be made directly accessible to parties unless a court specifically finds it necessary. Evaluative reports must be confined to the purpose for which the evaluation was ordered and should not contain findings regarding criminal culpability. Where the child is already under the care of a qualified therapist, counsellor or support professional whose competence and neutrality are accepted by the court, disruption of that existing therapeutic environment should ordinarily be avoided. In cases involving virtual or hybrid interaction with experts, courts must ensure safeguards relating to:privacy, emotional safety, absence of external influence, and suitability of the mode considering the child's age and psychological condition. Courts must retain continuing supervisory jurisdiction over the evaluation process and may modify, regulate or discontinue it if it appears likely to adversely affect the child's welfare or psychological well-being. Courts should ensure that psychological assessment of the child is conducted from time to time, if required, as the child grows, in consultation with the concerned child psychologist, to satisfy themselves that the child's best interests and welfare are being protected. Courts should consider obtaining psychological assessment reports of both parents because the child's welfare and psychological development are closely linked to the psychological condition of the parents. Since custody and visitation disputes are often highly emotional, courts should make use of expert assistance regarding the mental health of both the child and the parents as an additional tool for crafting appropriate judicial orders.Psychological condition of parents relevantThe 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, ...

Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Psychological Evaluation Of Children In Custody Disputes

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Psychological Evaluation Of Children In Custody Disputes

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers