I wanted to add a few more thoughts. I think it's quite unfortunate that the emphasis on this case has been on the negative behaviors of the child, and the "horrible, intolerant neighbors", and not on the inadequate actions of the parents. It's really unfortunate that this entire situation has been framed by the media and activists as a bunch of intolerant neighbors who were out to get a family with a disabled child. I don't think that is a true picture of what was going on.
All parents have a responsibility to control their children and prevent them from assaulting others and destroying property. That goes for "normal" children, and kids with mental illness and behavioral disorders, as well as disabled/ autistic children. (It also applies to homeowners and pets, but please don't anyone go off the rails and think I'm comparing a child to a pet!)
I don't think any parents get a "pass" on adequate supervision simply because the child is disabled. One could easily argue that failure to provide appropriate close supervision for a disabled, autistic child amounts to negligence. This child presents a danger to himself when unsupervised, as well-- there are descriptions of him running his bicycle into others, and things, intentionally, etc.
Apparently the parents hired babysitters, but the sitters didn't supervise within arm's length-- and that is a problem of their communication with, and supervision of their employees, as well. The neighbors who were part of the suit have known this family since before the child in question was even born, and have, IMO, really tried to work with the family on these issues over many years.
I think the judge was correct to grant the injunction a year ago, ordering the parents to take adequate measures to prevent the child from assaulting others and damaging property. The family chose to move in order to be in compliance with that order. For the child's sake, I hope they did a lot of other interventions, as well.
It's a shame the media and activists have chosen to present this as an attack on an autistic child, when it's really a matter of inadequate/ negligent provision of supervision for the child. The child can't help the way he is, that is true. It's up to parents and adults to manage the environments and limits for the child, in the most positive and least restrictive way. It takes a team of very compassionate and skilled caregivers to do that-- to intervene and redirect, to know the child's signals, etc.
Direct, continuous supervision of kids and adults that need that level of care is very expensive, time intensive, and exhausting. But it really is the only answer for safe and humane management (in conjunction with medication and other therapies).
I'm not at all sure a "public nuisance" lawsuit was a good, correct, or best way to proceed, but this, IMO, is (or, was-- they moved) a case of parents needing to work more effectively with various resources to provide more appropriate supervision for this child in this neighborhood environment. Both parents appear to have fairly demanding jobs, and I suspect they "outsourced" much of this child's daily supervision and care-- and possibly were very tired and stressed out when they were home.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the court case.