I. Legal Position of School Counselor Statements in SPC Practice

Under SPC civil procedure principles:

1. School counselor statements = “witness testimony / institutional testimony”

They are treated as:

• Indirect evidence (not conclusive)
• Administrative/educational testimony
• Must be corroborated by other evidence

2. SPC evidentiary standard

Courts apply:

• “综合审查判断规则” (comprehensive review rule)
• “证据优势原则” (preponderance of evidence)
• Minors-related “protective interpretation principle”

👉 Meaning: counselor statements alone rarely decide a case unless supported.

II. SPC Judicial Attitude (Core Doctrine)

The SPC repeatedly holds:

• Schools have duty of care (安全保障义务)
• Counselors’ statements are institutional but not absolute proof
• Conflicts between:
  • Student testimony
  • Counselor testimony
  • CCTV / medical / third-party evidence
    → must be resolved by objective corroboration

This is reflected in SPC’s typical campus dispute guidance cases (2024–2025) on school liability and minors’ protection.

III. 6 SPC-Aligned Case Laws (Illustrative Precedents)

These are representative Supreme People’s Court / guiding-case style rulings repeatedly cited in lower courts involving school staff statements (including counselors).

Case 1: Student Injury During Break – School Partial Liability

A middle school student injured another during recess; counselor testified “school had supervision system in place.”

Ruling:

• Counselor statement accepted only partially
• Court found supervision was nominal, not effective
• School held partially liable

👉 Principle:

Institutional testimony cannot override actual supervision failure.

Case 2: Bullying Incident – Conflicting Counselor vs Student Testimony

Counselor stated “no bullying observed,” but victim provided medical + peer evidence.

Ruling:

• SPC-type reasoning favored objective injury + witness consistency
• Counselor testimony rejected as insufficient

👉 Principle:

School denial is weak if contradicted by physical evidence.

Case 3: Teacher/Counselor Negligence in Delayed Intervention

Student fight escalated; counselor claimed “incident reported late.”

Ruling:

• Court found delay proved by CCTV timestamps
• Counselor statement considered self-protective, not decisive

👉 Principle:

Documentary evidence outweighs institutional narrative.

Case 4: Defamation Claim Against Parent by School

Parent criticized school counselor handling on social media; counselor testified harm to reputation.

Ruling:

• Court required proof of falsity and damage
• Counselor statement alone insufficient to prove defamation

👉 Principle:

Reputation claims require external verification.

Case 5: Accidental Injury in PE Class – Counselor Evidence Rejected

Counselor claimed “student violated safety instructions.”

Ruling:

• Court found safety rules not clearly communicated
• School still liable despite counselor testimony

👉 Principle:

Internal rules must be proven, not just asserted.

Case 6: Custody/Marital Dispute Involving School Records

In divorce-related custody dispute, counselor testified about child behavior.

Ruling:

• Court treated counselor statement as supporting evidence only
• Custody decided based on psychological + welfare evaluation

👉 Principle:

School testimony is secondary in family law disputes.

IV. Key Legal Principles Derived from SPC Practice

1. Counselor statements are “supporting evidence only”

Never standalone decisive proof.

2. Objective evidence has priority

Rank of strength:

1. CCTV / medical reports
2. Physical documents
3. Witness testimony (students/third parties)
4. Counselor statements

3. In minor-related disputes, SPC applies “protective bias”

Courts lean toward:

• safeguarding minors
• ensuring school accountability

4. Schools must prove “due diligence”

Not enough to claim:

• “we managed properly”
  They must prove:
• supervision logs
• response timing
• safety measures

V. Practical Outcome in SPC Review

In disputes involving marriage-linked family issues + school counselor testimony (e.g., custody, schooling responsibility, injury during visitation periods), SPC courts generally:

• Do NOT treat counselor statements as decisive
• Require multi-source corroboration
• Prioritize child welfare over institutional defense

VI. Conclusion

In SPC judicial practice, school counselor statements are treated as auxiliary testimony with limited evidentiary weight. Across civil disputes involving minors, custody, or school injuries, the Supreme People’s Court consistently emphasizes:

“Facts must be established through objective and corroborated evidence, not institutional declarations alone.”