New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that in child custody matters where there is uncertainty about a child’s ability to make independent decisions, expert medical opinions confirming a disability must take precedence over inferences drawn from direct interactions with the child.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeal and granted custody of the child to the Appellant-mother, permitting her to take him back to the USA
The court was hearing a dispute over the custody of a 22-year-old individual with cognitive abilities equivalent to an 8 to 10-year-old child.
The case arose after the appellant-mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court, seeking custody of her child, alleging that the Respondent-father had taken him to India from the USA without her consent, thereby violating a U.S. court order granting custodial rights to the appellant.
The appellant argued that although her son was legally an adult, his cognitive limitations rendered him incapable of making independent and complex decisions, particularly regarding long-term residence and financial matters.
Despite detailed medical reports confirming the child’s cognitive impairment, the High Court denied custody to the mother based on a brief oral interaction with the child.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Overturning the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant, held that the High Court erred in denying custody to the mother.
The Supreme Court emphasised that a brief oral exchange with a child lacking independent decision-making capacity could not serve as a basis for a custody ruling, especially when medical expert reports categorically establish the child’s cognitive limitations.
The court held that when a specialist’s evaluation confirms a child’s inability to make independent decisions, custody rulings should not be influenced by the child’s expressed or implied consent, as this could have significant consequences for the child’s well-being.
“In cases where there is any doubt about an individual’s capacity to make independent decisions, and a specialist, domain expert, or medical professional has provided a definitive opinion confirming a disability, the Court should accord due weight to that expert assessment, The Apex court held.
The bench further said, “If an expert’s report concludes that the mental or physical age of the concerned individual is significantly below the age of majority, no ‘implied’ or ‘express’ consent should be inferred for any decision that could have a substantial impact on them. Unless there are compelling reasons to doubt an expert’s report, courts must exercise extreme caution before arriving at a contrary conclusion.”
“Keeping this principle in mind, we find that as A..(child) was assessed to have the cognitive abilities of an 8 to 10-year-old child, the reasoning adopted by the High Court in concluding that he had consented to stay in India is seriously flawed,” the top judiciary observed.
The SC relied on medical evaluations from the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, both of which confirmed that the child had a cognitive functioning level akin to that of an 8 to 10-year-old child.
Reiterating the significance of expert medical opinions, the Court stated: “If an expert’s report concludes that the mental or physical age of the person concerned is well below the age of majority, no ‘implied’ or ‘express’ consent should be inferred for any act that could have significant consequences for the individual.”
The court further observed, “While courts are entitled to form an independent opinion, they cannot disregard expert evaluations arbitrarily. In cases involving individuals with severe cognitive impairments, courts must ensure that scientific assessments in specialized medical fields are given due consideration.
If any doubt arises regarding an expert report’s findings, the appropriate course of action is to seek an additional evaluation from a reputable medical institution rather than dismissing expert medical opinions outright.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted custody of the child to the appellant mother, permitting her to take him back to the USA.
