Child's Welfare Paramount, Psychological Evaluation Must Be A Measure Of La

Child's Welfare Paramount, Psychological Evaluation Must Be A Measure Of Last Resort: Supreme Court Lays Down Principles In Custody Disputes

THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News

3 min read

The Supreme Court has laid down broad principles to guide courts when considering requests for psychological or psychiatric evaluation of children in custody, visitation and parental access disputes, emphasising that the child's welfare, emotional security and psychological well-being must remain the paramount consideration.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh framed the principles while dealing with a custody dispute involving a child who is also an alleged victim under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court clarified that the principles are not exhaustive guidelines but are intended to assist courts in similar cases involving the psychological welfare of children.

Guidelines Laid Down:

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 issues of custody, visitation or parental access 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, resorted to only when 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.
The evaluation process 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/video recordings, session notes and therapeutic material should not ordinarily be made directly accessible to parties unless the 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 the 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, since the child’s welfare and psychological development are closely linked to the psychological condition of the parents, and expert assistance regarding the mental health of both the child and the parents may aid in crafting appropriate judicial orders.

Case Citation: Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora, SLP(C) Nos. 18701-18702/2024.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse

Child's Welfare Paramount, Psychological Evaluation Must Be A Measure Of Last Resort: Supreme Court Lays Down Principles In Custody Disputes

Guidelines Laid Down:

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 issues of custody, visitation or parental access 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, resorted to only when 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.

The evaluation process 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/video recordings, session notes and therapeutic material should not ordinarily be made directly accessible to parties unless the 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 the 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.

Case Citation: Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora, SLP(C) Nos. 18701-18702/2024.