Legal capacity, guardianship and supported decision-making
How guardianship can take away an adult's legal rights when they turn 18, what the UN disability convention says should replace it, and how thin the research on supported decision-making still is.
When a person turns 18, a court can give someone else the power to make their decisions. This is called guardianship. Here is what it takes away, what the UN says should replace it, and what research shows.
Guardianship at 18 Emerging
Around an autistic person's 18th birthday, families are often asked to decide whether to seek guardianship. Guardianship is a legal arrangement that gives someone else the authority to make decisions for an adult. A National Core Indicators data highlight reports that people under guardianship are not able to marry, enter contracts, get a driver's license, sign a lease, make purchases, or make decisions about their own bodies and health care without the guardian's approval.1
In the 2018-19 National Core Indicators In-Person Survey, 53.4% of adult respondents with intellectual and developmental disabilities who received state services had a guardian, whether limited or full or with the level undetermined. The share varied by state, from 14.6% to 86.4%.1 People with guardians were less likely than those without to make important life decisions: where to live (46.0% against 68.5%), who to live with (33.8% against 55.5%), their daily schedule (80.1% against 89.8%), or what to buy with their spending money (86.7% against 94.1%).1 The survey covers people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in state systems, not autistic adults, and the comparison is cross-sectional, so it shows who has a guardian rather than what guardianship does.
The same report says many parents of young adults are counseled by school staff to become guardians at the point of transition from school, as part of a common "pipeline" to adult services.1 A 2026 review of that pipeline describes school staff encouraging parents to seek guardianship at the transition-planning meetings that begin in some states at 14 and are required by federal law by 16, and notes that clinicians often supply the assessments that go to the courts.3 One study has looked at who ends up under guardianship among autistic adults. In 122 autistic adults followed in a long-running cohort to age 25, whether a family had obtained guardianship differed by IQ, adaptive behavior and autistic characteristics; no differences by race, ethnicity or maternal education were detected in this small cohort.2 The authors interviewed 12 autistic adults and guardians, and describe the decision as complicated, with families weighing the protection guardianship offers against what it takes away.2
When an autistic person turns 18, families are often asked about guardianship. A guardian makes decisions for another adult. A court gives this power. A National Core Indicators report describes what a guardian controls. People with a guardian cannot marry on their own. They cannot sign contracts. They cannot get a driver's license. They cannot sign a lease or buy things. They cannot decide about their own body or health care. They need the guardian's OK.1
In a 2018-19 US survey, 53.4% of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities had a guardian. These adults got state services. The share ranged from 14.6% to 86.4% by state.1 People with a guardian made fewer big life choices. Fewer chose where to live (46.0% against 68.5%). Fewer chose who to live with (33.8% against 55.5%). Fewer set their daily plan (80.1% against 89.8%). Fewer chose what to buy (86.7% against 94.1%).1 This survey was not about autistic adults. It took one snapshot in time. So it shows who has a guardian, not what a guardian does.
The same report says many parents are told to become guardians. School staff tell them this when their child leaves school. People call this the "pipeline" to adult services.1 A 2026 review says school staff often push parents toward guardianship. This happens at transition-planning meetings. Meetings start at age 14 in some states. Federal law requires them by 16. The review says doctors give the court the checks used to decide.3
One study followed 122 autistic adults to age 25. Whether a family got guardianship was linked to IQ. It was also linked to adaptive behavior and autistic traits. In this small group, race did not matter. Neither did ethnicity or a mother's education.2 The authors talked to 12 autistic adults and guardians. They say the choice is hard. Families weigh the safety guardianship gives against what it takes away.2
The prevalence figure is one national survey of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in US state systems, not of autistic adults, and it is cross-sectional. The autism cohort is a single study of 122 people.
A court appointment that gives one person the legal power to make decisions for another adult. A "limited" guardianship covers only some decisions; a "plenary" or full one covers most or all of them.
One survey gives the big number. It was not about autistic adults. It took one snapshot in time. The autism study looked at just 122 people.
A court gives one person the power to decide for another adult. A "limited" one covers only some choices. A "full" one covers most choices.
Legal capacity and the CRPD Established
The right that guardianship removes is legal capacity: the ability to hold rights and to act on them, such as making a contract, owning property or agreeing to medical treatment. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted in 2006, people with disabilities hold legal capacity "on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life," and the states that ratify it must give people access to the support they need to exercise it.4 The convention also sets safeguards for all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity: they must respect the person's rights, will and preferences, be proportional and tailored, apply for the shortest possible time, and be reviewed regularly.4
The UN committee that oversees the convention explained in 2014 how it reads the article. General Comment No. 1 says the convention requires a shift from substitute decision-making to supported decision-making, and that substitute arrangements such as guardianship and conservatorship must be abolished so that full legal capacity is restored.5 For adults, it says, the "best interests" standard is not a valid safeguard and must give way to the person's "will and preferences."5 It also says that running supported decision-making alongside the older substitute arrangements is not enough: the substitute arrangements have to go.5
The right that guardianship takes away is called legal capacity. Legal capacity means you can hold rights and use them. You can sign a contract. You can agree to medical care. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is a treaty from 2006. It says people with disabilities have full legal capacity, "on an equal basis with others," in all parts of life. Countries that join must help people get support to use it.4 The treaty also sets rules for any limit on legal capacity. The limit must respect the person's rights, will and preferences. It must fit the person. It must last the shortest time. It must be checked again.4
The UN committee that watches the treaty explained it in 2014. General Comment No. 1 says the treaty wants a shift. It wants a shift from substitute decision-making to supported decision-making. In substitute decision-making, someone else decides. The committee says guardianship must end. Conservatorship must end too. Then people get full legal capacity back.5 For adults, "best interests" is not a good enough safeguard. The person's "will and preferences" must come first.5 It is not enough to run supported decision-making next to guardianship. Guardianship has to go.5
Established for the dated documents: the wording of the treaty article and of the UN committee's 2014 general comment. The section states what those documents say.
In this context, the ability to hold rights and to exercise them, as distinct from mental capacity, which refers to a person's decision-making skills. The convention committee treats the two as different things.5
This section is about two documents. One is a UN treaty article from 2006. The other is the committee's 2014 explanation. It says what those documents say.
The ability to hold rights and to use them. It is not the same as mental capacity. Mental capacity is a person's decision-making skill.5
Supported decision-making Emerging
Supported decision-making keeps the person in charge. It means a person makes their own decisions and keeps their legal rights, with help from people they choose. Supporters help the person understand the options and communicate a choice, and the person keeps the final say.5
Research on how well this works is thin and comes from mental health care rather than autism. It also tests supported and shared decision-making inside treatment planning, not supported decision-making as a legal replacement for guardianship, so it does not answer whether the legal alternative works. The two recent systematic reviews on the subject screened the same 5,137 records and included the same 140 articles, and both are by one team, so they count as one body of evidence. Where that work found favorable evidence against treatment as usual, it was for parts of recovery, treatment engagement, and reductions in involuntary hospitalization. It found only preliminary but promising evidence for reducing suicidal ideation, the likelihood and duration of hospital admission and some types of coercion, and mostly no difference from controls on symptom measures.6 The reviews also flag areas for caution, including that a shift in the form of coercion from one type to another is hard to detect. The main barriers to putting these approaches into practice were organizational, process and relationship barriers: resource limits and risk-management priorities, lack of knowledge and time, and fear and distrust on both sides. The reviews describe the research as "exploratory in nature, with a wide range of interventions investigated to date but little experimental replication."7
The best-known attempt to test an alternative to guardianship is a pilot project in the US state of Virginia, reported in 2021. In it, 10 people with intellectual and developmental disabilities developed and used supported decision-making plans, and nine of them and their supporters were interviewed about the impact on their lives. The report concludes that participants showed improved independence and decision-making skills, made better decisions, and had better quality of life.8 The project had no comparison group, and the findings rest on the interviews and a self-determination inventory.
No study found as of October 2026 has tested supported decision-making outcomes in autistic adults specifically.
Supported decision-making keeps the person in charge. The person makes their own choices and keeps their rights. They get help from people they choose. Supporters help the person understand the choices. They help the person say what they want. The person still has the final say.5
The research on how well this works is thin. It comes from mental health care, not autism. It tests choices about treatment. It does not test the legal swap for guardianship. So it does not answer whether that swap works. Two recent reviews looked at the same 5,137 papers. They chose the same 140. Both were by one team. So they count as one group of evidence. The reviews found good evidence for some things. It was better than usual care. People recovered better in some ways. They stayed in treatment more. Fewer were forced into hospital. For other things the evidence was early and promising. These included fewer suicidal thoughts. They included fewer or shorter hospital stays and less pressure. For most symptom measures, results matched usual care.6 The reviews also warn about problems. Pressure can move from one form to another. Then it is hard to see. The main barriers were money and rules. Others were gaps in knowledge and time. Fear and distrust on both sides also mattered. The reviews note that there is "little experimental replication" so far.7
The best-known test of an alternative to guardianship is a pilot project. It was in the US state of Virginia. It was reported in 2021. Ten people with intellectual and developmental disabilities made plans. They used supported decision-making plans. Nine of them and their supporters were asked how it went. The report says people grew more independent. They got better at making decisions. They made better decisions and had better lives.8 There was no comparison group. The findings come from the interviews and a self-determination survey.
No study found as of October 2026 has tested supported decision-making in autistic adults.
The outcome evidence comes from mental health care, not autism, and tests shared decision-making inside treatment planning rather than supported decision-making as a legal replacement for guardianship. Two reviews by one team screened the same articles, so they count as one body of evidence. The one guardianship pilot had 10 participants.
Guardianship is usually a legal status rather than a medical one, so it sits outside the grants and datasets that produce clinical trials. The studies that exist tend to be small surveys and pilot projects.
The evidence on how well this works comes from mental health care. It is not from autism. It tests choices about treatment. It does not test the legal swap for guardianship. Two reviews by one team looked at the same papers. So they count as one. The one pilot had 10 people.
Guardianship is a legal status, not a medical one. Clinical trials do not usually study it. The studies that exist are small surveys and small pilots.
Capacity tests and health decisions Emerging
When a question about capacity does go to an assessment, the research suggests that a test of how a person decides is not the same as whether they can decide. Many autistic people report difficulties with real-life decision-making, yet in laboratory tests they often perform as well as or better than non-autistic people.9 A narrative review of 104 studies, covering 2,712 autistic and 3,189 comparison participants, found that autistic and comparison participants tended to perform similarly on perceptual and reward-learning tasks, and differently on tasks involving metacognition and weighing the value of two options. The authors suggest this reflects differences in metacognition, or thinking about thinking.9
Some supports do seem to help. In a study of 152 adolescents and adults with fragile X syndrome, the ability to understand the trial was most strongly linked to being able to appreciate and reason about the decision, and adding scaffolding to the task improved understanding.10 The authors suggest researchers can take steps that improve decisional capacity and the consent process. The study is in fragile X syndrome and is cross-sectional, not autism.
Health professionals writing about serious illness report that none of the standard decision-making tools has been checked in neurodivergent populations, and suggest making the process more concrete: using visual aids, avoiding abstract language, keeping the sensory environment calm, and involving the people the patient wants involved.11 A qualitative case study in an English National Health Service program for autistic young people and people with a learning disability found that specialist keyworkers were central to shared decision-making, by bridging communication differences between the young person, their family and the service, and by adapting communication to the young person's profile.12 The study interviewed 13 people: 4 autistic young people, 3 parents or carers, and 6 keyworkers.
When a person's capacity is checked, a test of how they decide may not match what they can decide. Many autistic people find real-life choices hard. In lab tests they often do as well as, or better than, non-autistic people.9 One review looked at 104 studies. They had 2,712 autistic people and 3,189 others. The two groups did about the same on some tasks. One task was seeing which picture has more dots. They did differently on other tasks. Those asked how well you did. Others asked which of two choices is worth more. The authors think this shows a difference in thinking about thinking.9
Some support does seem to help. One study had 152 people with fragile X syndrome. They were teens and adults. They took a capacity test. Understanding the test mattered most for reasoning about the choice. Adding help improved understanding. The help broke the task into steps.10 The study is in fragile X syndrome, not autism. It took one snapshot in time.
Doctors writing about serious illness say one thing. No standard decision-making tool has been checked in neurodivergent people. The doctors suggest making it more concrete. Use pictures. Avoid abstract words. Keep the room calm. Involve the people the patient wants.11 One small case study looked at an English health program. It was for autistic young people and people with a learning disability. It found the specialist keyworkers helped most. They bridged communication gaps. They fit their approach to each young person.12 The study talked to 13 people. Four were autistic young people. Three were parents or carers, and six were keyworkers.
A narrative review of laboratory studies, one cross-sectional study in fragile X syndrome (not autism), one qualitative case study of 13 people, and one case report with practice recommendations. None is a trial, and none tests a capacity tool in autistic adults.
Extra support built into a task, such as breaking it into steps or explaining it in plain language, so that the person's real understanding shows.10
This section uses one review of lab studies. It uses one study in fragile X syndrome (not autism). It uses one small case study of 13 people and one case report. None is a trial.
Extra help built into a task. It might break the task into steps or use plain words. It lets a person's real understanding show.10
Choice-making and self-determination Emerging
How often a person gets to make choices is measurable, and it links to how life goes. The AASPIRE–Choices and Decisions Scale, built with a community-based participatory approach and tested with 839 autistic adults, is a valid and reliable measure of autistic adults' opportunities to make choices and decisions.13 Higher scores went with greater self-determination, more independent living and fewer support needs. The scale was linked more weakly to quality of life, overall health and employment satisfaction than a self-determination measure was, which suggests that having the chance to choose is related to self-determination but is a separate thing.13 The authors warn that care is needed when a caregiver, rather than the person, reports on those choices.13
Two other studies point the same way. In a cross-sectional general-population survey of 262 adults, of whom 1.9% reported an autism diagnosis, higher autistic traits went with lower self-determination and lower quality of life, with significant indirect effects running through self-determination, and through a sense of competence for all four quality-of-life domains.14 In 79 autistic young people aged 16 to 27, self-determination was associated with all three daily-living-skill areas tested, financial management, self-care and home care, while the indirect paths the authors tested were not significant.15 Both of these studies were cross-sectional, so neither can show which way the link runs, and the first sample is the general population rather than diagnosed autistic adults.
You can measure how often a person gets to make choices. It links to how life goes. A team built the AASPIRE–Choices and Decisions Scale with autistic people. They tested it with 839 autistic adults. It is a good measure of how often autistic adults get to choose.13 Higher scores went with more self-determination. They also went with more independent living and fewer support needs. The scale linked less strongly to quality of life, health and job satisfaction. A self-determination measure linked more strongly to those. So getting to choose is related to self-determination. But it is a separate thing.13 The authors say to be careful when a caregiver answers. The person's own answers are better.13
Two other studies point the same way. One surveyed 262 adults from the general public. Of those, 1.9% had an autism diagnosis. Higher autistic traits went with lower self-determination and lower quality of life. Self-determination carried part of that link. A sense of competence mattered for all four parts of quality of life.14 Another study looked at 79 autistic young people aged 16 to 27. Self-determination went with all three daily-living skills tested. These were money, self-care and home care. The other paths the authors tested were not significant.15 Both studies took one snapshot in time. So neither can show which way the link runs. The first used the general public, not diagnosed autistic adults.
Three single studies: a new autistic adult measure, one cross-sectional general-population survey, and one small structural-equation study of autistic youth. None has been replicated.
The AASPIRE–Choices and Decisions Scale is a new measure built specifically for autistic adults' opportunities to make choices, rather than for their decision-making skill.13
Three single studies. One is a new measure for autistic adults. One is a survey of the general public. One is a small study of autistic young people. None has been repeated.
The AASPIRE–Choices and Decisions Scale is a new measure built specifically for autistic adults' opportunities to make choices, rather than for their decision-making skill.13
Laws and policy now Established
As of October 2026, 24 US states and the District of Columbia have laws that create a legal framework for supported decision-making agreements, according to a September 2026 chart from the Center for Public Representation.16 Florida's 2024 law is one of them: it created a "supported decisionmaking agreement" that gives a chosen person the authority to receive information and to communicate on the person's behalf, without the power to bind or act for them.17 Article 12 of the CRPD, described above, is the international standard, and the convention committee's 2014 general comment reads it as a requirement to replace guardianship, not a permission to keep it.4,5
Australia's Disability Royal Commission delivered its final report in 2023. Volume 6 recommends moving away from substituted decision-making toward supported decision-making, and discusses how to change attitudes, policies and practice to make that shift.18 The first government report on putting the recommendations into practice, the Disability Royal Commission Progress Report 2025, was published on 27 November 2025. It tracks all 222 recommendations; of the 172 that the Commonwealth is solely or jointly responsible for, it records 71 in progress, 51 needing further work, 36 subject to further consideration, 8 completed and 6 noted.19
As of October 2026, 24 US states have supported decision-making laws. The District of Columbia does too. A September 2026 chart counts them. It comes from the Center for Public Representation.16 Florida's 2024 law is one of them. It created a "supported decisionmaking agreement." This lets a chosen person get information. It lets them speak for the person. It does not let them bind or act for the person.17 Article 12 of the UN treaty, above, is the world standard. The UN committee's 2014 comment reads it as a rule. It says to replace guardianship. It is not a permission to keep it.4,5
Australia's Disability Royal Commission gave its final report in 2023. Volume 6 says to move away from substitute decision-making. It says to move toward supported decision-making. It says how to change attitudes, policies and practice.18 The first government report on putting the ideas into practice came out on 27 November 2025. It follows all 222 recommendations. Of those, 172 are fully or partly the Commonwealth's job. For those, it lists 71 in progress. It lists 51 needing more work and 36 still being considered. Eight are finished and six are noted.19
Established for the dated documents quoted here: a US state statute, a US advocacy chart of state laws, the Australian royal commission's final report, and its 2025 government progress report. These are dated as of October 2026 and are presented as documents, not findings.
This section is about dated documents. They are a US state law, a US chart of state laws, and two Australian reports. It is written as of October 2026.
In the community Community
Autistic and parent writers describe guardianship as the move that gets made for an autistic person at 18 when nothing else is offered. Jules Edwards, an autistic parent of an autistic son, writes that "guardianship and conservatorship are often seen as the default action when a child becomes an adult," and adds that it is "easier to take away an autistic person's rights via guardianship or conservatorship than it is to access any type of adult services."c1 Edwards describes service providers expecting her to seek guardianship as her son approached adulthood, and sets out the alternatives she prefers, such as medical power of attorney and an educational representative. Her line for the principle at stake: "We have a right to autonomy, to make our own decisions—even when we make mistakes."c1
Eric Garcia, a journalist who reports on autism policy, describes supported decision-making as the alternative in which people "make their own decisions about their health care, residence, and finances but with the assistance of people they designate as their supporters," keeping the final say.c2 He quotes Michael Kendrick of the Center for Public Representation: "Guardianship involves substituted decision-making and the right of the person to make decisions is voided."c2 Garcia reports that Texas in 2015 and Delaware in 2016 were the first two US states to pass supported-decision-making legislation, and that the approach is not split along party lines.c2
Autistic and parent writers say guardianship is the move at 18. It happens when nothing else is offered. Jules Edwards is an autistic parent of an autistic son. She writes that guardianship is often seen as the default move. It is the default when a child becomes an adult. She adds that taking away a person's rights is easier than getting adult services.c1 Edwards says providers expected her to seek guardianship. This was as her son grew up. She prefers other options. They include medical power of attorney and an educational representative. She writes that people have a right to make their own decisions, even when they make mistakes.c1
Eric Garcia is a journalist who reports on autism policy. He describes supported decision-making as an option. The person makes their own decisions about health care, housing and money. They choose supporters to help them. They keep the final say.c2 He quotes Michael Kendrick of the Center for Public Representation. Kendrick says guardianship voids a person's right to decide.c2 Garcia writes that Texas passed the first state law in 2015. Delaware followed in 2016. He adds that the idea is not split by party.c2
How autistic and parent writers describe guardianship and supported decision-making. This is a description of a debate and of an experience, not a research finding.
This is how autistic and parent writers talk about guardianship. It describes a debate and an experience. It is not a research finding.
Sources
Research
- 1National Core Indicators. What Do NCI Data Tell Us About People With IDD Who Have Guardians Compared to Those Who Don't. NCI Data Highlight, 2021. https://legacy.nationalcoreindicators.org/upload/core-indicators/NCI_Data_Highlight_Guardianship_2021_Final.pdf
- 2Ferguson EF, Clarke E, Schisterman N, Lord C. Family Experiences with Supplemental Social Security Income and Legal Guardianship for Autistic Adults: A Mixed-Methods Study. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2024.102522
- 3Green JC, Buck A. The School-to-Guardian Pipeline: Understanding the Medical and Social Implications for Individuals with Significant Disabilities. Current Psychiatry Reports, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-026-01718-9
- 4United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 12 (adopted 2006). https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf
- 5UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General Comment No. 1 (2014), Article 12: Equal recognition before the law. CRPD/C/GC/1, 2014. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2fC%2fGC%2f1&Lang=en
- 6Francis CJ, Hazelton M, Wilson RL. Supported Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Outcomes for People With Mental Ill Health. Health Expectations, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70134
- 7Francis CJ, Johnson A, Wilson RL. Supported decision-making interventions in mental healthcare: A systematic review of current evidence and implementation barriers. Health Expectations, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.14001
- 8Martinis J, Beadnell L. "I Learned That I Have a Voice in My Future": Summary, Findings, and Recommendations of the Virginia Supported Decision-Making Pilot Project. Burton Blatt Institute, Syracuse University, and The Arc of Northern Virginia, 2021. https://burtonblattinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021-martinis-virginia-SDM-pilot.pdf
- 9van der Plas E, Mason D, Happé F. Decision-making in autism: A narrative review. Autism, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221148010
- 10Wheeler AC, Wylie A, Raspa M, et al. Decisional Capacity for Informed Consent in Males and Females with Fragile X Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03930-4
- 11Lehenaff R, Rutledge RC, Kim P, Pinto Taylor E. Supporting Patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Neurodivergence in Serious Illness Decision-Making. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10915-4
- 12Ellington E, Parsons S, Kovshoff H. 'Bridging the gap': exploring shared decision-making with autistic young people within an NHS Learning Disability and Autism Keyworker Programme in England. BMC Health Services Research, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-14025-z
- 13Kim SY, Gillespie-Lynch K, Kapp SK, et al. Self- and Caregiver-Reported Choice-Making in Autistic Adults: Development and Validation of the AASPIRE–Choices and Decisions Scale. Autism Research, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70374
- 14Andrews HE, Hedley D, Bury SM. The Relationship Between Autistic Traits and Quality of Life: Investigation of Indirect Effects Through Self-Determination. Autism in Adulthood, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2022.0117
- 15Hemming P, Kalinyak A, Bui C, White S. Roadblocks to independence: exploring the roles of self-determination and anxiety on daily living skills in autistic transition-aged youth. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2026. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1774401
- 16Center for Public Representation. Comprehensive Supported Decision-Making Agreement Laws in the United States. CPR, 2026. https://supporteddecisions.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/US-State-SDMA-Law-Chart-for-Posting-09182026.pdf
- 17Florida Statutes §709.2209, Supported decisionmaking agreements (enacted by ch. 2024-242, 2024). http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0709/Sections/0709.2209.html
- 18Disability Royal Commission. Final Report, Volume 6: Enabling autonomy and access. Australian Government, 2023. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report-volume-6-enabling-autonomy-and-access
- 19Australian Government, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. Disability Royal Commission Progress Report 2025. 2025. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/disability-royal-commission-progress-report-2025-0
Community sources
- c1Ashburn M, Edwards J, Onaiwu M. I Will Die On This Hill: Autistic Adults, Autism Parents, and the Children Who Deserve a Better World. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2023. Chapter 10, "High-Stakes Advocacy", section "Jules".
- c2Garcia E. We're Not Broken: Changing the Autism Conversation. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2021. Chapter "Gimme Shelter". Eric Garcia's site