Psychological evaluation of a child victim must prioritize welfare over ancestral rights and avoid re-traumatisation.

The Appellant-mother and Respondent-father married in 2015 and have a minor daughter born in 2016.

Following allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse of the child by the Respondent in the USA, the Appellant returned to India in 2019.

Multiple criminal proceedings were initiated, including FIRs under the POCSO Act.

The Respondent sought visitation rights and the appointment of an independent psychiatric expert to evaluate the child for "re-establishing connection".

The Family Court rejected this, citing the POCSO allegations.

On appeal, the High Court of Bombay initially directed the appointment of a single independent expert.

However, via the impugned orders dated 27.04.2023 and 07.12.2023, the High Court modified this to a "panel of experts," constituting a four-member team including international professionals.

1. Whether the High Court erred in substituting a single "independent expert" with a "panel of experts" for the child's evaluation without considering the risk of re-traumatization.

2. Whether the constitution of a panel based on names suggested by one party compromises institutional neutrality and the "best interest of the child" principle.

3. Whether repeated psychological evaluations are consistent with the child-friendly safeguards under the POCSO Act.

The court prioritized the "paramount consideration of the welfare of the child" as established in Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal and Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan.

It applied the principle of "minimum intrusion" and "minimum re-traumatisation" derived from Sections 24, 33(5), 36, and 39 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The court also relied on the parens patriae jurisdiction to protect the child’s psychological integrity.

referenced Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh regarding "Parental Alienation Syndrome" (PAS), noting PAS is a process of behavior rather than a diagnosable medical syndrome.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to provide a reasoned necessity for a multi-member panel over a single expert, ignoring the potential for "secondary victimisation" of a child already undergoing therapy and involved in POCSO proceedings.

The Court reasoned that the High Court focused on parental rights rather than the child’s emotional safety.

It held that appointing a panel based primarily on the Respondent-father's suggestions compromised the perceived neutrality of the process, especially given the pending criminal charges against him.

The Court emphasized that psychological evaluation must be trauma-informed and child-centric rather than an adversarial tool to debunk abuse allegations or prove parental alienation.

Furthermore, it noted that any assessment should first involve the parents to determine their mental fitness before subjecting the child to further scrutiny.

It held that while courts are not precluded from seeking expert help, such directions must fulfill the criteria of demonstrable necessity and minimum intrusion.

The Court directed the Family Court to: (a) Appoint a psychologist to evaluate the parents first; (b) Consult the child’s existing therapist to determine if further evaluation is desirable; and (c) Appoint a single independent expert only if absolutely necessary.

The court also issued 20 comprehensive guidelines for the psychological evaluation of children in custody disputes to prevent re-traumatization and ensure confidentiality.