Discussing the Cavalier, which is Great Falls' newest Assistance Animal, had people calling and emailing me with questions. Many people are curious as to exactly what this dog does as an Assistance Animal. The Cavalier's handler has written a piece, which I have added below, about the dog's responsibilities, duties and skills.
I'm the owner of the Cavalier that Susan has posted about in the last few blogs, and I believe that I need to clarify the Cavalier's role. She is my co-therapist. I utilize her with children that have been diagnosed with severe emotional disturbances.
Her primary place of work is at an office; however, a child may be exhibiting behaviors that are interfering with their ability to cope in the public (school, childcare center, stores, etc.) When discussing what the Cavalier's responsibilities would be, Susan thought it would be best to certify her as a 'Psychiatric Service Dog', because a child may be experiencing distress within the public arena and the dog would be needed to assist the child in processing what is occurring so that they may continue with their life. This would be in the format of being a crisis response dog,
and with all of these differing responsibilities the Cavalier needs to occasionally have public access rights. Because a therapy dog only works within specific arenas and does not have rights to enter the public, this would prohibit the amazing and unique work that this Cavalier does.
The Cavalier has been trained to have specific responses to a myriad of DSM IV-TR diagnoses that a client may have. She is trained to patiently and quietly maintain a down position in order to allow a child, who has experienced severe physical, sexual and emotional abuse, pet her and tell her their secrets. This is therapeutic in that the child can get the help they need to change their situation; they learn to trust someone through trusting the dog first. I have witnessed children disclosing this type of response within minutes of meeting the Cavalier that may otherwise have taken several sessions. In continuing to work with the dog, the children learn what is good and what is bad touch and how to use their words to establish these boundaries. She also works with children with low self-esteem, and she has learned how to be cued by these children and respond to their requests which enhances their self-esteem and self-confidence. She has accompanied children to school and other new situations that have, in the past, had such severe anxious symptoms that they would become physically ill and avoid the situation. When working with children that are oppositional and defiant she has learned to encourage them to comply with adults and authority figures through her behaviors and responses when they are exhibiting these behaviors.
It is important that I know that the Cavalier can respond in any situation and any public place that we may be in; therefore, you may occasionally see me working with her by myself within the public. These training sessions provide learning opportunities for the dog and are a part of her life, so if we need to respond in a crisis situation she is not concerned with everything happening around her - she is only concerned with the client, their needs and doing her job.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
While the work you do and what you have been able to train your dog to do are laudable, what you have described is a therapy dog, not a service dog. Service dogs are individually trained to perform tasks for a specific disabled individual, not for a range of different people.
A therapy dog is trained to work with his or her owner to provide emotional support for others, which is what your dog does.
A person without a disability does not have public access rights under the ADA, and neither does a person with a therapy dog.
Certification doesn't make a dog a service dog--meeting the legal definition does. Sadly "certification" is made worthless by the fact that it can be purchased over the internet without ever having the dog evaluated.
Contact the ADA hotline at the U.S. Department of Justice for clarification: 800-514-0301
The boundaries on the service animal are expanding as proof of ability to met a PWD's needs are being shown to be met.
This happened with signal dogs. They,too, did not originally fall under the definition of service animal (nor did the cats currently being used, etc). However, proof that they met the needs defined them.
As this boundary pushes outwards to demonstrate that a dog can meet disability needs of more than a single person, they broaden the definition of service animal.
In the case of the Cavalier she is capable of indicating, as a single example, an upcoming breakdown as well as specifically responding to the individual child on her own - based on training, in order to pull that child back from the edge, both physically and psychologically.
Also, she has been evaluated - from temperament on up, tested - all the way through Public Access, and in skills, and passed at a level which actually exceeds the ADI's test.
Your response is a generally expected one, yet still appreciated. It is, however, the view that kept service animals limited to dogs for the blind for so very long. There are now cases where a dog is a service animal, as legally defined, for a family (multi-persons) with disabilities. The dog meets the various needs of the different disabilities of the family members.
The Cavalier is not a therapy dog. She is not there for petting or playing by the general public or in a nursing home, but physical and psychological monitoring, response and aid for individuals that fall within certain disorders. Simple examples, for the average person, may have given you the wrong impression.
We, too, have given out the Justice number, but it's good to have it posted.
On the off-chance the Department of Justice has changed its guidance, I called the info line and asked,
"If a person is a therapist and they use their dog to help children with psychiatric disabilities, is that dog a service dog?"
They're reply was, "No. A service dog is trained to perform tasks for a specific person."
I agreed with what Kirsten said about public access. You have to be disabled under the ADA definition, to use a service dog/animal out in public. If you are not disabled you do not qualify to use that dog/animal in public, their are severe fines for doing so. Including loosing all rights to use a dog/animal ever, loss of social security benefits, fines, jail time.
In some states their are laws that allow a certified trainer to take a service dog/animal in training out in public, but that dog/animal is in training for the use of a disabled person.
This dog is not for her use as she is not disabled but for the use of her clients their for it does not qualify as a emotional support service dog under the ADA, it does qualify as a therapy dog and their for does not qualify for public access rights, and should not be in public with her clients let alone with her.
You stated in your comments to Kirsten that "a dog can meet disability needs of more than a single person."
Yes they can but they work for an individual with a disability not owned by a physician and working for someone else.
You also stated "and that in the case of the Cavalier she is capable of indicating, as a single example, an upcoming breakdown as well as a specifically responding to the individual child on her own"
Yes she is very well trained but her actual owner is not handicapped, and the people she is alerting to and helping are not her owners or care takers.
Just because my dog will alert to other family members medical problems does not give him public access rights if they were to take care of him. as they are not disabled under the ADA's definition.
Call the ADA and ask it cost you nothing and will save her allot in the end.
Hey, Kirsten and Sonya, Let's back up two paces and look at this entire thing.
At present a service dog is considered a single dog for a single individual. That individual is of majority age and capable of legally assuming liability for the dog.
However, children with or without disabilities are 98% of the time incapable of handling dogs correctly and, therefore, in need of supervision when in the presence of dogs.
To deny a child with disabilities the right of access to a service dog then becomes a discriminatory process.
How to solve the problem of the need for a service dog for an individual, including adults, incapable of actually full-time of handling the service dog. This becomes the groundbreaking question, we've just it coupled with minority age status and liability.
The solution seems to be to broaden the ability of the dog to identify correctly a specific number or kinds of disabilities, establish response parameters and apply them to, in this case, minority age disabled individuals with an adult as guidance.
This, then, allows the disabled youngster to utilize the service dog, and yes, after nine months of in-depth discussion on these points this dog also is a therapy dog, in public settings. The parents have neither the interest nor ability to absorb the responsibility of the service dog, so it remains in the hands of the therapist. But, the child and therapist go into public, the dog in true service dog sense and intention is attached during that time to the child who is interacting and controlling it and the dog is responding to that child, its disabilities and needs derived from the said disability. The fact that the dog does not live with the child, nor is in permanent custody is due to three issues; age, capabilities and the fact no one has thought to offer a service animal in this manner prior to now.
The dog is a service dog, but for a specific period of time for that individual. Here is where the boundaries are pushed. Where, legally, does it define that the service dog has a time factor definition on it. There is none. Not even for adults. It is simply the way it has been done and has not been seen any other way.
However, as long as the dog is doing the actual service job, for the disabled person and being handled by the disabled person while in public, it qualifies if said dog has passed all appropriate tests.
So saying, in legal definition, this dog was trained to identify, respond and aid certain disabilities. This dog does this when in attendance in public with minor children who cannot assume full responsibility of a service dog on a full-time basis. This dog is handled by, controlled by and responds to the disabled child in the situations where he/she is in need of a service dog. For protection of both the dog and minor child, an adult, in this case the therapist, remains in attendance and is responsible for the overall, downtime care for the dog. New concept, new boundaries. But, the dog can and is doing it well and the disabled are benefiting.
I am in favor of emotional support dogs. However, they are not service dogs under present law. The legal definition is clear.
You can't change a law by deciding it should be something else no matter how good your intentions or how persuasive your argument. If you want a law to be something other than it is you have to lobby. I did this myself in my own state to get them to recognize real psychiatric service dogs so these dogs and their handlers could benefit from additional protections under state law above and beyond the protections offered by the ADA. It took four years.
Lobbyists in Kansas got their state laws changed to include public access for professional therapy dogs. It can be done, but it should be done legally.
Let me ask this: what happens to the child you are trying to help when they face an access dispute and possibly arrest? It has happened to legitimate teams who, fortunately, were able to defend against trespass charges by being able to prove they had a legal right to be there. You won't be able to do that.
There is no dishonor in being or having a therapy dog. But call it that and treat it like that. If you want to work with a child and the dog in public, ask permission of the businesses you wish to visit.
I agree totally, but in this state in particular, you'd better have a dog that meets and exceeds the criteria being set in order for demonstration purposes to the legislative body.
We are in the process of attempting to change the law at state level and are lobbying to that end. The dog must demonstrate what it is doing as far as a job, its capabilities, its professionalism, etc.
We are not barging in, we are not demanding access, we are in the process of educating, and re-educating and expanding certain parameters. We are also attempting to "protect" and delineate the differences between those who who simply use a pet for general comfort services and those who have taken an immense amount of training time to insure that the dog is of service dog quality and reliability.
Breaking the law will achieve nothing but bad attention and that will not have a positive outcome.
Conversations such as these are wanted and needed in order to help define the different strata of dogs that are currently being used and to identify to the public and within the scope of those training what is being, what can be and what has been achieved. All your input is valued and appreciated. Thanks.
Now you have me totally confused.
You acknowledge your dog does not meet the legal definition of a service dog under either federal or state law.
You affirm that laws should not be broken.
What then is the point of calling a dog a service dog when legally it isn't, and getting it certified as something it isn't?
It's a professional therapy dog. There's nothing wrong with that. But let's call a duck a duck and not try to make it sound somehow more than it is by slapping an inappropriate label on it.
A person with a therapy dog is much better off having their dog tested and certified by a pet therapy agency like Delta Pet Society Partners (deltasociety.org) than with a faux certification as a service dog. At least the Delta certification comes with liability insurance.
You can read more about Kansas' professional therapy dog handler rights at: http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/node/16
There is no such provision in Montana: http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/node/26
In my own state, Missouri, people falsely claiming a dog as a service dog are fined and jailed, up to $1000 and 1 year respectively. As Sonya mentioned there is an opportunity under federal law to commit a felony trying to pass off a dog as a service dog when it isn't.
As may be apparent, I have an interest in researching laws pertaining to service animals, though I am an engineer, not an attorney. I know of no state other than Kansas that has a statute giving the handler of a professional therapy dog public access rights. Their statute is fairly well written and should be a good model for those wishing to get something similar passed in their own state.
Please do the right thing and don't claim this dog is a service dog.
Sorry you're confused.
I'm NOT saying that the dog is not a service dog. Under the wording of the law and by deed, she is and does conform. However, we have a legality issue in that the handler is a minor. Nowhere does protection for, legality extend, nor service dog assignment, take into account minors.
Second, within the category you're concerned with, that of 'therapy dog', is the use of family pet to go visit and make people feel good. Great! But, then where does that leave a therapy dog which is utilized in professional medical diagnosis and treatment? Wow, that those two extremely different levels of experience, training, quality and quantity of work should fall under the same label is atrocious. But, it doesn't seem to cause a problem to lump them all together.
Third, Delta Soc.; I'm their their certifier/tester here. I will be happy to supply you with the ID number.
Fourth, ADA; Title III protects three categories of individuals with disabilities: (I have attached relevant copy here)
1) Individuals who have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
2) Individuals who have a record of a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited one or more of the individual's major life activities;
III-2.2000 Physical or mental impairments. The first category of persons covered by the definition of an individual with a disability is restricted to those with "physical or mental impairments."
Mental impairments include mental or psychological disorders, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.
Two: Does the impairment limit any major life activities?
An impairment cannot be a disability unless it limits something, and that something is one or more major life activities. A major life activity is an activity that is central to daily life.12 According to the Department’s regulations, major life activities include walking, seeing, hearing, breathing, caring for oneself, sitting, standing, lifting, learning, thinking, working,13 and performing manual tasks that are central to daily life.
(Short list of clinical psychological disorders of children)
Note: Attention-deficit disorder, disruptive behavior disorders, Attention-deficit hyperactive disorders, pervasive developmental disorder, oppositional disorder and conduct disorders. Separation anxiety, this problem is distinct from the other anxiety disorders, because it applies exclusively to children and adolescents.
Service animals include any animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Tasks typically performed by service animals include guiding people with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to the presence of intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or retrieving dropped items.
ADA definition from their website:
The ADA defines a service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. If they meet this definition, animals are considered service animals under the ADA regardless of whether they have been licensed or certified by a state or local government.
Fifth: This dog meets all requirements as defined above. This dog also meets all requirements as defined for a therapy dog (though this state has not specific law acknowledging these dogs)and this dog does BOTH jobs. Why is that difficult to accept? One does not preclude the other.
Sixth: The legal definition does not state that the dog MUST be owned by the person with the disability.
Seventh: The dog is duly certified, has passed a test which is requires MORE of it in the way of competency than the Assistance Dogs International test. It has it's health certificate, renewed every 6 months. It carries liability insurance.
What is it that is so worrisome to people? That a dog can do more than one job? That this dog is doing a job for more than one person? That the person/people with disability are minors and, therefore, need supervision with or without a dog? That a law or laws is being broadened to be more inclusive? That an attempt is being made to clarify a definition for a catch phrase (therapy dog) which is generalized at the moment?
I agreed with your statement that it was necessary to lobby for a better law, but,I merely stated that to break a law was not a way to behave. I did not state that WE were breaking a law.
I did state that no 'Therapy Dog' law exists in this state for the dog working for a therapist and we are attempting to rectify that.
There is no 'faux certification' in this case and it's presumptuous to state that without basis.
You stated "Breaking the law will achieve nothing but bad attention and that will not have a positive outcome."
then why are you breaking the law by stating it is a service dog and taking it out for public access.
The dog belongs to you not to the child or the child's family that you are working with, their for it is not a service dog, and should not be taken out in public to places a pet dog is not allowed.
you have also stated in your article "It is important that I know that the Cavalier can respond in any situation and any public place that we may be in; therefore, you may occasionally see me working with her by myself within the public.", again you are breaking the law by taking the dog into public that way also.
A service dog in training in some states is allowed the same access as a fully trained service dog with the condition it is with a certified instructor, my home state of Alaska is one of these, the dog has to be clearly marked as in training with the schools logo on it, the trainer has to have identification stating they work for the school and are certified to be training, and working with a service dog. but the service dog in training is eventually going to be paired with a disabled handler, not kept with the non-disabled handler.
Their are allot of pet friendly places to take a dog to train it and to work with a child, without jeopardizing the access rights of legitimate service dog teams. Allot of pet stores, work outside malls, playgrounds, etc...
You stated "We are in the process of attempting to change the law at state level and are lobbying to that end." Which is great, in the meantime you are breaking the law by:
1. Calling this dog a service dog when it is a therapy dog.
2. Taking this dog into places a pet dog is not allowed, with and with out clients present.
The regulatory law you quoted excessively is Title 28 of the Codes of Federal Regulation, chapter 36. Regulatory law is written by regulatory agencies, NOT by Congress. The United States Code (statutory law written by Congress) does not mention service animals at all.
The U.S. Department of Justice, the agency that wrote the regulatory law 28 C.F.R. 36.104 has stated clearly that your dog is not a service dog because it is not trained for one specific person. Therefore, your dog is NOT a service dog under the ADA.
Again, I refer you to 800-514-0301, the U.S. Department of Justice's ADA information hotline.
Who is more qualified to interpret 28 C.F.R. 36? You or the Department of Justice who wrote it?
Therapy dogs used by professional therapists in the course of their work are called "professional therapy dogs," NOT "service dogs." No one calls them service dogs because they do not meet the legal definition of service dog either federally or in Montana law.
I would very much like to have your Delta ID number. Call Delta yourself for clarification that a professional therapy dog is not a service dog.
It is worrisome to us because we face daily the backlash of people parading their pets around as service dogs and giving real service dogs, dogs who have received many hundreds of hours of training over the course of two years, a bad name. Unlike you, our lives depend on the help our dogs give us. Without them, we would not be able to live independently.
By posting your article publicly, you are encouraging anyone who reads your post to break the law and claim their pet as a service dog because it does therapy as yours does.
Why are you so invested in justifying this? You can accomplish your stated goals by calling the dog what it is: a professional therapy dog, and by asking permission of businesses to work in their places of business instead of using false claims the dog is a service dog to "get in for free."
Do you have some goal other than your stated goal of helping children with mental illness deal with issues in a public venue?
Why specifically will calling your dog a professional therapy dog and asking permission to work in places of business not work to accomplish your goals?
You are confusing me, the person whose blog it is and whose posts read overfield kennel, with the therapist.
You are confusing the semantics and relative discussion with what you perceive to be the actuality.
Under consideration are your comments, your emotions and any relevant data supplied.
Discussion at this end is being, and has been, held to look at defining the dog as therapy, however, not in the terms of general visits, but the true medical terminology and use as applied to the dog and its job.
Personally, I think I find it as offensive to label a general pet which merely visits with a non-trained owner such places as nursing homes, etc., a 'therapy dog', as you find this dog being labeled 'service'. Your argument being there is a distinct difference in quality of training, use and expectation (which I agree) is the same argument I'm bringing against the present use of 'therapy dog'.
Just as there was confusion regarding the law in this state (non-law is more appropriate) and the general catch-all phrase for 'therapy dog'.
It is MY Delta number. However, I have also trained service/assistance dogs over the past several years as my daughter was deaf for the first four years of her life. I very much understand your concern for pets giving service dogs a bad name and your intimate relationship with the dog.
Obviously, or maybe not so obviously, both sides of this conversation have made assumptions of the other that are suddenly, due to selective posts, revealing themselves as incorrect. Yours being that I am the therapist, also that this dog is being used to demand access into 'no pet' zones. Mine being that we understood we were in a discussion over the general expansion of service dog boundaries using this dog, because of what it can do, as an example of how boundaries may be broadened.
I hope you will revert to discussion and not panic. That was not the intention.
My interest in this discussion has been, and will continue to be, does a service dog need to be a 24/7 or can we look at a dog which actually, much like us, goes to work, possibly for a different person, for a different time length, yet is retained by a handler/trainer? The dog will have no problem with this. The legal definition allows it, as I've cited before, the need is there (children
being a good basis for the example) and the dog should have the capability, if trained correctly, to be able to handle more than one type of disability.
In light of all of this, I would ask you to re-read the posts and see if you can't see where I have always remained in the general discussion with terminology such as
'The boundaries on the service animal..., 'We are also attempting to "protect" and delineate the differences between...','This dog also meets all requirements as defined for a therapy dog...', etc.
I hope we're both on the same page now.
The law is clear. This dog is not a service dog. There can be no argument on this point since the DOJ has already ruled that a dog working with a therapist to treat children with mental illness is not a service dog because it is not trained to work for a specific individual.
Let's focus on just that one point.
Again, the number for that information is 800-514-0301, an official federal government hotline to answer questions about the federal ADA law.
I'd still like your Delta number, which you did offer....
Post a Comment