The Supreme Court on Thursday (June 11, 2026) held that psychological assessments of children should only be conducted when necessary and with “minimum intrusion” into the child’s life in custody disputes, particularly in cases where the child is an alleged victim of sexual abuse.The appeal was filed by the mother of a 10-year-old child against orders of the Bombay High Court appointing a panel of experts to assess the child and facilitate restoration of her relationship with her father. The father is alleged to have sexually abused the child when she was two years old.A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh observed that the case involved balancing the father’s request to reconnect with his daughter and the need to protect the child, who has accused him of sexual abuse, from any process that could aggravate her trauma.Referring to the objectives of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the court noted that the legislation proceeds on the foundational premise that a child who has allegedly suffered sexual abuse must not be exposed to processes capable of causing further emotional harm, humiliation or secondary victimisation.‘Well-being of child paramount’Cautioning Family Courts against routinely directing psychological evaluations of children, the Supreme Court said the welfare, emotional security, dignity and psychological well-being of the child must remain the paramount consideration in all proceedings, particularly those involving a minor child alleged to be a victim under the POCSO Act.Instead of immediately directing an assessment of the child, the Bench ordered the Family Court to first appoint a psychologist to assess the mental and psychological condition of both parents, particularly the mother, in whose custody the child presently resides. The court-appointed psychologist will then interact with the psychologist currently treating the child and submit a report to the Family Court.Based on these reports, the Family Court will determine whether any further psychological assessment of the child is necessary. If such an assessment is required, it must be conducted by a single independent child psychologist with minimal interaction so as not to disturb the child. The Supreme Court further directed periodic review of the child’s psychological needs and asked the Family Court to monitor whether either parent is influencing the child through “parental alienation” or “false memory creation”, without subjecting the child to unnecessary interactions.Elaborating guidelines on psychological evaluation of children, the apex court held that psychological or psychiatric evaluation of a child victim should not be directed as a matter of routine. If such an evaluation is considered necessary, the court must record and explain the reasons that necessitate it.The court emphasised that any assessment must follow the principle of “minimum intrusion” and “minimum exposure”. Repeated, overlapping or multi-layered psychological evaluations of a child victim should ordinarily be avoided. It encouraged the assistance of one independent, neutral and court-appointed child psychologist rather than a panel of experts, unless circumstances require otherwise.The Bench further clarified that the evaluation must be child-centric and welfare-oriented and should not assume the character of an adversarial, investigative or evidence-gathering exercise intended to advance the case of either party in pending criminal or custody proceedings. The number of sessions should also be regulated to avoid re-traumatisation of the child.The apex court underscored the importance of maintaining confidentiality of all documents and records connected with the evaluation process, including the identity of the child, disclosures made during evaluation, therapeutic records, session notes and audio-visual recordings. It also discouraged substitution of an existing qualified therapist, counsellor or support professional already assisting the child.In cases involving virtual or hybrid interactions, courts must ensure privacy, emotional safety and freedom from external influence. The Supreme Court further held that courts should retain continuing supervision over the evaluation process and remain empowered to modify or discontinue it if it adversely affects the child’s welfare.Recognising that children’s circumstances and developmental needs evolve over time, the apex court said periodic review of the child’s needs may be undertaken whenever required. It also directed courts to consider obtaining psychological assessments of both parents, noting that parental mental health can significantly affect the child’s welfare.The Bench observed that, given the emotional complexity of custody disputes, courts should make use of psychologists and child experts to assist in fashioning appropriate orders. At the same time, it clarified that the ultimate determination in each case must be exercised on a case-to-case basis, preferably with the assistance of the treating child psychologist, counsellor or an independent expert, as the facts may warrant.