1. Legal Position of Autism in SPC Jurisprudence

Chinese courts treat autism under:

• Civil capacity & guardianship law
• Child custody & family breakdown disputes
• Education access discrimination disputes
• Medical negligence / rehabilitation service disputes
• Disability welfare protection principles

The guiding principle is:

“Best interests of the child + stability of caregiving environment + rehabilitation continuity”

This is consistent with SPC’s broader family law reform direction emphasizing child-centered adjudication and stability of upbringing arrangements.

2. Case Law 1 — Custody prioritizing stability of care environment

In SPC-referenced custody guidance cases, courts repeatedly hold:

• Children with developmental disabilities require stable caregiving continuity
• Custody is awarded to the parent who provides consistent therapy routines and daily structure

Principle derived from SPC family law typical cases (custody line):

• Stability of daily life outweighs formal parental rights

3. Case Law 2 — Guardianship dispute involving disabled minor capacity

In SPC civil capacity jurisprudence:

• Courts appoint guardians based on:
  • caregiving consistency
  • ability to manage therapy schedules
  • emotional stability support

Key rule:

• Autism-related minors are often treated as requiring enhanced guardianship protection, not standard equal-parent preference.

4. Case Law 3 — Education access dispute for disabled child

SPC administrative and civil guidance shows:

• Schools cannot refuse admission solely due to autism diagnosis
• Courts emphasize:
  • reasonable accommodation
  • continuity of education routines

Judicial outcome pattern:

• Education interruption is treated as harm to developmental stability rights

5. Case Law 4 — Medical negligence in delayed diagnosis or therapy interruption

In SPC medical tort principles:

• Delayed diagnosis or interruption of rehabilitation therapy may trigger liability if causation is proven.

Court reasoning:

• Autism intervention effectiveness depends on early and continuous routine therapy
• Disruption of therapy can be considered compensable harm in severe cases

6. Case Law 5 — Custody modification due to disrupted care routines

SPC family law model reasoning:

• Custody may be modified when:
  • primary caregiver changes cause therapy disruption
  • rehabilitation routines are broken
  • behavioral regression occurs

Rule:

• Stability of autism care plan is a material factor for custody change

7. Case Law 6 — Institutional care and service contract disputes

In SPC elderly and disability service dispute analogies (care institutions):

• Service providers must maintain:
  • predictable routines
  • structured daily care schedules
  • continuity of therapeutic support

If broken:

• breach of contract + possible tort liability

This is extended by analogy to autism care institutions:

• routine disruption = breach of care duty

8. Core Doctrine Emerging from SPC Practice

Across these case-law categories, SPC reasoning converges into 4 doctrines:

(A) Routine Stability Principle

Autism care requires predictable daily structure, legally relevant in custody and service disputes.

(B) Best Interests Supremacy

Child welfare overrides parental formal equality.

(C) Continuity of Therapy Doctrine

Interruptions in rehabilitation are treated as legally significant harm.

(D) Protective Guardianship Standard

Courts impose a higher duty of care standard where developmental disabilities exist.

9. Important Clarification

• There is no single “autism routine stability dispute” labeled SPC case series
• Instead, jurisprudence is fragmented across family law, civil capacity, education, and medical tort doctrine
• The “rule” is constructed from typical cases + guiding principles + judicial interpretation trends