‘Parents can’t coach’: Counsellor to meet child before trip with dad amid custody fight

“Child Counsellor is requested to interact with her (elder daughter) individually, without either parent present, on 14.07.2026 and, if necessary, on 15.07.2026. The interaction shall be conducted in a child-sensitive, neutral and non-leading manner,” the July 13 order noted.

The judge observed that because of the younger child’s age, no formal interaction is planned for him. However, the counsellor may recommend any safeguards needed for the holiday custody or outstation travel.

The father had filed an interim application seeking holiday custody of his two minor children. Meanwhile, the mother had objected to the plea’s maintainability. The court, keeping both the father’s request and the objection in consideration, had issued directions for mediation.

Justice A D Maria Clete said that considering the younger child’s age, no formal interaction was planned for him.

It observed that although the matter was referred for mediation with the assistance of a child counsellor, the report recorded only the parents’ positions. The children were not engaged individually by either the mediator or the child counsellor, even though the court had not barred age-appropriate interaction with them.

The court noted that the parents live in different flats on the same premises and the children are in regular contact with their father. Therefore, the inquiry was confined to assessing the proposed holiday stay and outstation travel, not the children’s relationship with the father.

Report to note child’s wishes, concerns

The court directed the child counsellor to interact individually with the elder daughter, without either parent present, and said that the report shall be confined to professional observations relevant to the child’s welfare.

The confidential report would include an assessment of the daughter’s ability to express her views freely. It must also record any wishes or concerns she expresses regarding the proposed holiday stay and outstation travel with her father.

It must note any circumstance which may affect her sense of safety, security or emotional well-being during such stay or travel, or concerning the duration of stay, place of accommodation, supervision or separation from the mother. It must also see if any age-appropriate safeguard, such as the presence of a familiar and neutral accompanying adult, may be required.

The court said that considering the younger child’s age, no formal interaction was planned for him. However, if the counsellor suggested any necessary safeguards for him in the holiday custody or outstation travel, it will be considered.

The judge directed both parents to refrain from discussing with the children the pending custody application, the proposed trip, the questions that the counsellor may ask them, or the answers that either child should give.

It also directed the parents to share the counselling fee of Rs 7,500 equally, and held that the payment receipt signed by both parties must be acknowledged by the counsellor and filed before the court through their counsel.