Can the family court keep ordering psychological tests on my child?

If you are in a custody or visitation fight, the family court can send your child for a psychological evaluation, but only when it is genuinely necessary for deciding the case, and not as a routine step every time parents disagree. In June 2026 the Supreme Court of India laid down clear limits on how far a court may go, so that repeated testing does not end up harming the very child it is meant to protect.

The case reached the Supreme Court after a family court had directed that a child be assessed by a four-member panel of experts in a custody dispute. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh set that aside. The court found that a four-member panel breached the principle of minimum intrusion and risked re-traumatising the child.

Beginning at paragraph 97 of the judgment, the court laid down a detailed set of numbered principles to guide when and how a child may be psychologically evaluated in custody, guardianship and related proceedings. These principles are anchored in the settled rule that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, and they draw on the framework of the Family Courts Act 1984, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and, where a child is a victim, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

You can use the following as a checklist. These points reflect the principles the Supreme Court laid down. If a test is ordered without them, that is your ground to object.

• Necessity, not routine. A psychological or psychiatric evaluation must not be directed merely because a custody dispute exists. It is not an automatic step.
• Recorded reasons. The court must record specific reasons showing why an evaluation is necessary in your particular case.
• Minimum intrusion, minimum exposure. The court must choose the least intrusive method and limit how much the child is exposed to the process.
• One expert, not a crowd. Ordinarily the evaluation should be done by a single independent, court-appointed child psychologist. A panel is exceptional, used only when the facts make it unavoidable.
• No repeat testing. Repeated, overlapping or multi-layered evaluations should be avoided unless there are compelling circumstances.
• Neutral and independent expert. The expert must be demonstrably independent and neutral, not chosen by or aligned with one parent.
• Child-centric, not adversarial. The process must stay focused on the child's welfare and must not become a weapon in the parents' fight.
• Regulated sessions. The court must control the number of sessions, their duration and the number of professionals involved, to prevent re-traumatisation.
• Confidentiality. The child's identity and disclosures stay strictly confidential, and audio or video recordings are not ordinarily handed to the parties.
• Limited purpose. The report is confined to its evaluation purpose and must not be turned into a finding on any parent's guilt.
• Ongoing supervision. The court keeps supervisory control and can modify, pause or discontinue the evaluation, and may order periodic reassessment as the child grows.
• Both parents assessed. Where relevant, the court may also obtain psychological assessments of both parents, not only the child.

If you believe the family court has ordered an unnecessary, repeated or overly intrusive test on your child, you have practical remedies. Move quickly, because the sessions can begin before you have had a chance to object.

1. Read the order carefully. Check whether the court recorded specific reasons for why the evaluation is necessary. If the order is silent on necessity, that is your strongest point.
2. File an application to recall or modify. Apply to the same family court to recall, modify or stay the direction, citing Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora, 2026 INSC 638, and the principles of necessity and minimum intrusion.
3. Object to a panel. If the court ordered a panel of experts, ask that it be replaced by a single independent, court-appointed child psychologist, which is the norm the Supreme Court set.
4. Point to repetition. If your child has already been assessed, show that a fresh or overlapping evaluation is barred unless there are compelling circumstances.
5. Ask for safeguards. If some evaluation is genuinely needed, ask the court to limit the number of sessions, fix the duration, protect confidentiality and keep recordings out of the other party's hands.
6. Approach the High Court. If the family court refuses to correct itself, you can challenge the order before the High Court through a revision or writ petition, again relying on the 2026 guidelines.
7. Keep the child's welfare central. Frame every objection around the child's emotional security and dignity, not around scoring points against the other parent. That is the lens the courts now apply.

To understand how family court procedure, orders and appeals fit together, keep a copy of The RTI Playbook handy, and read our guide on how a child custody petition is filed and decided.

Imagine a mother and father fighting over custody of their eight-year-old. The father asks the family court to send the child to three different psychologists to “prove” the mother has influenced the child. Under the 2026 ruling, the court cannot simply grant this. It must first ask whether any evaluation is truly necessary, record its reasons, and if it does order one, ordinarily appoint a single neutral child psychologist rather than send the child from expert to expert. Repeated testing designed to build a case against a parent is exactly what the Supreme Court warned against.

Yes, but not automatically. The Supreme Court held in 2026 that such a test can be ordered only where it is genuinely necessary for deciding the case, and the court must record specific reasons. A test cannot be ordered just because the parents are in dispute.

No, not ordinarily. The 2026 ruling says repeated, overlapping or multi-layered psychological evaluations should be avoided unless there are compelling circumstances. If your child has already been assessed, you can object to a fresh test on that basis.

Ordinarily it should not. The Supreme Court said the evaluation should normally be done by one independent, court-appointed child psychologist. A panel is exceptional and permitted only when the facts make it unavoidable. In the very case before the court, a four-member panel was set aside.

The court does. The expert must be independent, neutral and court-appointed, not selected by one parent. This is meant to keep the process fair and child-centric rather than adversarial.

You can first apply to the same family court to recall or modify the order. If that fails, you can challenge the direction before the High Court through a revision or writ petition, relying on the guidelines in Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora, 2026 INSC 638.

Yes. The Supreme Court directed that the child's identity and disclosures stay strictly confidential, and audio or video recordings of the sessions are not ordinarily made accessible to the parties. The report is limited to its evaluation purpose.

• Supreme Court of India, Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora, neutral citation 2026 INSC 638, also reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 618, judgment dated 11 June 2026, bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh. Full text: Indian Kanoon.
• Related reading on this site: Child custody petition guide, Guardianship of a minor under HMGA and GWA, and Child passport consent dispute after separation.

This article explains the law in plain terms and is not a substitute for advice from a lawyer on your specific case. Reviewed for accuracy by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak.