The Supreme Court Yesterday (May 8th), said no parent should be labelled as propagator or potential promoter of ‘parental alienation syndrome’ in child custody matters as it is a thoroughly convoluted and intricate phenomenon that required serious consideration and deliberation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India underscored the complexities of “parental alienation syndrome” (PAS) in child custody disputes, ruling that no parent should be accused of fostering this syndrome without specific and substantiated instances of such behavior. This directive comes amid ongoing debates about the psychological impact of custody battles on children and the use of PAS as a legal strategy.
The court’s recent judgment stemmed from an appeal against a Delhi High Court decision which had previously overturned a family court’s ruling. The family court had granted permanent custody of two minors to their father, a serving Army officer. However, the High Court had suggested, albeit without solid evidence, that the mother’s accusations of PAS might have merit—a stance the Supreme Court firmly rejected.
“It is our considered opinion that courts must endeavor to identify individual instances of ‘alienating behavior’ in order to invoke the principle of parental alienation so as to overcome the preference indicated by the minor children,”
-Declared Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma.
Their statement highlights the need for a cautious and evidence-based approach when addressing allegations of PAS in custody cases.
The two children, a 15-year-old daughter and a 12-year-old son, had expressed a clear and resolute desire to stay with their father during proceedings across various judicial levels, including the Supreme Court. Since 2015, they have resided with him at different locations due to his military postings. The justices, having interacted with the children, found them to be “intelligent, confident, cognizant of the pros and cons of their decisions and most importantly content and happy.”
During the proceedings, the children consistently communicated their satisfaction with their living situation and their preference to stay with their father.
“During our interactions with the minor children, despite probing the issue of guardianship on more than one occasion, the minor children categorically stated that they were happy and wished to reside with their father only ie, the appellant,”
-the bench noted.
The mother, a schoolteacher, argued that the children’s preference might be influenced by the prolonged separation from her, labeling the scenario as a “classic case of ‘parental alienation syndrome’.” However, the children appeared aware of the ongoing dispute between their parents and did not exhibit undue bias against their mother.
The court’s judgment reflects a nuanced understanding of the psychological layers involved in custody disputes.
“In our considered opinion, recognizing and appreciating the repercussions of PAS certainly shed light on the realities of long drawn and bitter custody and divorce litigation(s) on a certain identified sect of families, however, it is equally important to remember that there can no straitjacket formula to invoke the principle,”
–the bench concluded.
This ruling marks a significant step towards protecting the psychological well-being of children caught in the crossfire of parental disputes and emphasizes the necessity of basing judicial decisions on clear, demonstrable evidence rather than assumptions and generalizations.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Child Custody Cases
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
