This study aimed to analyze the exercise of judicial discretion in the enforcement of child visitation orders in contexts of high family conflict, interference behaviors, and parental alienation within Peruvian case law. Methodologically, it was conducted as basic research using a qualitative approach and a scoping review design, supported by the triangulation of scientific literature, statutory regulations, and both national and international jurisprudence. The findings revealed a gap between doctrinal and scientific developments concerning interference behaviors and parental alienation and the criteria employed by courts to resolve disputes related to child visitation. Furthermore, the analysis showed that, in judicial practice, the assessment of a child's emotional well-being relies primarily on psychological reports, without the systematic use of standardized assessment instruments such as the Child Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (Child-PARQ). This limitation reduces the objectivity of evidentiary assessment and hinders a more reliable determination of the impact of interference behaviors on the parent-child relationship. The study concludes that forensic assessment practices should be strengthened through scientifically validated evaluation protocols. It also highlights the need for enhanced judicial reasoning and a reasoned exercise of judicial discretion that integrates available scientific evidence, proper evaluation of evidence, and the effective protection of the best interests of the child.