I don’t think @momofwildchild is trying to judge any particular person’s mental health. I think she’s stating an easy assumption…and that is that many/most “anxious types” can go to a store or a restaurant without needing a ESA.
I’m not even sure that a therapist can really evaluate. After all, a T is mostly only going by what a person SAYS s/he is feeling.
@emilybee Are you saying that prior to your mom having a ESA, she was unable to leave the house? Was she housebound?
I have a BIL who is essentially housebound due to extreme anxiety, so I know that such extreme situations exist.
…But legal experts are the ones who draft guidelines and policies for businesses based on what therapists recommend by weighing costs and benefits of potential outcomes. The pendulum has swung too far to the “I can bring any pet I want anywhere I want, and you have no right to ask me any questions” territory.
As was noted above, it isn’t very hard to get one of these emotional support animal permissions. I’m glad it all worked out for your mother. I’m sure bringing doggie to the grocery store and restaurants is excellent therapy.
I’m a big supporter of Canine Companions for Independence. They actually had an online petition to stop “Service Dog Fraud”. When dogs or other animals are presented as a service or support animal and behave badly, it impacts those individuals with a true disability who wish to bring their dog to the supermarket - to help them get items from the shelves, to open doors, to assist them. http://www.cci.org/site/?c=cdKGIRNqEmG&b=9194893
I know what it’s like to have anxiety and I am currently seeing a therapist because of anxiety. My dogs are my comfort at home - but not in a million years would I classify them as therapy dogs, or try to.
“Are you saying that prior to your mom having a ESA, she was unable to leave the house? Was she housebound?”
No, she wasn’t housebound. And she doesn’t bring her dog everywhere she goes, either. It depends on the situation. I doubt very much she has ever brought the dog into the market with her -unless it’s extremely hot and unsafe to leave dog in the car. Since she lives in Florida this can happen a lot - but she generally leaves the dog home when she is running errands. That being said, if she has to bring the dog with her she avails herself of the right she has to bring the dog into establishments.
MoWC is perfectly capable of bringing suit challenging the ESA laws but she is not at all qualified to judge whether having an ESA is the appropriate therapy for anyone - unless she is a psychologist/psychiatrist and a lawyer. But I’m thinking she is not.
My father was a lawyer and this reminds me of the case their condo associate chose to fight when an owner sued because the condo wouldn’t let a baby in a diaper in the pool. He told the condo they would lose - as it’s discriminatory - but they refused to listen. Well, naturally they lost and it cost the HOA a mighty big bundle.
I’d have no problem with ESA’s if the requirements for certification were similar to those required for a handicapped parking tag and the dogs were required to be trained. The fact that anyone can send away for a kit on the internet is ridiculous. I was part of a committee looking at dog regulations for my town and one of the things we heard about repeatedly was people with ESA’s who bullied business owners into allowing them to have their dog wherever they wanted, despite the fact that the law does not support it. When the dog owner pushed the issue most business owners would cave, thinking that if they were wrong and the law required them to admit emotional support animals they’d be in big trouble if they didn’t comply. One woman insisted on exercising her dog by allowing him to run behind her car in the cemetery even though the cemetery prohibits dogs. The dog would poop on and around graves, making a lovely mess for people visiting their loved ones.
And yet the HOA would now win the ‘Swim Diaper’ fight as there are regulations banning them from many public pools (on all cruise ships). Who were they ‘discriminating’ against? The rule was ‘no diapers in the pool.’ NO person, black/white, male/female, 2 years old/88 years old could wear a diaper in the pool. Where is the discrimination?
People really misunderstand the ADA and other laws. Public businesses have to make accommodations to allow people with disabilities access and accommodations so they can participate in ‘life activities.’ It doesn’t mean they can do anything they want, claim any accommodation they want. A blind person doesn’t get to be a bus driver, and there is no accommodation that can be made to help him pass the driving test, but Greyhound is not in violation of the ADA by not hiring blind drivers. On the other hand, if there is an accommodation that can help the blind person be a teacher, or teachers aide or lawyer, the employer has to provide that accommodation. If a person needs the ESA, the hotel can accommodate them by having one room that is for that person. It might not be the room the person wants, but the business has accommodated the customer. As to not allowing the dog in a grocery store, the store could provide certain hours when dogs are allowed and other customers know when the dogs will be there, the store could provide a shopping service and deliver the groceries, the store can impose other requirements. The disabled person does not get to set the accommodations and the store does not have to accept. Some cities have pit bull restrictions, and the ESA certificate does not override that law, and the store owner doesn’t have to let the illegal dog in.
I see a big show down coming because of these ESA animals. They are not allowed everywhere and yes, I would absolutely object to someone sitting next to me at a Broadway show with a dog on her lap because she likes to stroke the dog while she watches the show, or at a five star restaurant while I’m drinking my $100 glass of wine and eating my steak that I’ve paid a month’s salary for, or even while I’m at the public library. There was a piece on it on 20/20, or some show like that. Most people admitted they could function just fine without the animal, they just wanted to bring the dog or cat along, and it was cheaper on airplanes to claim they are service dogs than to pay the $75-200 fee. Does Paris Hilton go out on Saturday nights without her purse dog? Of course she does. Does Johnny Depp need his dogs with him on location in Australia? Not, and he broke the law by smuggling them in.
There is a big difference from claiming you LIKE to have your dog along and it makes you happy than to claim you NEED the dog to participate in life activities like riding on a bus or crossing the street or if the service animal can detect a diabetic coma and really save your life. Most people have dogs and cats because they like them and the animals bring them peace and joy. Those people could function just fine without pets but wouldn’t be as happy. They should absolutely have their pets, but they should arrange their lives around the pet, not expect everyone to scramble to meet their desire to have the pet with them. Go to the drive thru window at the bank, shop at the farmer’s market that allows dogs, walk in a dog park that allows them.
What twoinanddone said. There is mental illness and there is legal disability. The latter, and not the former, gives the disabled people special status under the ADA , and judges make that determination.
I know someone who has an ESA and I knew him before they had ESA’s. He did not go anywhere without the dog. So he and his wife didn’t travel, didn’t go to restaurants, the movies. He was able to work because he worked for himself and could bring the dog.
I know that things are much better for his wife now that they are able to bring their dog. It gave them back a life, they can travel and do things they hadn’t done in years. The people I know are lovely people and I know that when they first got the dog designated as a ESA, they would call the restaurant ahead and explain the situation. I don’t think they go many new places as he likes to go to places that are familiar but I am sure that they would be sensitive to other people’s needs as that’s the kind of people they are.
I also wonder if the wife was able to get her husband to go on medication for his problems also as he is much better than he used to be. The dog is small and pretty mellow so that helps. It’s not a yapper.
Now while I love my mil’s yorkie, she’s a bit of a brat and a yapper. She would not be fun to take into restaurants and movies.
“The rule was ‘no diapers in the pool.’ NO person, black/white, male/female, 2 years old/88 years old could wear a diaper in the pool. Where is the discrimination?”
No, the “rule” was no children in diapers, not an 88 year old - especially in Florida in a “retirement” community. The condo association lost in court as was predicted. Condo’s think they can do a lot of things they can’t do legally. But the people who sit on the condo boards always think they can. Then they get sued and they lose - costing the association (condo owners) boatloads of money.
“And yet the HOA would now win the ‘Swim Diaper’ fight as there are regulations banning them from many public pools (on all cruise ships)”
I have no idea what laws the cruise ships operate under so I can’t speak to that and also “swim diapers” aren’t regular diapers and they aren’t Depends, either.
<<<<
I know someone who has an ESA and I knew him before they had ESA’s. He did not go anywhere without the dog. So he and his wife didn’t travel, didn’t go to restaurants, the movies. He was able to work because he worked for himself and could bring the dog.
<<<<
Makes me wonder how he and his wife every got together? DId they not date? Was it a long distance relationship? Was he always like that? Did he bring his dog along with him on dates? How does he transition from dog to dog when one dies?
Since MOST pets have a rather short lifespan, how are these people going to cope when their ESA’s die?
As @twoinanddone said, there is a big difference between NEEDING to have an emotional support animal and WANTING to have little fido with you when you are out and about, shopping or eating, (which, as I will explain momentarily, is NOT protected under the ADA). And yes, there is a ridiculous amount of abuse of this. Pay a few bucks, fill out a form on line, supposedly then meet criteria for a documented DSM disability diagnosis, talk once to a “certified psychotherapist” (who has to claim in their documentation that the applicant is “under their care”-- and talking to them once briefly over the phone is a questionable definition of that guideline) and poof, you can get a letter saying that you NEED this animal in order to live in your home or travel on a plane. Complete abuse. And baloney. If that person is not so debilitatingly disabled by their MH disorder that they don’t need to be in active therapy, they don’t need, and shouldn’t get, an ESA letter.
But since so many people confuse a service animal with an ESA, they don’t prevent them from entering. Emilybee’s mom is not automatically permitted to take her dog into restaurants or stores. They can say no, and has has to comply. Therapy dogs are a whole other animal (pun intended). They are trained to be taken into hospitals or nursing homes, etc to provide comfort and affection. They are not typically assistance or service dogs. S
you are** not **correct. MOWC I believe cited the legal guidelines, and she is correct on this one.
@Emilybee, I think people are jumping into your cornflakes because you first said in post #27 that she got the certification “so she could have the dog in her condo”. That does, sound like a misuse of the certification. Did she have the dog before you lost your dad, and was it allowed in the condo where she lived, or did she fall apart completely after your dad’s death (my dad did after my mom’s death) and she was able to function only after getting a dog, and then wanted to relocate to a condo where the dog would not be permitted. These are important distinctions.
I have written on of these letters to an airlines on behalf of a client only once. This is a person with an anxiety disorder, and who also happens to have a congenital disorder causing her to slowly lose her vision. She can still see, at present, but has a lot of visual challenges. It got to the point that if she had to travel (fly) alone, she became incapacitatingly anxious and had panic attacks because of her visual problems. We had long conversations about her worsening vision, her increasing anxiety and the benefit of her small, well behaved dog (who happened to have been a show dog, so was well trained to be compliant) in helping her to manage her anxiety if she had to travel alone. This is an example of the appropriate use of the letter, and I was willing to write it. This was not an individual I’d only talk to for a few moments on the phone. This was someone I knew well who had been doing all the right things to manage her anxiety and try to maintain her independence in the face of her progressive vision loss. This is an appropriate use of the ESA letter.
“I think people are jumping into your cornflakes because you first said in post #27 that she got the certification “so she could have the dog in her condo”. That does, sound like a misuse of the certification. Did she have the dog before you lost your dad, and was it allowed in the condo where she lived, or did she fall apart completely after your dad’s death (my dad did after my mom’s death) and she was able to function only after getting a dog, and then wanted to relocate to a condo where the dog would not be permitted. These are important distinctions.”
Well yes she had to get her dog certified as an ESA because her condo didn’t permit dogs without one. If she lived in a place where dogs were allowed she wouldn’t have needed to get that.
She had her first dog for 14 years before my dad died . It was allowed in the condo because she needed the dog for emotional support and had the requisite papers from her therapist (which have to be renewed every year.) Having a dog now is especially important to her since my dad got sick (about 2 years ago and he died in April.) My sister and I thank god she has her dog. In fact, I think more elderly people should have a companion animal - not only for their mental heath but just getting out and walking a dog is good for their physical health, too.
I really couldn’t care less if people get their panties in a twist over this. It’s their problem, not mine.
M2CK, no he wasn’t always like that. He was quirky, things gradually got worse.
He has had more than one ESA. The same breed, when his last dog passed, his wife arranged for a new dog even before the dog died. From what I heard, he accepted the new dog right away.
I can’t say I understand it. I know that since his dog got the ESA designation, life has been much easier for the family.
Thanks for the response @emilybee, but I don’t think you answered all of my questions. How long did she live in this condo? When did they impose the “no dogs” rule? Did she have the dog before your dad died recently (sorry for your loss, and if the first one was 14 it seems so). When did the dog suddenly become and ESA? When the condo raised a fuss? Or did she move to a new condo after he died and the new condo had the “no dog” rule. Can you clarify? Agreed that many elderly can benefit from a dog for exercise and companionship, but that doesn’t meet the requisite criteria to be considered an ESA. And I hope she is prepared when a store or restaurant or supermarket or what have you tells her she can’t bring the dog in. because they are entitled to do so.
I have a feeling that some individuals abuse the ESA system not because they want to save money, but simply because they have no alternatives for getting what they want. And even though these are ‘wants’, not ‘needs’, it would make a much better sense to have some choices and pay for them. For example, some hotels are dog friendly, and some are not. When we traveled with the dog by car, we chose the former, paid some extra, and everyone was happy. Similarly, some parks allow dogs, some don’t, and some do only during certain hours (usually early in the morning). I would be happy to pay for the privilege to travel together with my dog by air and pay for his ticket in the main cabin, but this is not allowed. Why not to have a small number of designated flights where dogs are allowed in the cabin without any ESA certificate? Or a small number of restaurants allowing dogs inside? I am sure that there would be enough customers without dogs who would not care, or perhaps even find this attractive or entertaining. And the others would still have many choices that are not animal-friendly.
My mil has a dog that she is very attached to. That dog is very important to her and it has made a big difference in her mental health. It gives her something to focus her energies to. She had another dog but at that time she was in an apartment complex that accepted dogs. Now she is in a house.
Although my mil is very attached to her dog, it is nothing like the other person I talked about above. Night and day actually.
Also this person with an ESA has a small well behaved dog and mil has an ill behaved yorkie that yaps all the time.