ASD and service/emotional support dogs

[Innisfree]

The house rules thread on the chat board has diverged a bit into emotional support dogs, which have been on my mind anyway. I'd love some help sorting out when this might be a good idea to pursue.

 

Dd12 loves, loves, loves her dog. He satisfies major sensory and emotional needs. She spends hours each day cuddling, walking and training him. She can handle tough conversations in therapy if he is there, but without him storms out of the room.

 

She also cannot bear to be away from him for more than about six hours. Our ability to do day trips, vacations, etc is limited, because she needs to get back to the dog or have him along.

 

Would you see this as a problem: dd is overly dependent on the dog, must wean her off of that?

 

Or would you see it as an opportunity: dd can't cope with these things, but if the dog is properly trained for public access, she can manage so much more?

 

Fwiw, her diagnosing neuropsych recommended a service dog, and her dog is bright, trainable and completely safe around everyone. He has done well in obedience classes, and I take training seriously. We would not impose a poorly-trained dog on the public.

 

I'm having trouble with the question of whether the dog-dependence is a problem or a solution. Dd is typically fine in low-stress, around-town situations, but has trouble with doctor's appointments, classes with other kids or in new environments, anything that causes stress.

[Innisfree]

Btw, this is kind of a side rant: the legal line between service dogs (must be trained to do some defined "work" for their owner) and emotional support dogs (provide emotional support, not trained for "work") bugs the heck out of me.

 

Emotional support dogs do not have the same legal right to public access that service dogs have.

 

But dd's very legitimate disability requires emotional support, not physical. We could certainly come up with some kind of task the dog could do to meet the service dog definition, but it would be a work-around. His presence is enough to help her. It just chaps my hide that an emotional need for support does not get the same respect as a physical need for support.

 

I think a more sensible legal line would be proving that a dog is suitably trained for public access.

 

But that's a side issue here. :-)

[Crimson Wife]

I am fine with specially trained autism service dogs. Autism is a serious neurological disability and presumably your child has been formally diagnosed with it by a developmental pediatrician/psychiatrist/neuropsychologist/etc.

 

What bothers me is people who would not qualify as "disabled" under any kind of strict government definition abusing the unregulated status quo to bring their pets everywhere. It's like what happened with medical marijuana. Anybody could claim to have a "medical" reason for it ("anxiety" was a common one) when what they were really doing was smoking it recreationally. I'm not against the use of it as treatment for serious medical conditions like cancer or MS. But the medical exemption got totally abused to the point where the majority of people claiming it did NOT have any legitimate medical reason for the use.

[Innisfree]

I understand the possibility of abuse. I guess, personally, I'm not inclined to get into whether someone else is or is not disabled enough to qualify for a dog. I am more concerned about whether the dog is properly trained.

 

In this case, yes, we have a written report from the neuropsych recommending a service dog as a reasonable accommodation. But dd is functioning better now than she did when that was written.

 

I'm really more questioning whether, for a kid who is able to manage many daily situations without a dog, having one is over-the-top. Is the dependence something you would see as a problem, given that she can do so many things just fine without him? Or should we train him properly, assuming he can get to that level, and let her take him more places?

 

Obviously no one here knows my kid. But would you see that level of dependence as a problem or a solution? I'm not sure if it's possible to maintain a high level of public-access training without having the dog accompany us everywhere, but I'm inclined to doubt it.

[Pawz4me]

Too many people have abused the service/emotional dog thing and it's one of my huge pet peeves. Way too many people don't give a carp that they're harming people who legitimately need a support animal, they just want to bring Fluffy or Fido with them everywhere. Sigh.

 

I think as far as the should-you-support-it-or-discourage-it issue I'd maybe think about how much does she like dogs in general? Is it just that one dog or does she have a real affinity for any/all dogs? If it's just this one dog I'd be very concerned about how she'll handle it when he passes and weaning her away from some of her reliance may be the way to go (of course there will always be the pain of loss when a beloved pet dies). If she pretty much adores all dogs then I'd consider doing what's necessary for him to become an emotional support dog, with the idea that she'd always be able to find one to fill that role.

 

As far as "suitably trained for public access" -- look into the Canine Good Citizen certification. I think it would be a very good thing if that was required of emotional support dogs whose person wants/needs them out in public.

[Innisfree]

Oh, it's all dogs, though of course she loves hers most. She volunteers at the local shelter and wants an animal-related career.

 

She's done basic and advanced obedience with him already, and is currently in a Canine Good Citizen class.

[Lecka]

I would see it as a solution.

 

Just not the only solution. I wouldn't want to quit looking or quit trying or lower expectations.

 

But it sounds like a positive support. I am in favor of positive supports.

 

Honestly though -- I am just equating it to any other support.

 

There are some possible cons to supports. They can be things like: the child appears different and this may impact how other people interact with her; she may become over-reliant; she may not always have access to the support.

 

I think these are just -- the cons that come with many supports.

 

I think if a support is helping -- then it is helping.

 

If you are concerned about fading the support in the future ----- well, you are always supposed to think about that when adding a support. Maybe build in a variety of supports; maybe plan to consciously not use the support when you don't think it is really needed from early on (at times that may be lower stress, easier, shorter; etc).

 

But then -- supports are good :). Supports are flexible :).

 

I think you are right to consider the cons, and think about how to avoid them as much as possible.

 

But the main thing is just -- does it help your daughter?

 

And, what is the personal situation with your daughter?

 

What is coddling or holding someone back with one person, is totally not with another person ------ because it depends on the individual person.

 

I think I can see how it could be something that holds someone back, but for another person, it could be moving them forward, because they are two different people.

 

But I think overall you are right to have concerns, and think about how to address the concerns; but don't let that keep you from a good support for your child.

[Ravin]

The legal difference between an emotional support animal and a service dog is unambiguous, as are the differences in access. ESA's are entitled only to access in housing (can't be kept out with a no pets clause in a lease) and on an airplane.

 

Service animals have to DO something other than just be present and well behaved, and must be dogs.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Ravin

[Innisfree]

The legal difference between an emotional support animal and a service dog is unambiguous, as are the differences in access. ESA's are entitled only to access in housing (can't be kept out with a no pets clause in a lease) and on an airplane.

 

Service animals have to DO something other than just be present and well behaved, and must be dogs.

Yes, that's part of what I was trying to get across in my second post.

 

I understand the law as it exists. I just don't agree that performing "work" *should* be the defining characteristic of a service dog. I would prefer that the defining characteristic was appropriate, documented training to help a person with a legitimate, documented disability.

 

I think that the simple presence of a well-behaved dog can have a very significant effect in mitigating very real disabilities which are primarily emotional in nature. I think that limiting public access to dogs trained to help people who need some sort of "work" discriminates against equally disabled people who just need the dog, not the work.

 

The law as it currently exists encourages people to disregard it, because it does not acknowledge that emotional support dogs can be as necessary as dogs trained to do the "work" of helping with physical tasks. It also does not provide a way to prove that a dog has been suitably trained for public access.

 

But this is just my pet peeve. I'm not going to break the law. I just think it's poorly conceived and discriminatory.

 

Eta: I think we would see far fewer spurious emotional support/service dogs in public if the law required the documentation I mention above. I'm not trying to argue that all the folks trying to bring their dogs with them in public should be able to do so, just that some people who would benefit from legal service dog access are being prevented from doing so.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Innisfree

[Guest]

I understand the law as it exists. I just don't agree that performing "work" *should* be the defining characteristic of a service dog. I would prefer that the defining characteristic was appropriate, documented training to help a person with a legitimate, documented disability.

Innisfree, have you seen this? Your daughter's diagnoses are ASD and Anxiety, right?

 

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/psychiatric-service-dogs-emotional-support-animals-access-public-places-settings.html

Edited July 9, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

deleted for privacy

Edited August 11, 2017 by Guest

[Innisfree]

Yes, thanks. I'm familiar with the idea of psychiatric service dogs. But they are still required to perform work related to the disability.

 

From the page you linked:

However, these protections only apply to dogs that satisfy the ADA’s definition of “service animal.†The ADA defines a service animal as a dog that is "individually trained" to "perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.†The tasks a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability.

 

 

Now, we can certainly identify tasks we could train a dog to do which would meet that definition. For example, he could alert her to rising stress hormones before they reach a critical level. He can (on command) provide her with an excuse to leave an overwhelming situation.

 

But if the primary actual benefit of the dog is achieved *merely by having him there*, which is already helping her cope in stressful situations, then training for those tasks seems like an expensive, time-consuming waste of effort. The more important training is everything he needs to know for being in public without being disruptive.

 

I think society's best interests are served by limiting the dogs in public to those who

1. Have been thoroughly trained, and

2. Are genuinely needed to assist a person with a genuine disability.

 

I just don't see the importance of the work/task requirement, as long as the training and disability are both documented.

 

But as I say, this is just my quibble. I do think laws which exclude a part of the population who could benefit from service dog status encourage the abuse which legitimately frustrates most of us. But if we do this (far from clear) we'll do it legally.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Innisfree

[Guest]

I just don't see the importance of the work/task requirement, as long as the training and disability are both documented.

I completely agree with you on this, actually :) I think it is something those affected should lobby about.

 

But as I say, this is just my quibble. I do think laws which exclude a part of the population who could benefit from service dog status encourage the abuse which legitimately frustrates most of us. But if we do this (far from clear) we'll do it legally.

Unfortunately, cases of abuse that I have read about, many did not have a legitimate reason and were just trying to abuse the system and the fact that some people are unclear on what the law states. Service dog harnesses and "I.D.s" can be purchased online. People abuse the system, often for their own reasons, which have nothing to do with a disability.

[Crimson Wife]

 

I understand the law as it exists. I just don't agree that performing "work" *should* be the defining characteristic of a service dog. I would prefer that the defining characteristic was appropriate, documented training to help a person with a legitimate, documented disability.

 

I would agree with this, and I would support eliminating "emotional support animals" from legal protection entirely. If the animal isn't specifically trained as a service animal (and helping someone with ASD to avoid meltdowns would count as providing a service IMHO), it's just a pet and landlords should be able to ban it.

 

[Ravin]

Yes, that's part of what I was trying to get across in my second post.

 

I understand the law as it exists. I just don't agree that performing "work" *should* be the defining characteristic of a service dog. I would prefer that the defining characteristic was appropriate, documented training to help a person with a legitimate, documented disability.

 

I think that the simple presence of a well-behaved dog can have a very significant effect in mitigating very real disabilities which are primarily emotional in nature. I think that limiting public access to dogs trained to help people who need some sort of "work" discriminates against equally disabled people who just need the dog, not the work.

 

The law as it currently exists encourages people to disregard it, because it does not acknowledge that emotional support dogs can be as necessary as dogs trained to do the "work" of helping with physical tasks. It also does not provide a way to prove that a dog has been suitably trained for public access.

 

But this is just my pet peeve. I'm not going to break the law. I just think it's poorly conceived and discriminatory.

 

Eta: I think we would see far fewer spurious emotional support/service dogs in public if the law required the documentation I mention above. I'm not trying to argue that all the folks trying to bring their dogs with them in public should be able to do so, just that some people who would benefit from legal service dog access are being prevented from doing so.

Your definition would also exclude self-trained/instinct acting dogs that perform a service, such as those that sense impending seizures and warn the person. I agree that basic public behavior training should be part of it.

 

The current definiton of service animal only allows dogs. Which means that monkeys trained to assist quadruplegic individuals and miniature horses trained to assist the blind are excluded, among others.

[Guest]

The current definiton of service animal only allows dogs. Which means that monkeys trained to assist quadruplegic individuals and miniature horses trained to assist the blind are excluded, among others.

From the ADA website:

 

"But there is a possible exception for miniature horses. An entity shall provide access, or shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. But there are additional assessment factors for miniature horses. To determine whether to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, the entity must consider: the type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features; whether the individual has sufficient control of the miniature horse; whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and whether the miniature horse's presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation."

 

http://adata.org/publication/disability-law-handbook

[Innisfree]

Your definition would also exclude self-trained/instinct acting dogs that perform a service, such as those that sense impending seizures and warn the person. I agree that basic public behavior training should be part of it.

 

.

 

I'd be happy to extend my definition to include those dogs, so long as their performance can be documented. :-)

 

Monkeys? Horses? Eh, not my soapbox issue/circus, but whoever wants to can argue the case.

[Guest]

I would agree with this, and I would support eliminating "emotional support animals" from legal protection entirely. If the animal isn't specifically trained as a service animal (and helping someone with ASD to avoid meltdowns would count as providing a service IMHO), it's just a pet and landlords should be able to ban it.

 

This is rather harsh! There are elderly people out there, sometimes abandoned by the very children they raised, for which this may be their only emotional support in life! If they follow guidelines of cleanliness and appropriate behavior, you would take that away from them? Wow!

[Crimson Wife]

This is rather harsh! There are elderly people out there, sometimes abandoned by the very children they raised, for which this may be their only emotional support in life! If they follow guidelines of cleanliness and appropriate behavior, you would take that away from them? Wow!

 

Being old is not a disability in and of itself. Neither is loneliness.

 

People who want to live with pets should find a pet-friendly landlord/lady NOT abuse exemptions for service animals.

 

[Guest]

Being old is not a disability in and of itself. Neither is loneliness.

 

People who want to live with pets should find a pet-friendly landlord/lady NOT abuse exemptions for service animals.

 

I don't know if this is happening but what I do know is that locally there are very few rental buildings, most home-owner landlords refuse pets, and people are left with very few options when it comes to owning a pet. I was not talking about abusing the system. I was talking about some leniency from the law in certain cases, not for public places, but where someone lives and pays rent for.

 

ETA: You specifically spoke about landlords.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

I won't even touch how much it costs to train a service dog and the long waiting lists. Locally, there's about a two year wait for an autism dog (from what I remember) and it's for moderate to severe kids up to the age of 10. At least to my recollection from one of the places that I remember looking at. There are veterans with PTSD waiting on waiting lists in the US and here. Not to mention abused women, etc.

[ealp2009]

I don't know if this is happening but what I do know is that locally there are very few rental buildings, most home-owner landlords refuse pets, and people are left with very few options when it comes to owning a pet. I was not talking about abusing the system. I was talking about some leniency from the law in certain cases, not for public places, but where someone lives and pays rent for.

 

ETA: You specifically spoke about landlords.

Although I haven't met anyone personally who does this, when ever I see questions about pet friendly landlord on a local forum the most frequent advice is call it an emotional support animal and the landlord has to accept it and can't charge a pet deposit. It makes me really sad for people with actual disabilities who need their service animals.

 

As far as the dog, I would be concerned about her coping with its passing, but if another dog would be equally as effective in the future it seems like it would beneficial.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited July 10, 2017 by ealp2009

[Guest]

deleted for privacy 

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by Guest

[Pen]

I won't even touch how much it costs to train a service dog and the long waiting lists. Locally, there's about a two year wait for an autism dog (from what I remember) and it's for moderate to severe kids up to the age of 10. At least to my recollection from one of the places that I remember looking at. There are veterans with PTSD waiting on waiting lists in the US and here. Not to mention abused women, etc.

 

 

 I didn't realize how great the need is! What are the training needs for autism and ptsd service dogs, generally?

 

Our dog, who is still intact, is the son of 2 dogs who were owner trained as service dogs by a husband and wife who both had disabilities including PTSD from military service.  Our dog was "started" on learning to follow his parents into being a replacement sd for when that was needed, but a different set of his siblings were the chosen replacement pair.  All the puppies apparently had good temperament, so the choice was made on size and appearance basis and who had shown signs of natural "alerting" to wife's need to take medicine.

 

I keep wondering if a suitable female could be found for our dog  to mate with (not so easy probably to find that), or even if some sperm of his was frozen in wait for finding a suitable female, whether it would make an excellent next generation of sd's for people needing them.  And for us too since I'd love to have offspring of this dog.  Not sure if the training and socialization of puppies for that would be something that ds and I could do. But it is sort of an appealing idea.

[Guest]

deleted for privacy

Edited August 11, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

deleted for privacy 

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Pen, were you able to find out more about the situation in your state? I was just wondering in case I did not understand fully what you were asking! I am wondering if you were thinking that we are considering breeding our girl. We were originally looking for a male, actually. I was looking for a puppy with good breeding. That was my main goal! It appeared that I was always missing the male puppies though, which is why we went with a female. I am not qualified to train a licensed service dog nor was it ever something that was on my mind. With everything I am dealing with I wouldn't have the time or energy anyway. Our girl is housebroken (with rare accidents now) and knows a few basic commands. I work with her when I have time but she will be mostly a pet (my 8 yr old's pet ), an emotional support dog to some degree, and will be going with us to outdoor places where dogs are allowed. Just wanted to clarify that!

[Pen]

Pen, were you able to find out more about the situation in your state? I was just wondering in case I did not understand fully what you were asking! I am wondering if you were thinking that we are considering breeding our girl. We were originally looking for a male, actually. I was looking for a puppy with good breeding. That was my main goal! It appeared that I was always missing the male puppies though, which is why we went with a female. I am not qualified to train a licensed service dog nor was it ever something that was on my mind. With everything I am dealing with I wouldn't have the time or energy anyway. Our girl is housebroken (with rare accidents now) and knows a few basic commands. I work with her when I have time but she will be mostly a pet (my 8 yr old's pet ), an emotional support dog to some degree, and will be going with us to outdoor places where dogs are allowed. Just wanted to clarify that!

 

 

Only just realized there was a question addressed to me.

 

I was thinking my ds might find raising and training dogs an interesting path that I might be able to help with.  

 

 

 

My mom reminded me about a program on This American Life where someone who had a great very friendly sweet bull cloned it to have another just like it. But even though bull2 was a twin to bull1, bull2 was mean and injured the owner.  So there'd be no guarantee that a puppy sired by our dog would be like him.

[Guest]

My mom reminded me about a program on This American Life where someone who had a great very friendly sweet bull cloned it to have another just like it. But even though bull2 was a twin to bull1, bull2 was mean and injured the owner.

 

Which is why it is unwise to mess with God's creations.

[Guest]

I found the story here, with some very interesting comments/ observations by Temple Grandin, included.

 

http://musingsofaspiritualtraveler.com/2013/04/30/reflections-a-touching-story-about-the-validity-of-our-worldview/

 

ETA: Edited to correct the link. Link is just an FYI for anyone interested. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by Guest

[Pen]

Yes. That is the bull I meant!

 

And it is true that even cloning a dog is not going to get the same dog back.  OTOH, our dog apparently looks almost identical to and has very similar behavior to his dog sire.  (I did not meet the sire, but that is what I have been told.)

 

I also had a Rottweiler at one point who had an extremely sweet and loving canine mother and who turned out to be the most sweet dog I have ever had... far outdoing the golden retrievers, spaniels and Labs for sweet  temperament.  But I think that was maybe part genetic, part that she learned from her own canine mother, and part that she was handled a lot in a good way by humans of various ages from birth on.  But at least part of it was breeding for temperament.

[Guest]

deleted for privacy

Edited August 11, 2017 by Guest