Supreme Court warns against hasty accusations of Parental Alienation Syndrome [Read Judgment]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said no parent should be accused of acting as a propagator or potential promoter of 'parental alienation syndrome' in child custody matters since it is a thoroughly convoluted and intricate phenomenon that required serious consideration and deliberation.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Delhi High Court's order which overturned the family court's judgment which granted permanent custody of two minor children to the father, a serving Army officer.

The top court noted that the High Court proceeded on an unsubstantiated assumption i.e., that allegations of parental alienation made by the mother could not be ruled out, despite the stark absence of any instances of 'alienating behaviour'.

"It is our considered opinion that courts must endeavour to identify individual instances of ‘alienating behaviour’ in order to invoke the principle of parental alienation so as to overcome the preference indicated by the minor children," the bench said.

In the case, the bench recorded two minor children,15-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son, expressed their unwavering and strong desire to continue to reside with the appellant father in their interactions before all the courts including the top court. They had remained with the father since 2015 at various places of his postings.

After interacting with the children, the bench said, "We found the minor children to be intelligent, confident, cognisant of the pros and cons of their decisions and most importantly content and happy. 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 i.e., the appellant."

The bench also pointed out in the case, the children are cognisant and aware of the blame game being played inter se the parties and they did not foster unbridled and prejudiced emotions towards the mother.

The mother, working as a teacher, claimed prolonged period of separation has subconsciously influenced the children. Her counsel termed the present case as a classic case of ‘parental alienation syndrome’ (PAS).

"In our considered opinion, recognising 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 said.

The bench said courts ought not to prematurely and without identification of individual instances of ‘alienating behaviour’, label any parent as propagator or potential promoter of such behaviour. The label has far-reaching implications which must not be imputed or attributed to an individual parent routinely, it said.

The High Court, however, has failed to appreciate the intricacies and complexities of the relationship between the parties and accordingly, proceeded to entertain allegations of PAS on an unsubstantiated basis, it said.

In the child custody matters, the bench said the desire of preference although in itself cannot be determinative of custody of the children, but it must be given due consideration on account of it being a factor of utmost importance.

A holistic and all encompassing approach, including the socio economic and educational opportunities for the children; healthcare and overall well being; the ability to provide physical surroundings conducive to growing adolescents, should be adopted, the court said.

The mother also claimed the nature of employment of the father posed a challenge in the upbringing and welfare of the children.

Rejecting the contention, the bench said, "We find ourselves unable to subscribe to the view, as we find that the Indian Armed Forces provides a robust support system to the kin of its officers so as to ensure minimal disruption in the lives of the civilian members of an officer’s family."

[Read Judgment]