SC grants custody of 22-year-old with celebral palsy to mother in the US

The Supreme Court has granted custody of a 22-year-old youth with celebral palsy to his mother in Idaho and rejected the father's contention that the son wanted to live with him in India.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, ordered that the young man, Aadith, who was brought to Chennai in December 2023 without the mother's consent in the middle of a custodial battle in the US, is to be returned to his mother’s care and stay with his younger brother (19), who is on the autism spectrum.

Also read: All disabled candidates can use scribes to write exams, says SC

Further, the court said the decision was taken in Aadith's interest since he was incapable of making independent decisions because he had the intellectual capacity of an eight or 10-year-old.

This decision was made after the son was directed to undergo medical assessment at NIMHANS, Bengaluru, and an expert's report showed he functioned at the level of an eight to 10-year-old child and is unable to make informed decisions by himself.

Sibling connections

The bench also observed that the boy should join his brother in the US. The shared life experiences, challenges and understanding of each other’s needs made the brothers’ relationship unique and necessary for them to thrive together.

“It is necessary for them to retain their connection as they grow up and grow old, to have a constant bonding through the years. For these reasons, it is imperative that they stay together,” the court said.

Also read: Media must tell stories about disabled more often, not just when India wins medals

The court also acknowledged that since both the brothers were raised in the US and attended specialised educational programmes, the support structures available to them there were more accommodating.

The court concluded the ruling by saying, "We believe it is in the son’s best interests and welfare to return to the US, where he can complete his schooling and reside with his younger brother, under the appellant’s (mother’s) guardianship."

The SC directed the mother, Sharmila Velamur, to return to the US with her son within 15 days.

‘Parens patriae’ doctrine

The bench invoked parens patriae, which is the court’s duty to protect vulnerable persons, citing the bond between the brothers with disabilities as crucial for each other’s development and well-being.

Justice N Kotiswar Singh invoked it, saying, “This emotional relationship is the foundational strength of their confidence, sense of security and all other support, which they are unlikely to receive elsewhere, outside of close family. If separated by continents, we are confronted by the unfortunate possibility that their bond may wither away with the passage of time.”

The bench led by Justice Surya Kant ordered the repatriation of the young man, overturning a ruling by the Madras HC in August 2024 that ruled in the father’s favour.

The Madras HC had interactions with the son and posed multiple questions. Based only on his answers and verbal response and no other medical tests, they determined he was not illegally detained or staying in Chennai without his consent.

No proper enquiry

The SC took Madras HC to task by calling the ruling made in 2024 ‘hasty’ and for being dismissive of scientific assessments made in a highly-specialised area of medicine without proper enquiry being done.

The court said that the reports of NIMHANS, Bengaluru and the evaluation committee constituted by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare corroborated experts’ opinions that the son did not have the capacity to make well-informed, independent decisions upon complex situations such as staying long-term in India with his father.

Also read: Young and ambitious: How a new crop of disabled leaders is ameliorating the community

This SC ruling has set a positive precedent for disabled people. It reinforced the importance of expert medical opinion in legal cases involving individuals with cognitive disabilities, and also established that sibling relationships carry significant weight, especially among those with special needs in custody disputes.

Judicial decisions of other jurisdictions

It also emphasized the principle of comity to courts where courts recognise and enforce the laws, judicial decisions of other jurisdictions. It said the pre-existing order of a foreign court must be held up and yielded in the best interests of the individual in question.

The SC said that the pre-existing order from the court in Idaho was paramount in determining the predominant criteria that would safeguard the ‘interests and welfare’ of the young man, and is a necessary move to ensure that children do not end up as collateral damage in their parents’ legal disputes.