Introduction <p>China’s legal system maintains heteronormative kinship definitions, creating disparities for same-sex families. This study examines judicial precarity in same-sex partnerships through case law analysis, addressing a gap in socio-legal research.</p> Methods <p>This research applies case law analysis to investigate the juridical precarity of same-sex partnerships in Mainland China. Drawing primarily on judicial decisions collected in 2024 (sourced from the iCourt Alpha database and selected reported cases), this study identifies representative same-sex partnership rulings through targeted sampling.</p> Results <p>(1) The overwhelming majority of same-sex couples in China refrain from pursuing legal recognition of their partnerships due to institutional exclusion and social stigmatization. (2) The absence of legally binding co-ownership agreements exposes same-sex cohabiting partners to risks of asset dispossession. (3) Discretionary invocations of the “public order and good morals” doctrine perpetuate legal precarity, compelling same-sex partners to conceal relational identities in contractual instruments to avoid judicial nullification. (4) Traditional notions of “only one mother” contravene Article 9(3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which safeguards children against arbitrary separation from parents. Furthermore, the narrow legal criterion prioritizing biological ties over caregiving bonds fails to account for essential socioemotional dimensions in sustaining parent–child relationships.</p> Conclusions <p>Findings reveal systemic barriers and advocate legislative reforms to recognize same-sex families, aligning with China’s sociopolitical evolution toward marriage equality.</p> Policy Implications <p>(1) Replace gendered terms (“husband/wife”) with neutral language (“spouse”) in China’s Civil Code. (2) Legislation should recognize both biological ties and caregiving behaviors as equally valid grounds for establishing parent–child relationships in same-sex families.</p>