The Service Dog Banned From School

St. Lucie teacher has students vote on whether 5-year-old can stay in class : St. Lucie County : TCPalm

2008-06-10T13:49:00.000-06:00

....what sane person would do this to any child, let alone someone who is supposed to have had the training given teachers of any grade, let alone kindergarten? Children are too often cruel to each other naturally, and a properly trained teacher knows this, and part of their job is to begin the process of teaching the students to care about others....guess this teacher was absent the day this was taught....

St. Lucie teacher has students vote on whether 5-year-old can stay in class : St. Lucie County : TCPalm

By Colleen Wixon (Contact)Originally published 01:50 p.m., May 23, 2008Updated 04:30 p.m., May 23, 2008

5-year-old Alex Barton's teacher made him stand in front of his kindergarten class and had his fellow students say what they didn't like about him and then vote whether he should remain in the class.

PORT ST. LUCIE — Melissa Barton said she is considering legal action after her son's kindergarten teacher led his classmates to vote him out of class.
After each classmate was allowed to say what they didn't like about Barton's 5-year-old son, Alex, his Morningside Elementary teacher said they were going to take a vote, Barton said.
By a 14 to 2 margin, the class voted him out of the class.
Barton said her son is in the process of being diagnosed with Aspberger's, a type of high-functioning autism. Alex began the testing process in February for an official diagnosis under the suggestion of Morningside Principal Marsha Cully.
Alex has had disciplinary issues because of his disabilities, Barton said. The school and district has met with Barton and her son to create an individual education plan, she said. His teacher, Wendy Portillo, has attended these meetings, she said.
Barton said after the vote, Alex's teacher asked him how he felt.
"He said, 'I feel sad,'" she said.
Alex left the classroom and spent the rest of the day in the nurse's office, she said.
Barton said when she came to pick up her son at the school on Wednesday, he was leaving the nurse's office.
"He was shaken up," she said. Barton said the nurse told her to talk with the child's teacher, who told her what happened.
Alex hasn't been back to school since then, and Barton said he won't be returning. He starts screaming when she brings him with her to drop off his sibling at school.
Thursday night, his mother heard him saying "I'm not special."
Barton said Alex is reliving the incident.
They said he was "disgusting" and "annoying," Barton said.
"He was incredibly upset," Barton said. "The only friend he has ever made in his life was forced to do this."
The child's mother filed a complaint with the school resource officer, who investigated the matter, said Port St. Lucie spokeswoman Michelle Steele said. But the state attorney's office concluded the matter did not meet the criteria for emotional child abuse, so no criminal charges will be filed, Steele said. Port St. Lucie Police is no longer investigating, but is documenting the complaint, she said.
Steele said the teacher confirmed the incident did occur.
St. Lucie School's spokeswoman Janice Karst said the district is investigating the incident, but could not make any further comment.
Vern Melvin, Department of Children and Families circuit administrator, confirmed the agency is investigating an allegation of abuse at Morningside, but said he could not elaborate.

Fredericksburg.com - Gov. Kaine signs bill allowing service dogs into state schools

2008-05-07T11:44:00.000-06:00

Fredericksburg.com - Gov. Kaine signs bill allowing service dogs into state schools

....*sigh*....this shouldn't have been necessary! But the law treats PWD kids like 3rd class citizens even more than adults. What I wonder about this case is-why two SDs for the kid?
################################################################
Gov. Kaine signs bill allowing service dogs into state schools

Kaine signs service-dog bill
By Chelyen Davis
Date published: 5/7/2008

RICHMOND--With two service dogs at his side, Gov. Tim Kaine yesterday ceremonially signed a bill that will require schools to allow children who need such dogs to bring the animals to school.
The bill, sponsored by Del. Mark Cole, R-Spotsylvania, clarifies that public schools are "public entities," or places of public accommodation, which must comply with all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Virginians With Disabilities Act. School officials had argued that schools shouldn't be considered public entities under the ADA.
The law will take effect July 1.
It was prompted by the case of 10-year-old Matt Hooios, a Stafford resident who suffers from X-linked hydrocephalus and who has a service dog. But Stafford school officials won't let Matt take the dog to Margaret Brent Elementary School with him. So Matt's parents, frustrated with the school system's refusal to allow their son a tool they believe helps him learn and be more independent, turned to Cole for help.
Stafford school officials said some schools allow service dogs on a case-by-case basis.
The Hooios family was among several families to attend the ceremonial bill-signing yesterday. Kaine also ceremonially signed a related bill from Del. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, that clarifies that trainers of service dogs can accompany those dogs into public buildings.
"I was very interested to hear Matt's story," Kaine told Matt's parents, Sharon and Tom Hooios. "It's really clear that when Congress passed the law, that they intended it to apply to public bodies."
Kaine said that the state's position on ADA law is that "we're not going to try to shirk our responsibility" and that localities should be complying with the law as well.
"It's not neat to have a bad experience, but it's neat to take it and make something good out of it," Kaine said.
But the Hooioses aren't convinced their battle is over. They say that just last week, the school system again denied their appeal to allow Calder to go to school with Matt. The Hooioses said they were notified a day before their regular meeting with school officials to go over Matt's IEP (Individual Education Plan) that their request was being denied. Wanting more time to consult a lawyer, the Hooioses didn't attend the IEP meeting.
The law doesn't take effect until July 1, so the school isn't doing anything it hasn't done before.
Tom Hooios said yesterday that he understands the state Department of Education plans to issue guidelines on the new law for school districts. He hopes that will help prompt Stafford schools to comply.
"The Virginians With Disabilities Act has been around for 23 years. It's time for the school system to pay attention to it and obey it," Hooios said.
Chelyen Davis: 804/782-9362Email: cdavis@freelancestar.com
Date published: 5/7

Fredericksburg.com - Disability bill advances in the Virginia Senate

2008-02-23T15:41:00.000-06:00

Fredericksburg.com - Disability bill advances in the Virginia Senate

Disability bill advances in the Virginia Senate

February 23, 2008 12:16 am

By CHELYEN DAVIS

RICHMOND--

Disabled children would be able to take service dogs to school under a bill passed by a Senate committee yesterday.

The bill requires schools to comply with provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The measure, sponsored by Del. Mark Cole, R-Spotsylvania, defines schools as public entities, which means they have to abide by the ADA, including allowing service dogs.

The bill was inspired by Matt Hooios, a 10-year-old Stafford County child disabled by x-linked hydrocephalus. Matt has a service dog, a golden retriever and Labrador mix named Calder. But he is not allowed to take Calder to school with him at Margaret Brent Elementary School.

Schools in Virginia do not consider themselves to be public entities, which by definition must comply with all ADA requirements. The ADA already requires public entities to allow service dogs. Without being a public entity, schools can bar service dogs from schools--in practice, schools allow some dogs on a case-by-case basis.

When Cole's bill first came up in the House earlier this session, Stafford school spokeswoman Valerie Cottongim said principals of schools decide whether to allow service dogs, although Matt's parents, Tom and Sharon Hooios, say their experience suggests that decision is made at a higher administrative level.

Stafford school officials have told the Hooioses that Calder isn't necessary to Matt's education and therefore not allowed. The Hooioses disagree. They say the dog makes Matt more independent, and that in itself helps him learn.

Frustrated with the school system's refusal to acknowledge Calder as an educational aid to Matt, and with the very fact that they had to ask permission for something they consider their son's right under the law, the Hooioses decided to take their problem to Cole.

Cole said he spoke to lawyers about the "public entities" distinction, and was told "that's really legal fiction, and if the school were challenged in court they would lose a costly lawsuit."

Cole's bill already passed the House of Delegates unanimously. It drew no "nay" votes in the Senate Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee yesterday, although an attorney for the Virginia School Boards Association spoke in opposition to it.

Kathleen Mehfoud said schools should not be considered the same as other buildings to which the public has access, and that Cole's bill could force schools to make facilities, like their cafeterias and restrooms, open to all.

She also warned senators that Cole's bill could cost schools a great deal of money, because if a child in class with a child who had a service dog was allergic to dogs, the school would be required to create separate classes for both of them.

"There's concern it may be disruptive to the class. The dog will have to be tended to, may be going in and out of the class," Mehfoud said. "Permitting a service dog to school may conflict with the needs of other kids with disabilities, who have a very common disability, allergies to dogs. "Public schools are not places of public accommodation if you pass this bill you need to be concerned about what will happen to the rights of others with disabilities to have allergies to dogs."

Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Westmoreland, took umbrage at Mehfoud's comments.

"If public schools are not places of public accommodation, they should be. The inconveniences pale in comparison to the inconveniences these children have to go through every day," Stuart said. "It is really incumbent on us to recognize how difficult it is for these children in their daily lives, and to suggest mere inconvenience to others is unreasonable."

The committee passed the bill unanimously, and so it's likely to meet little resistance on the Senate floor next week. After that it will go to the governor; a representative of the Virginia Board for People with Disabilities said Gov. Tim Kaine supports the bill.

The Hooioses, with Matt and Calder, attended the committee hearing yesterday morning. They said they were pleased with the outcome, and just want schools to not discriminate against their child or any disabled child.

They said Mehfoud's argument about a service dog disadvantaging children with allergies was an unfair hypothetical.

"Everybody has a right to an equal education," said Tom Hooios. "You can't take away from my son's education because someone else has an allergy."

Chelyen Davis: 804/782-9362

Email: cdavis@freelancestar.com

2007-12-12T16:21:00.000-06:00

The end of the line....?

I have not posted here for too long, being busy with life, and Aric in particular. A bare bones update, at least, is in order....

* Aric finished out the 2006-2007 school year at St.Marys High, but under serious stress. The situation had deteriorated to the point that he was in poor health, mentally and physically, and a completely different person than the boy who had so the grade school, the one who walked through the high school doors with such hope. Aric had become tense, angry, bitter, and distrustful of nearly all the staff there at SMHS, and nothing could be done to restore the joy he had once had in school. The harassment, the lack of support, and all the rest had taken too much out of him. So we began homeschooling him last September. Keeping him home has done a great deal to restore his health and emotional balance, though not his trust. He is still very bitter and distrustful of the school, while missing very much his friends and the classes whose teachers he did like and trust. But he feels the price is too high, to try to return, and suffer through the misery again of before.

* the school had stated, many times, that they would 'help wean Aric from his pet' in every way that they could. They succeeded in completely destroying Aric's ability to use a service dog. He no longer is able to focus on the cues from his service dog, his concentration and attention is scattered, and without this, he is not able to handle an SD alone and benefit in the same way. The SD who had worked with him in school, Tagg, is now 11 years old, and too old to manage, so we had gone through a great hunt to find a suitable replacement, and were fortunate to find Diego, a young dog who seems to be as Tagg would have been at this age, with all the same talents and sensitivities. But even the best service dog is only a dog, a pet, if the owner is not able to work him. We have had to take the level of Aric's use of an SD down to that of a child, with his father and I handling Diego for him, sending Diego to him when he needs calming, etc. It is a situation of Aric functioning at a lower level than he had previously in many ways. The frightening part of it is that he is now without the assistance and protection of a service dog when he leaves the house. What we are hoping to do is rethink and retool his use of one, to still permit him to use one in his jaunts about town, without our help. But at this time, that is requiring that Diego be retrained, and to look to us for commands, and Aric as his charge, as an autism service dog for a lower functioning child does, and this has been hampered by my own health problems and disabilities. But, please God, it will be solved.

But he will never again attend public school. The illigetimi have won, yet again, and the ADA disobeyed. I feel I have failed my son, and failed every other child who will come after him, who attempts to use a service dog in our area. A dangerous precedent has been set....and who will be able to overcome it?

Principal: Service dog too risky to allow - Newsday.com

2007-02-20T18:03:00.000-06:00

...now we live in a country that permits mere school principals to thumb their noses at Federal and state law. I can't stand this- how in the name of God can this be happening??

Principal: Service dog too risky to allow - Newsday.com

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Principal: Service dog too risky to allow

BY CARL MACGOWANcarl.macgowan@newsday.com
February 20, 2007, 3:48 PM EST

Allowing a deaf boy to bring an assistance dog to school would have been "Russian roulette," a high school principal said Tuesday.Testifying in federal court in Central Islip, W. Tresper Clarke High School principal Timothy Voels said he believed it was risky to let John Cave Jr. bring his dog, Simba, to school without knowing how the animal would affect other students and staff.Admitting that the East Meadow School District does not have a policy regarding service dogs, Voels rejected a suggestion by the boy's attorney that the school should have let the dog attend class with John."I suppose it would be a bit like Russian roulette," he said.A teacher previously testified that he is allergic to dogs and may be affected by Simba's presence in his class. A parent testified she was concerned her daughter would become sick from contact with the dog.John and his parents, John and Nancy Cave of Westbury, are suing the district for $150 million. As part of the suit, they are seeking an injunction forcing the district to let Simba come to school.Voels said he decided not to allow the dog into school after consulting with Deputy Superintendent Leon Campo. District officials have said the dog is not allowed because of health and safety concerns.Having John and teachers and students with dog allergies switch classes to avoid one another would be a scheduling nightmare, Voels said."There would have to be an endless number of changes that would have to take place," he said.Testimony is to continue Thursday, when District Judge Arthur Spatt hopes to rule on the injunction.

Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

Judge: Service dog stance ‘not entirely clear’ - Newsday.com

2007-02-12T22:26:00.000-06:00

Good Lord! How does anyone have a chance at attending school with an SD if a federal judge is not able to apply the ADA to something as obvious as this case is?!?

Judge: Service dog stance ‘not entirely clear’ - Newsday.com

Judge: Service dog stance ‘not entirely clear’
BY CARL MACGOWANcarl.macgowan@newsday.com
February 12, 2007, 9:50 PM EST

After a court hearing marked by opposing lawyers' name-calling and sarcasm, a federal judge Monday said he needs more time to decide whether a deaf student's service dog must be allowed into a Westbury high school.At a two-hour hearing in U.S. District Court in Central Islip, the attorney for the East Meadow School District said John Cave Jr.'s intended use of the dog was "a detriment to the child" and called John and Nancy Cave, the ninth-grader's parents, "press hogs."School-district attorney Steven Schlesinger told Judge Arthur D. Spatt that other students at W. Tresper Clarke High School in Westbury might use spitballs or high-pitched whistles to distract Simba, a 2-year-old Labrador retriever. "It will take no time at all for the other kids to figure out how to drive the dog crazy," Schlesinger said.Paul Margiotta, the attorney for the Caves and their son, 14, said the federal Americans with Disabilities Act requires the district to allow Simba in the school.Margiotta noted that the dog is trained to ignore distractions. He turned sarcastic as he refuted Schlesinger's charges."What I hear is the obnoxiousness of a school district that thinks they know what's best for the child," Margiotta said in a mocking tone. "What the district is asking you to do is ignore the law and the legislature because they don't like it."The Caves were seeking an injunction from Spatt ordering the district to let John bring Simba to school. The Caves filed the federal lawsuit against the district last week, seeking $150 million in damages. They also have filed a notice of claim in State Supreme Court in Nassau County.The Caves have argued in the months-long dispute that John, who can hear only with cochlear implants, needs the service dog for his safety and because Simba's effectiveness as a service dog is impaired if their son spends too much time away from him. The district says John does well in school without the dog and contends that Simba would be a health and safety hazard to other students and staff.Spatt was skeptical of arguments on both sides, at one point questioning Schlesinger's claim that students may be allergic to Simba. "People have allergies to pets?" Spatt said.Spatt ordered the two sides back to court Wednesday."This is a not entirely clear situation," the judge said.

Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

Family files $150M lawsuit against school that banned dog - Newsday.com

2007-02-08T23:48:00.000-06:00

....good for them!!! I wish we could do this- what has happened to this dog has happened to Tagg and Aric. The constant interference of the para has ruined Aric's ability to use his service dog effectivly, and now we have been having to retrain him in how to work with Tagg...not an easy thing to do with anyone on the autistic spectrum.

Family files $150M lawsuit against school that banned dog - Newsday.com

Family files $150M lawsuit against school that banned dog
CARL MACGOWANNewsday Staff Writer
February 8, 2007, 8:29 PM EST

The East Meadow School District Thursday was slapped with a $150 million federal discrimination lawsuit by the family of a deaf Westbury boy whose assistance dog has been barred from school.John Cave Jr. and his parents, John and Nancy Cave, filed suit in Central Islip federal court after weeks of failing to convince school officials to let the 14-year-old boy bring his dog to class. The district has refused, saying John has access to school resources without the dog, which they believe would pose a health and safety hazard to other students and staff.As part of the suit, the Caves asked Justice Arthur D. Spatt to issue an injunction ordering the district to let John bring his dog, Simba, to W. Tresper Clarke High School. A decision is expected Monday, when the parties are due in court."During the entire month of January 2007, John Cave Jr. has been repeatedly, wrongfully and illegally denied access to a public school," the suit says.Superintendent Robert Dillon said Thursday he had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment.The suit demands $50 million in damages and $100 million in punitive damages. Earlier this week, the Caves filed a notice of claim against the district in State Supreme Court in Nassau County, alleging violations of state civil rights and human rights law.Dillon said in a statement Thursday that some charges contained in the notice of claim were "completely false.""The district and its administration have always treated this student and his family with respect and have provided and will continue to provide the student with the educational services he needs," Dillon said.The federal suit accuses district officials of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by barring Simba. On several occasions, John was allowed to attend classes after Simba was taken home by John's parents.The notice of claim and the federal suit name as defendants the school district and more than a dozen district officials, including Dillon and school board members.The federal suit says Simba's effectiveness as a service dog is impaired if he spends too much time away from John, who can hear only with cochlear implants. Simba, a 2-year-old yellow Labrador retriever, became John's service dog in December after six months of training."Simba is alone six to eight hours a day and has been declining in his ability and training, and as such is in serious risk of failing to provide the services he was trained to provide," the lawsuit says.Dillon said service dogs are banned from school "to foster a safe and effective school environment."
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

Family alleges E. Meadow schools 'accosted and assaulted' deaf student - Newsday.com

2007-02-07T19:57:00.000-06:00

...it makes me sick, to see this is still going on. I can't stand seeing another kid going through what Aric has, and not be able to help...

Family alleges E. Meadow schools 'accosted and assaulted' deaf student - Newsday.com

Family alleges E. Meadow schools 'accosted and assaulted' deaf student

BY CARL MACGOWAN
Newsday Staff WriterFebruary 7, 2007, 7:47 PM EST

East Meadow school officials "accosted and assaulted" a deaf middle school student and subjected the boy to "bias, bigotry and prejudice," when he tried to bring his service dog to school last month, the boy's family says.The allegations are outlined in a notice of claim filed this week against the district in State Supreme Court in Nassau County. The notice of claim is the first step in a planned discrimination lawsuit against the district.The claim is the latest blow in the battle between the family of John Cave Jr., 14, of Westbury, and East Meadow school district officials over the boy's right to bring his assistance dog, Simba, to school. The family believes the teenager and the canine must be together at all times, even in school, so they can bond properly. The youth has attended school even as the controversy continues.East Meadow officials say Cave has access to resources at W. Tresper Clarke Middle School without the dog. East Meadow Superintendent Robert Dillon did not return a call seeking comment.The Caves' attorney, Paul Margiotta of Lindenhurst, said Cave is suffering because Simba's training is going to waste."He's being denied the use of his service dog ... which is now in danger of becoming a very expensive pet," Margiotta said.Cave suffered physical and mental distress, loss of education "and other injuries to his body, mind and spirit" when the district blocked him from bringing Simba to school, the claim says. The teen and his family "were humiliated, mocked, interfered with and ridiculed," the claim says.In the filing, the Cave family accuses district employees of stalking John, his twin sister, Jessica, and their friends. The district failed to provide John with a sign language interpreter for a biology exam, the claim says.The claim asks damages to be determined by a fact finder or jury.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

2007-01-18T07:54:00.001-06:00

....been posting in this blog for awhile, but this might make it easier! If this works, I will be able to update this much easier, and keep a better record of the situation of Aric and Tagg....

Gail and Anja,

my German Shepherd Service Dog

& Flicka the MinPin EmoSD.

DePorres Service Dog Trainers Guild

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DePorresServiceDogs

»§«.,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«

Live simply. Love generously.

Care deeply. Speak kindly.

Leave the rest to God.

2007-01-18T07:31:00.000-06:00

...this is so much the case with Aric and his service dog- the harassment continues, albeit in a more subtle form than the original "Wallace type" he recieved in grade school.

Debate continues over school's dog ban - Newsday.com

Debate continues over school's dog ban

BY JENNIFER BARRIOS AND CARL MACGOWANNewsday Staff WritersJanuary 16, 2007, 10:39 PM EST

When Mike Steubing was in school, Max was always at his side.Steubing, 18, of Levittown, has muscular dystrophy and uses a wheelchair. Max is a golden retriever -- and he does a lot more than fetch items for Steubing, whose symptoms have progressively worsened since he first joined up with the dog in sixth grade.
"He helped me with a lot of stuff," Steubing said of his faithful friend, now semi-retired at 9 years old. "When I was able to walk, he would help me get up. He'd pull me around in the wheelchair."Steubing is one of some 10,000 to 12,000 Americans who use a service dog to help in their daily lives because of a disability. He's among only a handful of people on Long Island to have used a dog in school, and among those, most have reported no problems.In Farmingdale, a blind teacher has used a guide dog in the classroom for 14 years. In Levittown, two students and a teacher have used service dogs in the last 20 years. Complaints about service dogs barred from public facilities also are unusual.But that hasn't been the case for John Cave, 14, of Westbury, who recently was barred by East Meadow School District officials from bringing his service dog to school.Steubing said he was in disbelief over Cave's case. When Steubing attended Jonas E. Salk Middle School in Levittown, the school even printed an ID card for his pooch. "Max the Dog," it read, and featured the retriever's photograph."I want to help him," Steubing said of Cave. "It just makes me so mad. I don't understand what kind of person would tell somebody they can't bring their dog to school to help him."District versus familyThe Cave case has drawn nationwide attention as the deaf boy's parents and school officials debate the provisions of disabled-rights law. Federal and state laws say public facilities must not discriminate against people using service animals. But East Meadow officials say they have the right to block the dog because of health and safety concerns, and because Cave has full access to the educational program without his dog.The debate goes on as the state Division of Human Rights investigates the case.Steubing said that having Max by his side helped him become more self-sufficient."I try to be as independent as possible. That's what Max basically did for me," he said. "I have a lot more confidence with Max."Children are far less likely to have service dogs than adults, because they must show they can handle a dog before getting one."It is certainly rare for children to receive assistance dogs," said Kristin Law, executive director of Canines for Disabled Kids, which works with the Massachusetts facility that trained John Cave's dog, Simba. "It's not something that all children can do."The number of students seeking school access for dogs is not likely to grow, Law said. "I would not anticipate that school districts are going to be barring their doors and saying, 'This will not happen,' in part because this is not going to happen in large numbers," she said.The East Meadow controversy pits a family against a school district, both equally sure the law is on their side. John Cave's mother, Nancy, says her son doesn't need the district's permission to bring Simba to W. Tresper Clarke High School.East Meadow Superintendent Robert Dillon last week said service dogs would disrupt classes, block hallways and pose a health hazard for children with allergies. Dillon said John did not need the dog to "access the district's programs."Rosa Principato, co-president of the high school's parent-teacher-student association, expressed concern for students with allergies and said the dog may pose a threat. "An animal is an animal and will attack if children are teasing him," she said. "I don't think animals should be in the school."Validity in questionAdvocates for the disabled said the district's rationale is inadequate. While federal law permits exceptions for life-threatening allergies, such instances are rare, said Fred Shotz, president of Indianapolis-based All Disabled Americans."A person sneezing in the presence of a dog doesn't rise to the level where you can deny somebody [his or her] civil rights," Shotz said.An online publication of the U.S. Department of Justice says: "Allergies and fear of animals are generally not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people with service animals."Assistance dogs are not dangerous, said Larry Wallnau of Rochester, a regional representative for the National Education for Assistance Dog Services who has multiple sclerosis. Service animals are selected in part for their temperament, he said, adding that dogs who bark "or show the slightest bit of aggression get kicked out of the program." He said his service dog, Gentle Ben, a smooth coat collie, usually sleeps when they go to a restaurant. "As I leave, I hear people say, 'Oh, I didn't know a dog was in here.'"

2007-01-05T13:29:00.000-06:00

Deaf student's dog turned away from school - Newsday.com

Cops called when deaf student brings dog to school
BY CARL MACGOWANNewsday Staff WriterJanuary 3, 2007, 11:16 PM ESTA deaf Westbury boy's attempt to bring his assistance dog to school Wednesday resulted in an exchange of harsh words when police were called, the boy's mother said.No arrests were made, but Nancy Cave said her son, John, was shaken by the incident. Still, she is planning to have her son and the dog attend school together today -- with or without permission from East Meadow School District officials."This is emotionally traumatic for him. He doesn't want to go to school," Cave said of her 14-year-old son, who picked up the dog last week from a Massachusetts training center. "All I wanted to do was give my son one more step toward independence."The Caves are locked in a long-running battle with East Meadow officials over whether John can bring the dog, Simba, to W. Tresper Clarke High School, where John attends ninth grade. School officials previously had told the family that John doesn't need the dog to attend classes. The Caves believe John and Simba must bond around the clock so that the dog can work most effectively as an assistance dog, trained to alert a deaf child to potential danger such as fire or smoke alarms and cars.The Caves should obtain permission from the district's committee on special education before bringing the dog to school, East Meadow Superintendent Robert Dillon said Wednesday."There is a process, and there are protocols and we just wish that they would be followed," he said.Nancy Cave and her son wanted to acclimate Simba to the school Wednesday morning before classes started. When they entered the building, Cave said, officials asked her to leave and called Nassau County police."We were sort of verbally accosted by the principal and the assistant principal," she said. She admitted using vulgar language while talking to Principal Timothy Voels."I felt harassed, I felt intimidated, I felt they were stalking me," she said. "Even though I said two bad things, I felt threatened."Dillon declined comment on the incident. A police spokesman confirmed the incident but added, "It's not a police matter."At her request, Nancy Cave said, police researched laws governing assistance dogs, and then she took John and Simba home. State law says public facilities cannot bar disabled people with service dogs, while federal law requires facilities to change policies banning service animals.Simba obeyed orders from John during the visit, Nancy Cave said."He behaved himself impeccably," she said, "which is more than can be said for the adults, including myself, I might add."The Caves received support from students and some teachers, Nancy Cave said. She said she did not tell officials that she planned to return today with Simba.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

2007-01-05T13:28:00.000-06:00

For 2nd time, school bars deaf teen's dog - Newsday.com

For 2nd time, school bars deaf teen's dog
BY CARL MACGOWANNewsday Staff WriterJanuary 5, 2007For the second day in a row, officials at W. Tresper Clarke High School prevented a 14-year-old deaf student from bringing his assistance dog to class."I feel like they aren't being fair," ninth-grader John Cave of Westbury said yesterday of East Meadow School District officials, who don't believe he needs the dog to attend class. "They act like they're against me because of my dog."John's parents, Nancy and John Sr., have battled district officials for more than a year over the right of their son to bring a service dog to school.The Caves believe John and Simba must bond around the clock so that the dog can work most effectively as an assistance dog, trained to alert a deaf child to potential danger, such as fire or smoke alarms and cars.John has limited hearing with the aid of cochlear implants.While the Caves believe Simba and John must be together constantly in order to bond, school officials say the family needs approval from the district's committee on special education.The federal Americans with Disabilities Act says schools and other public facilities must make "reasonable accommodations" for disabled people, said Thomas Dern, associate executive director of YAI/National Institute for People With Disabilities. While the Caves face an uphill battle arguing that John and Simba cannot be separated, the district may be opening itself to a federal discrimination lawsuit, Dern said."It's astounding to me that a school district would take this position," he said. "To me, it doesn't sound like the student is asking for an unreasonable accommodation. ... It's not unusual to have guide dogs on buses and trains and other public accommodations."Superintendent Robert Dillon did not return a call seeking comment.The district and John's parents should follow due process to resolve the dispute, said Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the state Education Department. "This is a complex situation without an overnight solution," he said.The war of nerves between the district and the Caves continued yesterday with a display of civil disobedience. One day after school officials called police when John and his mother brought Simba to the school, the boy returned with the dog, along with his twin sister, Jessica, and two friends.As John's parents stood across the street, about 100 yards from the school, Principal Timothy Voels and Assistant Principal J. Darryl Strabuk held the door open for other students but closed it when John and Simba tried to enter at 7 a.m. Voels told reporters to leave the premises.At about 7:30 a.m., John, Jessica and Simba walked away from the school after being told the dog was not allowed in school. Nancy Cave said Voels and Strabuk jeopardized her son's health."They made him wait in the cold for half an hour," she said, "which in my mind is child abuse."She and her husband took Simba home while John returned to school. "He's already missed two days," Nancy Cave said. "He can't miss school."John and Jessica walked into the building without incident. Voels glanced at them over his right shoulder as they passed. Through it all, Simba was well-behaved, John said."He looked up as people walked by, but he stayed," he said. "He's a good boy."Laws on service animalsFederal and state laws governing use of service animals:New York StateCivil Rights Law, Article 4-B"No person shall be denied admittance to and/or the equal use of and enjoyment of any public facility solely because said person is a person with a disability and is accompanied by a guide dog, hearing dog or service dog."FederalAmericans with Disabilities Act, Sec. 36.302 (c)"Generally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability."
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

2006-05-01T07:43:00.000-06:00

Penn State Altoona - Ivyleaf Magazine: Spring 2005

A Boy and His Dog
E-mail this article

With a love for literacy education and a passion for teaching the teachers of the future, Rhode Island native Deb Marciano took a trip south to learn about service dogs. Now, she’s turned her research into manuscripts for two children’s books in an effort to raise awareness of this issue by telling the story of a boy and his dog.
Deb Marciano’s dad must be proud of the influence he has had on his daughter’s career path. As a well-respected teacher and coach, he instilled a passion for education in his daughter and molded her approach to teaching. States Marciano, assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at Penn State Altoona, “I was always impressed with my dad’s approach to learning. It was holistic back in the 50s and 60s when that wasn’t really going on. I was able to see the kind of respect that his students and athletes had for him and I wasn’t feeling that towards most of the teachers I had. So I knew there was a better way, even at an early age.” Both of her parents instilled in her the desire to help others, something Marciano tries to impress upon her students at Penn State Altoona.
Reflects Marciano, who began her academic career as an elementary school teacher in Rhode Island, “I’ve worked with a lot of people who cited the best three reasons for teaching as ‘June, July, and August.’ I couldn’t stand it because I was always enthusiastic about my career.” An opportunity came up at Rhode Island College to work with their elementary education majors and Marciano thought, “Maybe I should be working with people who are studying to be teachers and then we can impact more children.” Eventually, she pursued her Ph.D. at Penn State and has been teaching literacy courses in Penn State Altoona’s elementary and kindergarten education degree program since 1998.
South for the SummerSince the events of September 11th, Marciano had been toying around the idea of writing a children’s book about service dogs, after a suggestion by Associate Librarian Mila Su. States Marciano, “Search and rescue dogs were brought to everyone’s attention after 9/11, bringing an awareness to the general population that service dogs are more than just seeing-eye dogs for the blind.” After learning of Domesti-PUPS, an organization that trains service dogs for adults and children, Marciano contacted them in pursuit of information to include in her teaching curriculum. Instead of just information, she received an invitation to Alabama to participate in the first Domesti-PUPS training camp in the southeast division.
She and husband Ray Noll, part-time lecturer in integrative arts at Penn State Altoona and illustrator of Marciano’s books on service dogs, packed their bags and flew south for two weeks during the summer of 2004.
There, she met two of the participants in the training camp—a woman from Missouri with fibromyalgia who had not left her home in five years because walking was so painful, and Ty Taylor, a boy with muscular dystrophy (MD) who became the subject of Marciano’s children’s books.
Eight-year-old Ty, the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) Goodwill Ambassador for Alabama and youngest of three boys, had been given a life expectancy reaching only until his mid-teens. He already was experiencing mobility issues and becoming unable to keep up with his friends. Enter Teddy, a long coated collie, trained for over a year by Domesti-PUPS and charged with helping Ty become more mobile. With the assistance of a Penn State Altoona research development grant, Marciano followed Ty and his mother around for two weeks of training with his new service dog. She was amazed at the immediate bond struck between Ty and Teddy.
The training process was intense; after the first four days, dog and boy are ‘leashed up’ such that, even while sleeping, the leash is around Ty’s arm. No one else but Ty was permitted to feed, water, brush, or potty the dog, to instill in Teddy a sense of responsibility toward the one taking care of him. Remarks Marciano, “I’ve worked with children all my life, yet I’ve never seen anything so instantaneous; the bond was just incredible and it happened so quickly.”
Training camp included field trips to places the typical young boy would go—Chuck E. Cheese, the mall, the park, a baseball stadium, and the movie theatre. At each location, Ty was to take his dog in and learn how to deal with the varied reactions from employees and the general public, and become more accustomed to having the dog’s assistance.
Back to SchoolIn January 2005, Teddy joined Ty at his public school. Domesti-PUPS conducted training with each class in Ty’s school before Christmas, to familiarize Ty’s schoolmates with their expected behavior toward Teddy. They learned that they were not to touch, call, or pet the dog; Teddy was there to do a job. Different from guide dogs, service dogs may interact with other people—but only after Ty gives the “go visit” command.
Marciano flew back to Alabama to witness Ty and Teddy’s first few days of school and states she was “blown away at how well behaved those students were with having a dog in their classroom, walking down the school hall, and sitting under a cafeteria table.”
Marciano jokes that the students did a better job at restraining themselves than she. “When we got off the plane in July, we were met by two volunteers and Teddy. I immediately started scratching his ear. Then I looked up at the two volunteers and said, ‘Oh, I’m not supposed to do that!’ I had just read everything I could on service dogs before I met them and I went down and did it anyway, without thinking!”
A Canine LifelineTeddy has been a true lifeline for Ty. In March 2005, Ty was in great pain and having difficulty walking. He began leaning on Teddy more and more and holding on to him if he started to trip, which is the purpose of a strength and mobility service dog. Notes Marciano, “Teddy is what’s keeping Ty out of a wheelchair right now.” And the woman who had not left her home for five years? She now goes out every single day for a walk with her dog, and is becoming an advocate for service dogs.
Ty’s family has observed his transformation from an ostracized handicapped kid to one of the most popular kids in his school. Currently in second grade, he plays on a baseball team with a designated runner and, until recently, had a typical nonchalant attitude toward reading. But that has changed, thanks to Gracie Mae, the newest canine addition to the Taylor household.
Reading PupsA little too spunky for the woman for whom she was trained to be a companion dog, Italian greyhound Gracie Mae became Ty’s brother Dexter’s dog. Dexter suggested he become her trainer, having heard about the reading pup program. A reading pup goes through obedience training to sit with children who are having difficulty reading. The child reads to the dog rather than a teacher, who may have the tendency to interrupt and correct the child. The dog is a step above reading to a stuffed animal, a more common teaching technique. The reading pup listens patiently to the reader, creating a risk-free environment. This innovative project is being tried out across the country and shows great promise.
So the Taylor household now is home to three boys and two dogs. Dexter’s and Ty’s dad telephoned Marciano, to express his amazement at the effect Gracie Mae has had on his sons’ reading habits. Neither boys were pleasure readers, yet their dad reported that Dexter had been reading to Gracie Mae almost half an hour per night. And Ty, observing his brother with his dog, went into his own room and started reading to Teddy. States Marciano, “As a reading instructor, I’m delighted by the results and loving it!”
With her husband as illustrator, Marciano has authored manuscripts for two children’s books based upon Ty and Teddy. Featuring “Michael” and “Rocky,” one book tells the story of the boy and his dog and exposes young readers to a very different type of summer camp—service dog training camp. The other is written from the perspective of the general student body, entitled There’s a Dog in Our School. Marciano hopes that this work will explain the concept of service dogs in school and help build acceptance of this practice. Marciano says that she sent the books to a publisher in the fall and is “keeping her fingers crossed.”
Ty’s mom, Tammy Taylor, is greatly appreciative of Marciano’s work. States Taylor: “I hope [the children’s book] inspires them. Why set a limit? They label you ‘handicapped’ so prove them wrong. Don’t limit yourself; reach for the stars. Ty could be the next president. Who knows?”
Editor’s Note: Mike Taylor, Ty’s dad, is sponsoring a $5,000 fundraiser for MDA for research to find a cure for Duchenne MD (the type of MD from which Ty suffers). Duchenne MD predominantly affects boys. For more information, visit http://www.mda.org/. To make a donation in Ty’s name, contact: https://www.mdaevent.org/ONE/Participantinfo.aspx?j=33C9e071-163e-4917-8fbf-0089fc72cc3a or Deb Marciano at dlm258@psu.edu

Copyright © 2005 Penn State Altoona

2006-04-17T12:53:00.000-06:00

Hearing to determine if school district violated autistic boy's rights delayed naplesnews.com Naples Daily News

Monday, April 17, 2006 Updated at 12:24 p.m.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/apr/17/hearing_determine_if_school_district_violated_auti/
Hearing to determine if school district violated autistic boy's rights delayed
By Katherine Lewis (Contact)
Monday, April 17, 2006
Derek Hughes won't be returning to school before the end of the school year.

Derek's father said it is a shame his autistic son is being hurt by delays of due process.
"There's no question that he is regressing academically, socially and behaviorally," Bill Hughes said. "I don't know why the school district is taking pride trampling over a boy's rights."
The reason Derek won't be in school before the end of the school year is that a hearing to determine if the Collier County School District violated Derek's rights by refusing to let him bring his service dog, Bo, to school has been continued to Monday, May 1.
A death in School Board Attorney Richard Withers' family prompted the continuance, Withers said this week.
It was the second time the hearing, which initially had been set for February, has been continued.
The hearing will determine if the school district was negligent by not amending the Pine Ridge Middle School sixth-grader's individual education program (IEP) to allow him to bring Bo to school. The complaint also alleges the district was negligent for not providing a full-time school nurse at the middle school to administer Derek's epilepsy medication.

WEBIFIED
RELATED: Left behind: Autistic son needs his service dog at school (02-02-06)
PODCAST: Hear an in-depth report about a Collier County family's struggle to get a service dog into their autistic child's middle school. (02-02-06)
ON THE WEB: Collier County School District

The events started when the Hughes family made attempts to meet with school officials about Derek's needs after he had two seizures and had been diagnosed with epilepsy. The Hugheses scheduled an emergency IEP meeting with school officials for Jan. 17.
Students with special needs have the individual programs, which are developed to set goals for a child's learning and behavior that are reasonable and can be measured. The IEP also explains what the district will provide to help the student meet those goals.
During the emergency meeting on the program, the district denied amending Derek's IEP to include acknowledgment of his medical diagnosis of epilepsy or to provide him access to his service dog, Bill Hughes said.
Following the denial by the district, Bill and Brenda Hughes asked for a due-process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Bill and Brenda Hughes also pulled Derek from school and have elected to home-school him until the issue is resolved.
The hearing was to be held in late February, but was delayed until April 6 after Withers, the School Board attorney, filed a motion seeking to continue on Wednesday, Feb. 15, five days before the hearing was to take place.
In his memorandum to the hearing officer, Withers provided nine reasons for continuing the hearing. Among them, three witnesses for the district weren't going to be available for the hearing; the School Board wants to discuss the case in a closed-door, executive session before the hearing to find alternatives to litigation; and the district wants to wait for a decision on the criminal complaint filed by William and Brenda Hughes against the district before moving forward with the civil suit.
Through attorney Stephanie Langer, the Hughes family filed a petition Feb. 15 asking the administrative hearing judge to reconsider the delay for the due-process hearing.
"Any delay in the due process hearing, especially a long delay until April, ignores the reality that this child is out of school and that the district refuses to return this child to school until after the due process hearing is concluded," Langer wrote in the petition.
Bill Hughes said the family also has filed an injunction with administrative law judge D. S. Manry asking that he intercede and put Derek in Vineyards Elementary School until the ruling is handed down.
"(Vineyards) has spacious classrooms, a full-time nurse and there is no adversity there," he said. "We would have Derek back there tomorrow."
In addition to waiting on the administrative hearing, the Hugheses also will have to wait for a decision on a complaint they filed with the Office for Civil Rights in Atlanta.
The 23-page complaint alleges that Derek's civil rights were violated under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, as well as his right to a free and appropriate education.
Both Bill Hughes and Withers acknowledged that the Office for Civil Rights will not act on the complaint until the administrative hearing is complete.

2006-04-05T17:00:00.000-06:00

Social Acknowledgments for Children with Disabilities: Effects of Service Dogs
JSTOR: Child Development: Vol. 60, No. 6 (Dec., 1989), pp. 1529-1534

Social Acknowledgments for Children with Disabilities: Effects of Service Dogs Bonnie Mader, Lynette A. Hart, Bonita Bergin Child Development, Vol. 60, No. 6 (Dec., 1989) , pp. 1529-1534

Abstract
While service dogs are known to perform important tasks for people using wheelchairs, such as retrieving dropped items or pulling a wheelchair, they may also serve as an antidote for social ostracism. Adults in wheelchairs have been found to receive many more social acknowledgments when a service dog is present than when not. This study examined whether disabled children in wheelchairs with service dogs receive more frequent social acknowledgment than when no dog is present. Behaviors of passersby in response to children in wheelchairs were recorded in shopping malls and on school playgrounds. In both settings, social acknowledgments (e. g., friendly glances, smiles, and conversations) were substantially more frequent when a service dog was present. Social effects of the dog were more pronounced in shopping malls, typical of unfamiliar settings where the child would be likely to experience being ignored or overlooked. Service dogs may assist in normalizing the social interactions for children with disabilities producing social isolation.

2006-04-05T16:45:00.000-06:00

Allergies as reason to keep service dogs out of schools
Google Groups : bit.listserv.down-syn

From:
Sam Paior - view profile
Date:
Sun, Oct 30 2005 10:45 am
Email:
s...@stutley.com (Sam Paior)
Groups:
bit.listserv.down-syn

The service dog logic that the school presents is illegal - the ADA specifically states that allergies (and being afraid of dogs) are not a disabilities and can not be used as a reason to prevent service dogs access. Besides, with certain kinds of regular dog washes, the dander issue can be 98% mitigated. A reasonable solution is that any child with a severe allergy be moved to a classroom that does not have a dog. Think of a service dog as a wheelchair - that's how the ADA views it - the dog is a piece of durable medical equipment. Ben has a service dog, but we are not yet a good enough team for her to be useful for her mobility tasks, and her search and rescue skills (I hope) should not be required at school. Ben is also way too young to handle her on his own - I am the certified handler, so LIly only goes to school woith him once a week when I bring her and help out in the class. Ben also does not have an aide, and until Ben is old enough to handle Lily, he would need an aide to handle her, potty her, etc etc, and that would require some training - service dogs need consistency in the way they are handled.

2006-03-26T19:40:00.000-06:00

Palladium-Item - www.pal-item.com - Richmond, Ind.

The bark that bonds --Assistance dogs have special relationship with local disabled residents
By Allison Kolodziej For The Palladium-Item

As Devin Kirtley maneuvers around his Centerville home, his dog is by his side.
But Ares (pronounced air-ees) is more than a pet for 10-year-old Devin -- he's a companion and aide. He is an assistance dog specially trained to assist Devin, an energetic and talkative fifth-grader who uses a wheelchair to get around.

OAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1');

Ares knows more than 50 commands, which include turning on lights, opening doors, and retrieving fallen items -- from pencils to notebooks to Devin's cowboy boots.
But it's not all work and no play for the 2-year-old Labrador retriever.
"He loves to play tug of war," Devin said as he and Ares pull on a new rope toy.
Devin is one of three area young people who have turned to assistance dogs for aid and companionship in their everyday lives. These dogs are socialized for everyday life and help their partners with daily physical tasks and increasing their independence on others.
An instant connection
Ares has been in Devin's life for seven months, thanks to Canine Companions for Independence, an organization that offers specially trained dogs to individuals with disabilities like Devin, who has cerebral palsy.
While Ares doesn't attend school, he assists in daily tasks and accompanies the family in public.
Sheri Lucas, Devin's mother, applied for the Canine Companions program after observing another girl with her assistance dog. The growing relationship follows three years of waiting after the initial application was submitted.
The long wait is attributed to the highly selective process in which dogs are accepted into the program.
"First off, you have to have enough eligible dogs," said Judy Myers of Canine Companions for Independence. "They have to have the very best of the very best."
After a series of applications and interviews, the family trained in August at the Canine Companions regional center in Delaware, Ohio.
It's where the family met Ares for the first time. Lucas said the connection between Ares and Devin was almost instant.
"We could see that up at CCI when we were placed with (Ares)," Lucas said. "You could see the bond forming then with him."
The training days were long, and complete with tests and lectures. Part of the rigorous two-week program involved dealing with the dog in public places like restaurants and the zoo.
Devin and his mother trained as a "skilled companion team" at Canine Companions. This program is offered to individuals -- often adolescents -- who seek to reduce reliance on others and use the dog to help with physical tasks.
Bringing Ares back to the family's home in Centerville brought a new wave of challenges.
Ares had to adjust to a new home, and Lucas' two other children had to understand that Ares was not the typical pet.
The benefits, however, outweighed the initial adjustments.
Ares became Devin's companion and the bond continues to grow.
"It's been really great," Lucas said. "The dog does a lot for him."
In addition to opening the refrigerator, flipping light switches and closing doors, Ares is always up for playing.In a few weeks, he and Devin will begin training for the Wayne County 4-H Fair this summer -- Ares will ride with Devin in the horse pleasure-driving competition.
Lucas pointed out the social and emotional benefits to Devin having a friend and companion, but also a service dog that helps increase his independence.
The waiting game
Connor Moffett, a fifth-grader at Western Wayne Elementary School, is still in the waiting process for an assistance dog -- but not for long.
The Moffetts applied through a different canine service program -- Paws and Think in Indianapolis.
"We'll likely have Kendra at the end of May," said mother Lorinda Moffett of Cambridge City. "They take it really slow to make it familiar to both the family and the dog."
Lorinda Moffett and her husband, Mike, start their training today and plan to continue on Sunday afternoons because they both work full-time.
The Paws and Think program offers assistance and companion dogs to individuals with disabilities, as well as programs for at-risk youth and animal-assisted therapy.
In the office of Connor's physical therapist, Moffett first observed another child patient with an assistance dog. The boy, like Connor, had cerebral palsy.
"The bond that I saw between that child and that dog was just amazing," she said. "I thought that would just be awesome for Connor."
The process with Paws and Think is a little different than Canine Companions -- the Moffett family will train with another dog before Kendra. Then, they'll keep her for a weekend and gradually build up to complete independence from the organization.
Western Wayne Elementary School conducted a penny war fund-raiser in February to help the family with training, a fence for their yard and overnight stays associated with the training. Connor's school aide, Belinda Reece, organized the fund-raising efforts, which brought in more than $2,100.
"I knew we would raise the money," she said. "It exceeded what I thought it would. We have such a wonderful community."
Kendra will accompany Connor to school, so Reece is taking part in the training with the Moffett family. In addition, some teachers are preparing for Kendra's arrival by using a book to help students understand the role of assistance dogs.
Moffett is optimistic that Kendra will help Connor become more verbal and serve as a companion.
"My biggest (concern) for him is to have someone who is there for him all the time," Moffett said.
Moffett also saw an instant bond between Kendra and Connor at the first meeting in January.
Despite the whole family being present, "(Kendra) knew that he was the one who needed her."
Mick Coons' college canine
One-year-old Raymer might be the smartest dog at Indiana University East.
The Canine Companions assistance dog accompanies sophomore Mick Coons to campus -- and to the classroom.
"He's really well-mannered," said Mick, a 19-year-old marketing-advertising major. "We'll go in and I'll have him get the door. When we get to class, he'll sit there by me until I need something."
Raymer also assists by retrieving fallen items and carrying books.
Mick was in rehabilitation after an accident his sophomore year of high school, when his mother suggested an assistance dog.
"I was all about (getting the dog)," he said. "She told me how long it took to get them; she thought in two years I'd be ready for one."
That was March 2002. Last November, Mick finally met Raymer and brought him home to Economy. Unlike Kirtley, Mick trained independently through the Canine Companions "service dog team" program.
Outside of campus, Raymer is especially helpful when Mick is running errands and home by himself.
"He knows what he's supposed to do and when he's supposed to do it," Mick said.
Allison Kolodziej is a Palladium-Item intern. To comment on this story, contact assistant city editor Mary Sell at (765) 973-4476 or mgsell@pal-item.com
Originally published March 26, 2006

2006-03-10T23:22:00.000-06:00

Denial of Access Form~

This is an OUTSTANDING bit of legal ammo that was just posted in my group,and I have to pass it along here. This would be excellent to hand to recalcitrant schools, as well as other places that are trying to bar access with your service dog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: 03/10/06 22:38:06
To: DePorres SD List
Subject: [DePorresServiceDog Trainers Guild © Denial of Access Form
This is pretty neat. I got it off another list (with permission). Someone there wrote it and uses it when he/she encounters an access challenge. It apparently ends many challenges quickly! I edited some of the wording a smidge, but if I were to use it I would rewrite it a bit more.Below is a form that was developed by a community member. They carry it with them and use it when they are challenged when entering a business or public area with their service dog. This along with a copy of the ADA and state laws has ending many a challenge quickly. You can cut and paste this in your word processor and print some copies to carry with you.BE SURE TO FILL IN YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION AND YOUR STATE LAW INFORMATION BEFORE PRINTING....Have the person sign the form so that you can use it to notify corporate or to further educate the person or business about the ADA.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AFFIRMATION OF DENIAL OF ACCESS

Having been advised that [your name here] is an Individual With Disabilities and that the dog, [your dog's name here], accompanying [him/her] is a Service Animal individually trained to assist [him/her] with [his/her] disabilities, as defined in, and within the meaning of, the American With Disabilities Act of 1990,(“ADA”), as codified at 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. and
(1) the federal regulations implementing it found at 28 C.F.R. 36.104 and 36.302©(1) and Section III-4.2300 of the ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual, (“Title III-TAM”), as adopted by the United States Department of Justice, or(2) the federal regulations implementing it found at 49 C.F.R. 37.3 and 37.167(d) as adopted by the United States Department of Justice,and having been further advised that denial of access to a place of public accommodation by said Individual With Disabilities because [he/she] is accompanied by [his/her] Service Animal
(1) is a violation of the ADA as set forth in (A) 28 C.F.R. 36.302(c) and Section III-4.2300 of Title III-TAM, or (B) 49 C.F.R. 37.167(d), and(2) is a violation of applicable and pertinent CA and/or local civil and/or criminal law, CA Codes Civil Code Section 54-55.1CA Codes Health and Safety Code Section 114345-114351CA Codes Health and Safety Code Section 113990-114070
I/we, (printed name and title)____________________________________,
as a representative of (name of establishment) ______________________________, located at (street address, city and state)
____________________________________________________________________,
a place of public accommodation, at about (time)_______ __.M. on (MMDDYYYY)
______________, have refused access to the above-named Individual With Disabilities because [he/she] accompanied by [his/her] Service Animal.
Comments:
Signature of Person Responsible for Access Refusal:
______________________________

2006-03-09T09:17:00.000-06:00

Student shows love of life

Student shows love of life
Disability Awareness poster features Northview 7th-grader
Gretchen.Becker@Topics.com
March 9, 2006
Northview Middle School seventh-grader Conner Wantz, 13, hangs out with his 4-year-old assistance dog, Amali, in his bedroom at home.
Disability Awareness Month
• March is Disability Awareness Month. For more information or free activity packets, visit www.in.gov/gcpd
• The Governor's Council for People with Disabilities publishes a monthly newsletter. Send an e-mail to gpcpd@gpcpd.org to be placed on the mailing list.
• To learn more about Indiana Canine Assistant & Adolescent Network (ICAAN), visit http://www.icaan.net

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP -- Some days, Northview Middle School seventh-grader Connor Wantz can't move the left side of his body.
Other times, he's as active as any other 13-year-old boy, playing sports in the Carmel Dads' Club or Allisonville Little League Challenger Baseball League.
The teen suffers from Alternating Hemiplegia of Childhood, a rare neurological disorder that's been diagnosed in about 100 people in the United States, said his mom Tami Wantz. It causes paralysis on the left side of Connor's body and seizures that are relieved by sleep.
"We don't make a big deal of it," his mom said. "He loves life."
That love for life shines through on Conner's smiling face as he and his assistance dog Amali lead a parade of children on this year's Disability Awareness Month poster for the Indiana Governor's Council for People with Disabilities.
Connor has good days and bad, and his dad John Wantz compares it to a car with a broken gas gauge -- you never know when the fuel is going to run out, and some days it may never get out of the garage.
Some days, Connor, who was diagnosed at 18 months, has to remain in a wheelchair if he's lost the use of his arms, legs and speech. He attends physical, speech and occupational therapy.
Four-year-old Amali is a friend that never leaves Connor's side, John said. She is the first assistance dog to be featured on the state disabilities poster. Her trainer named her after the first African elephant born through artificial insemination that died at the Indianapolis Zoo in 2003, Tami said.
"Amali is Swahili for 'hope' and that's what she brings us," John said. "It's given him (Connor) more independence. We don't have to be as present as we once were."
Amali follows 80 commands that Connor repeats to her almost every day. She can hold CDs of his favorite artists such as Green Day or Good Charlotte while shopping in a store, or retrieve a blanket or a juice box at home.
Amali officially became Connor's assistance dog last March. She was placed with him through the Indiana Canine Assistant & Adolescent Network (ICAAN), but was trained by other trainers.
ICAAN trains most of its service dogs through jail trustys at the Indiana Women's Prison, said founder Sally Irvin. It takes two years to train them.
Connor will distribute the Disability Month posters to the women handlers at the prison during the next dog graduation March 16.
At Northview, the posters hang in the hallways. Connor has even signed autographs for some of his teachers.
Call staff writer Gretchen Becker at (317) 444-5574.

2006-02-26T20:32:00.000-06:00

Federal judge rules that Aspberger's syndrome is a disability - Boston.com

Federal judge rules that Asperger's syndrome is a disability
January 31, 2006

PORTLAND, Maine --A York County girl who suffers from Asperger's syndrome is entitled to special education services even though she completes her homework, behaves well in class and scores well on tests, a federal judge ruled.

U.S District Judge D. Brock Hornby ordered School Administrative District 55 to assemble a team of teachers and specialists to design an appropriate learning program for the girl, identified in court documents only as "L.I."
In his ruling, Hornby said the girl's parents demonstrated that the disability adversely affects her educational performance "and is thus eligible for special education under (federal law) due to her Asperger syndrome and her depressive disorder."
Richard O'Meara, the family's lawyer, said the decision recognizes that social development is an important part of education, along with academic studies.
"Education is so much more than academic performance," O'Meara said. "Hopefully, this will put that debate to rest once and for all."
While Hornby overturned the district's decision to deny services, the judge also denied the family's reimbursement request for the two years of private school tuition it has paid since taking her out of public school in 2003.
Nonetheless, advocates for the disabled hailed the ruling as a victory.
The decision clarifies the question of who is eligible for services, and it will have an impact both in the state and beyond, said Peter Rice of the Disability Rights Center of Maine.
Eric Herlan, lawyer for SAD 55, declined to comment until he has reviewed the 48-page ruling, which was issued Monday afternoon.
Asperger's syndrome is a milder variant of autism. The name comes from Dr. Hans Asperger, an Austrian who described the syndrome in 1944.
Hornby's ruling described Asperger's as a "clinically recognized pervasive developmental disability" with symptoms that include "limited interests or an unusual preoccupation with a particular subject to the exclusion of other activities."
School is challenging for Asperger's students because they often have poor social skills and difficulty communicating, Hornby wrote.
L.I., who attended public schools in Hiram and Cornish through 5th grade, performed well academically but in the fourth grade her teachers noticed that she looked sad, anxious and had a difficult time making friends.
When she was in sixth grade, she stopped studying and attempted to commit suicide by overdosing on several medications. A psychiatrist evaluated her and diagnosed her with Asperger's syndrome and "depressed mood."
A team assembled by the school, however, denied special education services to her "since there was no adverse impact on her academic progress." Her family appealed but the decision was upheld by an independent hearing officer.
O'Meara said the decision could have a broad impact. "It should qualify kids for special education even when academically it seems they are able to succeed in school," he said.
------
Information from: Portland Press Herald, http://www.pressherald.com/
© Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

2006-02-24T10:31:00.000-06:00

BlindNews:Girl's new service dog unwelcome at school

Girl's new service dog unwelcome at school
5/12/2004
From: The Springfield News-Leader
By: Jeff Arnold

Pierce City - When the bell sounds, Karen Meinke tries her best to navigate the busy halls of Pierce City Middle School to get from class to class within five minutes. It isn't easy. The 14-year-old was born with chronic hip dysplasia, a disorder that has caused her hips to slowly deteriorate over time. She has also been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, requiring her to take medication that often makes walking difficult.
If she moves slowly through the halls, she's occasionally late for class. If she walks too quickly, the joint pain increases, and there's a greater risk she'll fall and further damage her hips.
As her condition has worsened, her family went through the lengthy process of obtaining a service dog to help with her walking. Last month, she got Zeus, an 85-pound golden retriever trained at a service agency in Ohio.
But now, the school district is balking at letting Zeus in the door.
Since Karen and Zeus were placed together, Pierce City school officials have not allowed the service animal to accompany Karen to school.
Karen's family believes the district's decision violates the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, which protects people who suffer from disabilities and permits service dogs in public schools. Karen's mother, Cathy Kelley, has contacted the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights in Kansas City as well as the U.S. Department of Justice.
Pierce City Superintendent Lois Klatt declined to comment on the specifics of the case, citing privacy rules that she says keep her from discussing an individual student's situation.
"All I can say is that we are following proper procedures and guidelines regarding situations here at the school," she said.
The school's attorney, Ransom Ellis, also declined to comment.
The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights received Kelley's complaint last month and is considering investigating the matter, spokesman Carlin Hertz said.
The process of determining whether a school district is out of compliance with ADA standards can take up to 180 days.
"We treat every complaint the same," said Hertz, whose department receives nearly 5,000 complaints of unsatisfactory behavior each year.
Kelley said she provided the school with paperwork from Karen's doctors stating that Karen needed aid in walking because of her medical condition.
"I think the dog really helps her - she's a teenager and she's going through an awkward time and if she's falling, that can be embarrassing," said Dr. Cheryl Williams, Karen's family physician. "(The dog) allows her to ambulate more like everybody else."
Williams offered to write a prescription for school officials, stating that Zeus helps stabilize Karen.
For Karen, who suffers from multiple disabilities, a service dog is preferable to other forms of assistance such as a cane or walker, Kelley said.
Neither the paperwork or a doctor's recommendation changed the minds of school officials.

What the law says
Under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, any public entity - which includes schools - is guilty of discrimination if it does not make reasonable accommodations for the needs of the disabled.
The law's provisions include permitting a person to be accommodated by an assistance animal, which is defined as "any guide dog, signal dog or other animal individually trained to work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability including, but not limited to, guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items."
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a school would be in violation if it had a blanket policy restricting students from using necessary methods to aid with their disability, said Cecilia Callahan, director of advocacy for Missouri Protection and Advocacy Services, a watchdog group based in Jefferson City.
Klatt said the school does not have a policy prohibiting animals from being brought onto district property.
If no such policy exists, an accommodation plan must be constructed, ensuring that students with disabilities have the same access to a quality education as other students, Callahan said.

Another law that may apply is the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination by a school district because a student is disabled. According to the federal act, disabled students are defined as those who have a "physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities such as walking, learning, hearing, caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, speaking and breathing."
Michael Jungers, an assistant dean of students at Southwest Missouri State University, oversees the university's office for disability services. He said if a case like Karen's arose at the university level, officials would confer with the physician to determine whether a student was qualified to use a service animal.
If school officials agreed such an animal was needed, it would be permitted to be used in all aspects of university life, Jungers said.
"The law would pretty much apply at the elementary and secondary levels," he said.

Injured on school trip
Since receiving Zeus, Karen has not been allowed to bring her trusted companion to several school functions - including one during which she was injured.
Last month, she traveled to Six Flags in Dallas as part of an honor student trip. While at the park, Karen fell, twisting her leg and tearing ligaments. For the next two weeks, she'll continue to wear a soft cast to protect the injury.
Kelley can't be sure her daughter would not have fallen had she been with her service dog. But she believes her daughter should be allowed to use the dog in all circumstances.
"She is being denied based on her handicap," Karen's mother said. "It's not because she has an animal. She's handicapped and this happens to be her mobility device. So she's being denied the same (rights) as someone that has a wheelchair."
Pierce City school officials did allow Karen to bring Zeus to Saturday night's Pierce City graduation ceremonies in which Karen's older brother, Denny, was taking part.
"We're trying to do the right thing," Klatt said last week.
At graduation, Zeus walked side-by-side with Karen, who sat with her family in the school's gymnasium bleachers. He rested his head on his paws, remaining quiet and motionless until the ceremony was over.
"If I couldn't bring him, I wasn't going to go," Karen said.
However, last week's exception hasn't carried over to Karen bringing Zeus to school daily.
Earlier this week, Karen took part in a school choir concert. But because Zeus was not permitted to enter the school, Karen left her dog at home rather than leave him in the family's van in the evening heat.
The situation with the school district hasn't been an easy one for Karen's family. Kelley said she cries a lot while Karen's 15-year-old sister, Kellie, is left to serve as a teenage advocate.
Dennis Meinke, who came from Michigan to Pierce City for his son's graduation, met with Kelley and Klatt, attempting to resolve the situation.
As was the case in the past, the family's efforts were unsuccessful.
"I'm not a happy camper," Dennis Meinke said. "I'm ready to take her up north."

Zeus gives confidence
With Zeus, Karen walks with confidence, knowing that her dog won't let her down. In time, a harness will be required for support. For now, Karen walks Zeus with a green leash.
Karen picked the color because it matches Pierce City's school colors. After the difficulty she has experienced dealing with school officials, she plans to buy a blue leash that will match Zeus' service-dog vest.
Karen said it took her about three days to adjust to Zeus. Although she has always been around animals, she wasn't accustomed to a dog that aided her in getting around.
"He helps me more," Karen said while running her fingers through Zeus' fur.
During her training, she learned hand signals that prompt the dog to sit, stand, brace himself and hug.
Like other service dogs, Zeus is trained to know when Karen needs his help - both with her walking and with dealing with the depression associated with her bipolar disease.
"There are not enough words in the English language to even begin to describe how well-trained these dogs are," Kelley said.
Karen recently went shopping by herself for the first time. Before Zeus, she wouldn't leave her mother's side. Once she had assistance, things changed.
"She's confident now, and she knows that no matter what, Zeus is her best friend," Kelley said.
Although Karen has quickly adjusted to having Zeus around, some in the public haven't been so accepting.
On a recent trip to a McDonald's in Monett, Karen was scolded for bringing Zeus into the restaurant.
"No dogs allowed," a restaurant employee told her.
"Do people realize what this does to her?" Kelley said.
Kelley said she'll continue to fight, hoping that her stance will make a difference for Karen, who becomes a freshman at Pierce City High School in the fall.
"I just want (the school) to allow her to enjoy her education as much as she can and allow her to learn as much as she can," Kelley said. "I don't want anything more than for her to be safe."

2006-02-20T08:44:00.000-06:00

Ragged Edge Online: Project Cleigh: Dare To Resist!

(...this is a marvelous site,filled with good info,and where we can feel a little less alone in reading others in similar situations,who also are doing what they can to rectify things....)

Gail Nichols' son uses a service dog and used to spend most of his school day in a resource room. The teacher who ran the room, Nichols says, used to tell the boy that his diagnoses -- Asperger Syndrome and PDD/NOS -- didn't indicate that he was really disabled and that the dog wasn't really working. After many attempts to get him to behave like a professional, Nichols finally got a deal in place where her son, his service dog and his tutor would work in a private room away from the resource room teacher. When you combine less-familiar kinds of service dog work and owner-trained dogs, she says, this sort of problem isn't uncommon even after the handlers cooperate with schools to ensure that they have all the information they need to allow only service dogs and not pets on campus.

2006-02-17T09:08:00.000-06:00

The ADA and Public Schools...continued

US Department of Education's disability law reference and FAQs
Disability Discrimination

CIVIL RIGHTS
Disability Discrimination
Overview of the laws
Questions and Answers on disability discrimination
Disability discrimination regulations:
Section 504
Title II of the ADA
Disability discrimination resources

2006-02-17T08:43:00.000-06:00

The ADA and Public Schools...continued

1992 letter from an Attorney General to someone in Nebraska in regards to the ADA and public and private schools

8/19/92
The Honorable Doug Bereuter
U.S. House of Representatives
2348 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C.20515-2701

Dear Congressman Bereuter:

This letter responds to your inquiry concerning compliance
With the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by public and
Private schools in the State of Nebraska.

The ADA authorizes the Department of Justice to provide
Technical assistance to entities subject to the Act. This letter
Provides informal guidance with regard to the questions you have
Posed, but does not constitute a determination by the Department
Of Justice of rights or responsibilities under the ADA and does
Not constitute a binding determination by the Department of
Justice.

Your specific questions and our responses are as follows:

1. Must every area of an existing school facility be
Made accessible to an individual with a disability?

Section 35.149 of the enclosed title II regulation requires
Accessibility to programs, services, and activities in facilities
Existing on the effective date of the statute, January 26, 1992.
The principal focus of the program accessibility standard is
Access to programs, services, and activities, as opposed to
Access to physical structures. Therefore, not every area of an
Existing school facility would have to be made accessible, as
Long as there is access to a school's programs, services, or
Activities. You may refer to II-5.1000, pages 19-20, of the
Enclosed Title II Technical Assistance Manual for further
Discussion.

In addition, section 35.150(B)(1) of the title II regulation
Does not require that a school district eliminate structural
Barriers if it provides access to its programs through
Alternative methods. You may refer to II-5.2000, page 20, of
The Manual for further discussion of alternatives for making a
Program accessible.

Cc: Records, CRS, Friedlander, Stewart, McDowney, Breen
01-01429 - 2 -
Even if structural alterations are necessary to provide
Program accessibility, section 35.150(a)(3) states that a public
Entity is not required to alter its facilities if it can
Demonstrate that the alterations would cause a fundamental change
To its program or that the cost of the alterations would result
In undue financial and administrative burdens. These limitations
Are discussed in II-5.1000, pages 19-20, of the Manual.

As you may know, many Nebraska public school districts have
Been required to comply with section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap,
Since 1973, because they receive Federal financial assistance.
Since Title II of the ADA merely extended section 504's program
Accessibility requirements to all programs, services, and
Activities of a State or local government, title II should impose
Few added burdens on Nebraska public school districts subject to
Section 504.

2. Does the term "qualified individual with a
Disability" apply to students only, or does it apply to
Visitors? For example, could a grandparent wishing to
Visit the school sue because of lack of access?

Section 35.104 defines a "qualified individual with a
Disability" as "an individual with a disability who ... Meets the
Essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or
Participation in programs or activities provided by the public
Entity." With respect to those qualified to participate in a
School district's programs, the preamble to the title II
Regulation states at page 35696 that "[p]ublic school systems
Must comply with the ADA in all of their services, programs, or
Activities, including those that are open to parents or to the
Public." Therefore, if a public school's programs are open to
Visitors, access must be provided to them if they are individuals
With disabilities.

3. Do the regulations apply to private schools in the
Same manner as public schools?

As places of public accommodation, private schools are
Subject to the requirements of title III of the ADA (not title
II, which applies to public schools) and the Department's title
III regulation. Different standards apply under title III than
Under title II. For example, under the title III regulation, a
Private school must remove barriers to accessibility where such
Removal is "readily achievable."

4. At what point must a school district without a
Disabled student comply? When a disabled student
Enters the district or within a certain time frame
After the January 26, 1992, date when structural
Barriers regulations went into effect?
01-01430
- 3 -
Under title II, a school district must provide access to its
Programs, services, and activities after January 26, 1992. Under
Section 35.150(d) of the title II regulation, a school district
With fifty or more employees that identifies structural barriers
to program access must develop a transition plan by July 26,
1992. Please refer to II-8.3000, page 43-44, of the Manual for
further discussion of the requirements for a transition plan. In
addition, section 35.105 requires a school district to conduct a
self-evaluation of its current services, policies, and practices
and modify those services, policies, and practices that do not
comply with the Department's title II regulation. The self-
evaluation requirements are discussed in II-8.2000, pages 40-
43, of the Manual.

5. Nebraska has many school districts which contain
only a one-room elementary school house. Many of these
are not accessible to individuals with disabilities;
however, there are no disabled students in those
districts. How far must these schools go to comply
with the ADA? Must they install chair lifts? Must
they discontinue classes in their basements? Again,
would the level of compliance be different for students
and visitors?

Consistent with a longstanding interpretation of section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act by the former Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, (copy enclosed) the apparent lack of
individuals with disabilities in a school district's service area
does not excuse the school district from taking whatever
appropriate steps are necessary to ensure that its programs,
services, and activities are accessible to qualified individuals
with disabilities. Section 501(a) of the ADA states that the ADA
is not to be interpreted as providing a lesser standard than that
provided under the Rehabilitation Act. Thus, title II would
require that steps be taken even if there are no disabled
students in a district.

I hope this information is responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,
John R. Dunne
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

2006-02-17T07:33:00.000-06:00

The ADA and Public Schools...

Center of Expertise: Americans with Disabilities Act

PACER - CenterParent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights

ADA Q & A: Back to School
by Deborah Leuchovius, PACER ADA Specialist

Many audience members come to PACER workshops on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) expecting to find provisions specifically addressing school access.
While it is true that the ADA does apply to schools, both public and private, it is important to remember that the ADA is foremost a civil rights act with a broad application. It does not specifically guarantee the right to a free appropriate public education. It prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in a wide range of settings employment, transportation, state and local government programs, and public accommodations (private businesses and not for profit agencies that offer goods and services to the public).
In order to apply the ADA provisions to schools, one must first have a basic understanding of the three major titles of the ADA and their key concepts, such as:
providing reasonable accommodations to employees and applicants with disabilities,
providing auxiliary aids and services necessary for effective communication and program access, and
providing reasonable modifications of policies, practices and procedures.
The ADA does not contain specific special education rules or requirements. Remember that earlier legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) already addressed educational issues in greater detail. However, the ADA will definitely have an impact on education. Some of the ways are outlined below.
Q. How does the ADA relate to other state and federal laws relating to education of individuals with disabilities?
A. The ADA works in concert with other state and federal laws affecting the education of students with disabilities. In some instances there will be duplicate coverage and an individual situation will be covered under more than one law, such as IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. When this happens, whichever law or portion of a law provides the greatest protection for the individual with a disability will prevail.
Q. Could a student who does not qualify for special education services be protected by the ADA?
A. Yes, as long as the person meets the criteria established in the ADA's definition of a person with a disability he or she would be protected by the ADA from discrimination on the basis of disability. The ADA defines an individual with a disability as someone who (1) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual; (2) has a record of such an impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. There may be instances where an individual would meet these criteria even though the person would not be eligible for special education. However, virtually all children who meet IDEA eligibility criteria will be protected by the ADA and Section 504 as well. Such a person would have rights and protections under all three laws.
Q. Does the ADA protect parents with disabilities as well as students with disabilities?
A. Yes. Public schools generally operate programs and activities that are open to students' parents such as parent teacher conferences, school plays, athletic events and graduation ceremonies. Parents who meet the ADA's definition of a qualified person with a disability are entitled to protection under Title II of the Act.
Q. How are public schools expected to comply with the ADA?
A. Public schools are covered under Title II of the ADA which covers "public entities." The two key provisions of Title II are that public entities must provide (1) program access (2) in an integrated setting unless separate programs are necessary to ensure equal benefits or services. Program access under Title II means that school districts are required to operate their programs so that when viewed in their entirety they are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This applies to all existing facilities.
Making structural improvements to an existing building such as installing ramps or elevators is one way of achieving program accessibility. However, structural accessibility is not required if there are altemative means of achieving program access such as providing the service at an accessible site, relocating a class or activity to a different room in the building, or having library staff retrieve books for students or teachers who use wheelchairs. Auxiliary aids and services such as interpreters would have to be provided if necessary for effective communication at school programs, conferences and other activities.
School districts are not required to take any action that would result in a fundamental alteration of the nature of the program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. However, public entities must take any other action that would not result in a fundamental alteration or undue burden but would ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the same benefits and services offered to others without disabilities.
Q. Isn't the undue burden standard a legal loophole that will allow school districts a convenient way to avoid their responsibilities?
A. Providing program accessibility is not expected to result in undue burdens for most public entities. All resources of the public entity available to fund and operate the program must be considered. In addition, claiming undue burden does not relieve a public entity of all obligations to individuals with disabilities. They must still provide program access through means that would not result in a fundamental alteration or undue financial or administrative burden.
Keep in mind that any decision that achieving program accessibility would result in a fundamental alteration or create undue burdens must be made by the school district superintendent or the senior official who has budgetary and spending authority for the school district, or a staff person designated by that official. The reasons for such a decision must be presented in writing.
Q. Must school districts eventually remove architectural barriers from all their existing buildings?
A. Not necessarily. If school districts can provide program access without making structural alterations, they are not obligated by the ADA to remove those architectural barriers.
When there is no alternative means to achieve program accessibility, however, structural changes will be necessary, unless this would impose undue burdens on the district.
Small school districts may have to make each of their school buildings accessible in order to provide program access. A larger school system should provide for wheelchair access at schools dispersed throughout its service area so that children who use wheelchairs can attend school at locations comparable in convenience to those available to other children. Any needed structural changes must be made as soon as possible, but no later than January 26, 1995.
Q. Is carrying an individual with a disability considered an acceptable method of achieving program access?
A. No, with two exceptions. First, when program access in existing buildings can be achieved only through structural alterations, carrying may serve as a temporary expedient until construction is complete. Second, carrying is permitted in manifestly exceptional cases if carriers are formally instructed on the safest and least humiliating means of carrying and the service is provided in a reliable manner. Carrying is contrary to the goal of providing accessible programs, which is to foster independence.
Q. Will school districts be required to make their magnet programs accessible?
A. Where "magnet" schools or schools offering different curricula or instruction techniques are available, the range of choice provided to students with disabilities must be comparable to that offered to other students.
Q. Does the ADA apply to extracurricular activities like school-affiliated choirs or school patrols?
A. Yes. The ADA is not limited in application to classroom activities. School districts cannot discriminate against people with disabilities in any of the services, programs or activities they provide including preschool, latch key or adult community education programs.
Q. My school district is constructing a new school in my neighborhood. Will it have to be accessible?
A. Yes. New schools and construction projects altering existing facilities must meet new ADA accessibility standards, unless the state code has stricter guidelines.
Q. How can I be sure that my school district intends to comply with the ADA?
A. Ask for a copy of their ADA self-evaluation and transition plans. Under Title II, school districts that employ 50 or more persons must have evaluated their programs by January 1993, and have developed a transition plan setting forth the steps necessary to make their programs accessible. This was to be completed by July 26, 1992. Title II regulations require that public entities involve people with disabilities and other interested people in the self-evaluation and in the development of the transition plan. Ask if the school district has done this. There may still be an opportunity for you to participate in this process as many Title II entities are late in meeting the above deadlines and have not yet completed their transition or self-evaluation plans. If they have not, and have no plans in process to do so, they are not in compliance with the ADA and you can file a complaint.
Q. Does the ADA affect private schools?
A. Yes, Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination by public accommodations. They must eliminate unnecessary eligibility standards that deny access to individuals with disabilities, make reasonable modifications in policies practices and procedures that deny access to individuals with disabilities unless a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program would result and furnish auxiliary aids such as interpreters notetakers or readers when necessary to ensure effective communication unless an undue burden or fundamental alteration would result.
Be aware that Title III does not cover religious institutions; thus, private schools which are directly operated by religious institutions are not covered by the ADA. Minnesota's Human Rights Act, however, closely follows the provisions of the ADA and does not exempt religious institutions from coverage.
Q. How will the ADA affect employees with disabilities who work for schools?
A. Applicants and employees who work for or apply to work for schools, who are qualified for the job and who can perform the essential job functions are entitled to reasonable accommodations so long as the accommodations are not an undue hardship for their employer. Employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of disability in all work activities: advancement, compensation, training, firing, etc. In addition, school districts will be prohibited from making medical inquiries or requiring medical examinations prior to an offer of employment.
Q. How do I file a complaint if I don't think our school district complies with ADA requirements?
A. If you feel you or another person have been discriminated against by your school district, and have found your district's internal grievance procedure unresponsive, send a letter to the Department of Justice including:
your name, address and phone number, and the name of the party discriminated against;
the school district that you believe has discriminated;
a description of the act(s) of discrimination, the date(s) of the discriminatory acts and the name(s) of any individuals who you believe discriminated;
other information that you believe necessary to support your complaints.
Do not send original documents.
Send to: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Coordination and Review Section, P.O. Box 66118, Washington, DC 20035-6118.
For more information:
These answers are an effort to identify and interpret key ADA provisions that affect schools. Primary sources were the Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Technical Assistance Manual, and the ADA Title II Action Guide for State and Local Governments. These sources were prepared by legal professionals, although this article was not. An article on "The Americans with Disabilities Act and Its Implications for School Districts" published by the Parent Information Center (PIC) of Concord, NH, was also consulted. If you would like a copy of this l9-page article which discusses these and other issues in greater depth, contact PIC at (603) 224-7005 or PACER at (952) 838-9000.
For further technical assistance on this subject, contact PACER or any of the following:
the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), 1-800-466-4232 (voice/TTY), http://www.dredf.org/
the Disability and Business Technical Assistance Center serving your area, (800) 949-4232;
the Department of Justice ADA technical assistance line, (202) 514-0301 Voice or (202) 514-0383 TTY.
The ADA National Access for Public Schools Project, Adaptive Environments, 374 Congress Street Suite 301, Boston, MA 02210, Phone 617-695-1225 V\TDD, Schools Hotline 800-893-1225 V/TDD, http://www.adaptenv.org/schools/

2006-02-16T23:09:00.000-06:00

To Buy or Train Your Own?

This is an enormous question-one that can have an incredible impact on the entire family,above and beyond the "mere" addition of a service dog to the family and all that entails. While some programs do provide dogs at no charge,and others for a small donation,the majority of programs that supply dogs for the autistic charge huge sums for them-$10,000 to 15,000 being quite common. While I quite understand the necessity of being able to pay for good quality dogs,paying trainers,buying food,equipment and so on, when one considers that this is an animal with a rather short working lifespan of 8-10 years at the outside,I personally do not believe it is proper to burden a family with such an enormous debt,forcing them into financial hardship more often than not. I feel even more strongly about the oft suggested option of having the family fundraise the thousands of dollars needed for this-the reason is quite simple:personal dignity.

Many,many years the famous guide dog school,The Seeing Eye,made the decision to ask only a tiny fraction of the cost of the dog,rather than asking for full payment. They realised that the disabled and their families usually do not have incomes equal to those who do not have the additional finacial strain of caring for a disabled loved one. So The Seeing Eye made the wise choice-they ask a small fee,but they insisted that the disabled person pay it themselves,not their family,not friends and most especially not any charitable group,so that the person could start their life as independent as possible. The school did not care if it took the person years to pay the $150.00, even if they could only send in a little at a time....the point was that the person was personally responsible for applying for,training with and responsible for the care of the partner who would help them to a new life. Too often the program had seen people whose guide dogs had been bought for them by well meaning charities,and then the person was saddled with the burden of being "properly grateful" for the benovelonce of the organsisation. So,when the person and their service dog would go down the street, people would see them,and say,"oh,there goes the ---- Club Dog,isn't Joe lucky to have had their help!" Instead of being known as someone who can make their own way,the person is forced yet again to rely on the "charity" of others, instead of the satisfaction of making their own way. Disabled people are forced into depending on others too much as it is, so any amount of independence that can be achieved is precious to us,and what other reason is there to have a service dog than to be able to do as much as possible for oneself? By not being personally responsible for obtaining the means of ones independence aborts much of the purpose from the very beginning.

I do not fault any program that charges for the service dogs they train,my one thought is that it wrong to put that kind of hardship on anyone,least of all the disabled and their families. If a program wishes to supply dogs for any disability, I strongly believe that the burden of the cost of the dog should never be on the recipiant,beyond a minimal fee at most,but rather on sponsers of the school as a whole,so that no person,organisation or foundation can ever look at any particular team and say,"there goes our dog",and no disabled person feels obligated to others for his service dog.

Aside from the considerations of cost and dignity,there is an additional consideration,one that is little known or spoken of-that of failure. It is quite common to have a service dog team fail to bond for various reasons-the simplest being that of a bad match of dog to owner,and ranging on up to badly trained dog,poor health of the owner,to just not being able to establish the kind of relationship that is so vital to fully utilising a service dog. Add to this newer,more complex problems that now plague the SD industry of "programs" that offer families "service dog" puppies but retain ownership of the dog and with that the legal ablity to reposess the dog at a mere whim,devastating the disabled and their entire family; "programs" that claim to furnish service dogs that in reality do not meet the criteria set by the Americans With Disabilties Act,and so are essentially selling a pet for many thousands of dollars; "programs" that will tell you they can "certify" your pet as a "service dog" for a fee so that "you have a legal service dog"; and on and on. I have had the misfortune of having dealt personally with two such organisations,and have spoken to many who have been hurt by others,and know first hand the devastation that comes from these people who prey on those who only seek to become less of a burden to others. The worst of it is that these leeches are usually well connected,with deep pockets,that can afford lawyers that can pound into the dust anyone they choose that dares to speak of their dishonest methods....rare is the disabled person who can be able to afford to retain legal help in pursuing such injustice,and rarer still one that has the physical and emotional health to do so long enough to see justice done.

~ + ~ + ~+ ~

Now,all this being said,and the reader properly discouraged into thinking,"why bother,if it is not going to work out anyway?", please allow me to present the other side of the coin....that of the owner trained service dog.

In this,too,exist many of the same possiblities for failure,ranging from not finding the correct sort of dog for your needs,to finding what seems to be the dog of your dreams and having it turn out that it simply cannot do what is needed but would be a good pet, and on up to finding that you have the right dog,the training,but not the health to be able to utilise your partner to the extent that you had hoped,and so on. But I present this only as a precaution,not to discourage,so take heart! I strongly believe that, if it is possible, a disabled person should train their own service dog for a number of reasons-here are but a few of them:

* the abiltiy to choose for yourself the breed that best suits you- most programs,even the best, are limited in which breeds they are able to train, because they are constrained by the need to train for the widest possible number of people. Not everyone is able to cope with the sort of German Shepherds that The Seeing Eye trained in its first years....dogs who had been bred from stock used to long hours herding sheep,patrolling beside law enforcment officers or military work. While this ensured a strong dog with extreme intelligence,it also meant a dog that had to be kept busy or boredom would set in and the dogs often would become destructive or hyper,that needed a strong hand to keep the dog working at its best-not something that many were able to do. So most programs opt for breeds of much more sedate temperments,lower energy levels,and easier for the average person to handle. This is why Labradors and Golden Retrievers have come to dominate the service dog industry,because they are easiest to handle for the greatest number of potential students with the greatest rate of sucess. But when you decide to train your own,you are freed of this and can choose according to your personal tastes. I believe that most breeds of dogs can be trained successfully as service dogs-it is a matter of choosing the correct breed and individual to suit the necessary tasks. Breeds as diverse as Pit Bulls,Chihuahuas,Greyhounds,Papillions, Portugese Water Dogs,Rough Collies and Poodles are common as more disabled owners train service dogs for themselves,rather than depending on waiting for many years for a dog to be assigned to them by a program that may be from a breed you really do not care for. In many cases, there simply are no programs existing that train for many disabilties,because the sort of training is too specialised,such as for mental disablities,siezure detection and so on. Autism is one such-the needs of each person are so varied that I do not see how any program can hope to meet them all,since the needs of children change so rapidly as they progress and mature,and the needs of an adult on the autistic spectum are radically diffrent from one person to the next. Such intensely specialised training would simply not be possible for a program,certainly not at a cost that anyone could hope to pay for....hence the logic of one training one's own service dog.

* Owner training permits the crafting of tasks that suit needs unique to them,rather than a "preloaded menu" of tasks intended to suit the majority of students in a given school- each disabled person has needs that differ from another with the same diagnosis,and owner training permits one to personalise the dog as much as necessary,from the choosing of the working tack the dog wears,be it cape,vest,or type of harness,to how the dog is cued to perform any given task,from a commonly used command to a hand signal to perhaps no more than a nonverbal sound that none but the service dog recongnise as a command.

* Owner trained dogs generally bond more closely to the owner than those from programs- this is not universally true,but on the average it is. Again, it stems from familiarity-the owner/trainer has intimate knowledge of the entire process and of this individual dog,as compared to the student who goes to an established program to recieve a dog that has been trained in a set of tasks that suits the usual range of needs without overspecialising. And many who go to schools have never trained a dog to do more than perhaps roll over,and do not understand the level of attention and precision of handling that is necessary with a service dog-hence the common complaint heard by programs that 'my dog has stopped working/is ignoring me/etc/". Owner training necessates a level of understanding and study of the subject that not many with program dogs have before recieving their service dogs.

* Better understanding and communication with the dog-few people who obtain their service dogs from programs understand what went into the creation of the partner at their side,that this is far more than any other dog they have ever seen,and so they have little appreciation of what is necessary to properly handle the dog. Many seem to think that an SD is programmed like a computer,and once taught,will remember what to do for the rest of its life with no effort required on the owner's part. This is one reason for failures with program dogs-the lack of necessary knowledge of dogs on the part of the owner. When an SD is trained by their owner from the beginning,there is full knowledge of the entire process,of what steps were taken,where the strong and weak points are,and so how to correct and encourage the dog to do its best. A craftsman appreciates the work of his own hands,and the ultimate,I believe,is the creation of a service dog,of taking a puppy or young dog,and moulding it into something that will help you do what you cannot do yourself.

Mother Teresa once said,(in reference to God,of course,but applicable here,I think), "I can do what you cannot do,and you can do what I cannot. But together,we can do great things". What greater satisfaction can anyone have than going from being disabled and dependent on others to do things for you,to being able to do those same things once again with the assistance of a dog that you yourself have trained!

This,truly,is the ultimate in freedom!

© Patricia Gail Nichols
DePorres Service Dog Trainers Guild
Feb.17,2006

2006-02-16T22:09:00.000-06:00

Psychiatric Service Dog Society

PUBLIC ACCESS STANDARDS
FOR SERVICE DOGS

All service dogs,without exception,are held to a very high standard of behaviour that must be met. This gives the basics that is expected of SDs who work in public places.

2006-02-16T22:01:00.000-06:00

Psychiatric Service Dog Society

Psychiatric Service Dog Task list

...this is a partial listing of some of the myriad tasks that service dogs can perform for those with mental disabilties,including autistic spectrum disabilties.

2006-02-10T10:03:00.000-06:00

(this is an article that was done on Aric a few years ago,shortly after we got him Samara II,a rescued GSD bitch,to be trained as his second service dog. Unfortunately,this dog had to be put to sleep a year later,due to developing mental instabilities that necessatated her being pulled from service dog training not long after beginning.)

Service Dogs for the Autistic

An Interview with Gail Nichols of DePorres Service Dogs

1. Gail, how did you get started in training dogs?
My Dad started it all! I used to be literally screamingly afraid of dogs, but when I was about 8-9 my folks bought a German Shepherd Dog bitch. Dad took Galiano to obedience classes in a park and after a few times out with him, I got interested in it all. I sat on the side, watching. Then when Dad and I would go out on the weekends to explore new parks and up in the mountains with Gally, he taught me to handle her properly. When she had a litter I asked for one of the pups and Baron was the first dog I owned, though not trained...we also had a tiny Chihuahua mix that I had trained to some extent. The problem was-Gally had been on Prednisone while pregnant and 3 of the 5 pups were either deformed (keloids on the face) 2 with the recessive long coat and two that were mentally deficient....yep, you guessed it! Baron was one of the mental cases! But I still learned so much from training him and he was the first one I taught service dog tasks along with everything else I could think of.

2. What made you realize that dogs could be of service to autistic people? I mean, was there some eye opening experience that made you realize that dogs could do service work for the autistic or did you just try it and it worked?
It wasn't till this year that I realized that all the dogs I've had over the years were actually doing things to mitigate my own autism and that of two children I had in my daycare in California. But once I heard of this I could look back and recognize what my GSDs (German Shepherd Dogs), Dobie and Chis have done in calming and focusing us, among other things. I have a great photo of my Doberman bitch Dixi with Travis one of my autistic daycare kids. They had been asleep with Dixi's muzzle across his neck....Travis couldn't settle down till she was with him when he was in a certain mood.

3. Can you explain to us how dogs can be of service to autistic people? What type of things can these dogs do that assist the autistic?
....hmmm, tough question! It depends on the needs of the individual what the SD (Service Dog) will be taught. Perhaps I can illustrate best by using Samara II, my son's SDIT (Service Dog In Training), as an example of some of what a SD can help an child with Asperger's Syndrome - a high functioning form of autism - with....
Control and manage emotion: Aric, as most kids with autism, has a great deal of difficulty with coping with the world in general and this builds up stress that is hard to regulate, much less cope with as neurotypical (NT='normal') children do. Without a SD, he tends to become aggressive and bullying to his siblings and rude and uncooperative with my husband and I. But with a SD, he can somehow use the dog as an 'emotional sink', much like using a lighting rod to direct a strike into the ground, rather than the house. When he gets to a certain level of stress, he instinctively seeks Samra out - or she follows him! - and has what we affectionally call a 'kid attack' on her. He swarms her with high pitched crooning, petting, rubs his face and hands over and through her fur, rolls his shoulders on her side, cuddles....all at high speed and intensity, while she returns all the affection equally with lickings, squirmings, silly paws waving in the air, tail whipping both of them in a delirium of ”More! More!” “I must have more of all this!” A 'kid attack' only lasts about a minute, at most, but somehow it manages to return him to a normal level of emotional stability and it's as if there had never been a storm brewing.
Focus of attention: Aric has difficulty with maintaining attention on something that isn't somehow related to something he is interested in and without the ability to focus he can't locate the 'path' out of his mind to the thing that he is trying to learn. All autistic have this difficulty - it's the root of what autism is. It is best likened to a maze that one has to thread in and out of the mind, compared to the 'freeway' that I call the road the NT mind uses to bring information in and out of the mind. But, with something near at hand that is a known quantity, tactile, calming, among other things, Samara helps Aric to concentrate better by keeping him on track with a quick lick, a tail thump, sometimes by just climbing into his lap and this is when he is showing the beginnings of stress and worry from the frustration of not 'finding the right path' to what he is trying to comprehend.
For tasks that we are presently working toward: To be able to go out alone with her, for walks around the neighborhood, to visit friends, to simply be able to go to the minimart for a coke as a little outing....this is not something we can allow him, because he can be so inwardly focused on something of interest to him that he is nearly oblivious to his surroundings and could all too easily walk out into traffic, or...even worse...strike up a friendly conversation with a stranger with dangerous tendencies. Aric is far too trusting and the usual training given kids in avoiding 'stranger danger' and that from those they think they know is not effective with him or other kids like him. You can tell them all this, they will repeat it back to you, tell you that, yes, they do understand it...but they do not comprehend it....again, the problem of autistic learning. Those with autism look and sound so 'normal' so often, but the comprehension and memory is lacking much of the time and when the thing is remembered,
it might be in a form that isn't applicable to a real life situation-extrapolation isn't always a strong point. So Aric would be protected by Samara's keener senses of scent and hearing that with her training in taking him away from those she has not been taught are safe for Aric would keep him out of danger. Dogs are very good at discerning a person's intent-even if someone is nervous about dogs that still comes across as different to a dog than someone who has ill intentions....the scent is very different, the subtle body language signals...all very different. A dog knows, even untrained so often, if someone means trouble.
A service dog provides a fantastic bridge between the autistic person-child or adult-and others, a physical barrier if need be (many autistic are very uncomfortable when in too close a distance to another person) a way to talk to others without having to look at them, eye contact being another common problem. The autistic can far more comfortably have a conversation when they have a SD because the dog is both a physical and emotional barrier between them and others, creating a setting in which they can feel safer, with the focus of the other person at least partially on the SD. And if things become uncomfortable, they can shift some of the weight of the attention to the dog, by bringing it into the conversation, 'What do you think about that, Samara? Is this good girl ready for a treat?' or whatever feels right at the moment.

4. What have been you biggest struggles in training these dogs?
Several things: finding a suitable dog is always the first hurdle. Another is raising the SDIT without mishap that would have a detrimental effect on the training of child or dog - it is a constant adjusting of the course of training. Aric, at the moment, is a bit overwhelmed by Samara II's sheer size and strength and is a little intimidated by the idea of training her in public. So we have adjusted the training regime yet again, with my taking her out every day for socialization and training at a schoolyard, and his working on her commands at home that she has been learning with me. This gives them both time learning to work together and him confidence that he actually can handle this huge baby - all 65-70 lbs of her!

5. What has been your greatest success training these dogs?
In finding a way to be able to help myself, my son, and hopefully other families to find another way to cope with autism...to be led out of the confusing world of autism, where all the things you think you understand are all too often diametrically opposite from what the NT world expects from you. Though some rebel against the 'yellow star' that a service dog seems to label a disabled person with it can actually be a visual signal to others - 'I have some difficulty with managing, so my SD is here to assist me' and this cues others to accept that person on a different level of expectations than would be possible otherwise. It sets the stage in the favor of the disabled.

6. Where do you see the future of ‘DePorres Service Dogs For Autism’?
Again, I hope that DePorres can be a source of information and support for families and individuals with autism in the training and use of service dogs trained for assisting each in mitigating the effects
of their disability. Those of us with autism have far more to offer the world than is commonly understood....it is coming to light that most, if not nearly all, of the great minds of history and of our time have been on the autistic spectrum, meaning that they all had some signs of autism. Science, art, music, literature, training of animals, of breeding, of so many discoveries, most have been from men and women who all shared autistic tendencies....how much more the world will benefit with those presently unable to function in public without assistance out and about with service dogs to give that needed bridge to that freedom too long denied. The autistic are not 'retarded'....the greatest minds are locked away just waiting to walk out with their hand on the handle of a service dog's harness.
For more information regarding Service Dog’s for the Autistic please contact:
DePorres Service Dogs
Copyright © November 2003 by V. Norberg All rights reserved.
All photos copyright © 2003 G. Nichols. All rights reserved.
No unauthorized reproduction of this article is allow without the express written permission from the author.

2006-02-10T09:45:00.000-06:00

SSigDOG tasks

What do SSigDOGs do?
Jim Sinclair

Each SSigDOG must be specially trained to meet the unique needs of its user. But there are certain areas of difficulty that are common to many people with autism and related disorders. In the case of a young child or a dependent older person, a dog can alert caregivers to the occurrence of problems so the caregivers can intervene. In the case of a more independent person, a dog can help the person identify which features of a confusing environment need to be attended to. These are some common problems, and some examples of possible SSigDOG tasks:

Modulation of sensory and motor behavior
Autistic people sometimes have trouble understanding sensory input. The difficulty may be constant (the person is "functionally" deaf or blind) or intermittent (the person experiences auditory or visual "tune-outs"). It may be predictable (the person becomes unresponsive to sensory input when subjected to some identifiable stress factor such as fatigue, intense sensory stimulation, or confusion) or unpredictable (the person's responses change from normal to abnormal or nonexistent with no warning).

Example #1: A child does not respond consistently to his name. His parents want him to be able to play outside, but they are concerned because he does not answer when they call him. A SSigDOG can be trained to accompany the child when he goes out to play. When the parents want to locate the child, they can call a command to the dog. The dog will then run to the parents and lead them back to the child.

Example #2: A student knows the way to walk to school and has adequate judgment to determine when it is safe to cross streets. But she has unpredictable visual "tune-outs" during which she may not notice that she has reached a curb, or that there is an obstacle in her path, or that she is on a collision course with a bicyclist. A SSigDOG can be trained to stop at all street corners, lead her around obstacles, and pull her out of the path of moving objects. The dog's behavior will refocus the student's attention so that she can make appropriate decisions about how to respond.Autistic people may have stereotyped, repetitive movements and other behaviors that interfere with social acceptance. People with some degree of social awareness and motor control are likely to voluntarily self-suppress such behaviors in public, but the behaviors may still occur when the person is distracted or stressed. In other people behaviors may be not only odd but self-injurious (such as head-banging or hand-biting), disruptive (such as tantrums), or so socially unacceptable as to provoke hostility from neighbors and possibly the police (such as approaching strangers inappropriately, or obsessively collecting objects without regard for whether they belong to someone else).

Example #3: A child hits herself in the face when she is frustrated or upset. Behavioral treatment has reduced this behavior but has not completely eliminated it. The child also is fascinated by shiny objects. When she sees someone wearing shiny jewelry, she rushes over and tries to grab the jewelry. A SSigDOG can be trained to alert the child's caregiver, either by barking or by leading the caregiver to the child, whenever the child begins to display these behaviors.

Example #4: An adult wishes to be accepted at social events and to make friends in the community. His social skills are generally adequate, but sometimes he still rocks and hand-flaps. A SSigDOG can be trained to give some unobtrusive signal, such as a discreet nudge, whenever these behaviors occur. This will make the person aware of the behaviors so that he can decide whether he wishes to suppress them.

Orientation to the physical environment
Autistic people often seem to be unaware of their environment or uncomprehending of dangers in the environment. This can be dangerous for both dependent and independent people. Small children may wander far from home, run into streets, or climb on dangerous machinery. Adults without independent navigation skills may walk away from school or work, get lost, and be unable to communicate well enough to ask for help. Independently-navigating people may lose track of where they are even in familiar surroundings, or may become confused and disoriented in unfamiliar places.

Example #5: A child keeps going into a neighboring family's yard and climbing around or into the swimming pool. He has been discovered in the pool several times, and once he fell into it when it was empty and broke his arm. His parents have put up a high fence around their own yard, but the child climbs over the fence. He has also mastered complicated door and window locks, and has been found in the neighbors' yard at times when his family thought he was safely indoors. His parents worry that a momentary lapse of vigilance may lead to their child's drowning. A SSigDOG can be trained to alert a parent whenever the child begins climbing the fence, unlocking a window or a door, or approaching the pool.

Example #6: A nonverbal teenager lives in a group home. He frequently wanders away from the home, despite all the staff's efforts to keep track of him. The group home is in a city neighborhood near several busy streets. The boy has not learned to cross streets safely. The staff at the group home have decided that if he cannot be stopped from wandering, he will have to be removed from the group home and placed in a more restrictive environment. A SSigDOG can be taught the boundaries of the group home's grounds, and trained to alert staff if the boy leaves the grounds unaccompanied by a staff member.

Example #7: A high school graduate lives in her own apartment and walks or rides a bicycle to work. Sometimes she forgets a turn and goes several blocks out of her way, and then she becomes confused and cannot figure out where she is. If she makes a slight detour, or changes her usual route in order to run an errand, she gets lost. Usually she stops at a nearby grocery store on her way home from work. If she wants to go to the grocery store from home, she does not know how to get there unless she goes to her workplace first. If she goes to the store on a weekend when the traffic sounds are different, she has trouble finding her way home even following the same route she uses on weekdays. A SSigDOG can be trained to lead her to specified destinations, such as home, school, or store, in response to a single command.

Orientation to the social environment
Autistic people may have trouble with very basic social functions, including recognizing people, recognizing emotions, recognizing attempts to communicate, and initiating interactions. These problems often lead others to conclude that an autistic person is not interested in other people and does not wish to interact. An autistic person's unusual appearance and mannerisms may also make others hesitant to include the autistic person in activities.

Example #8: An elementary school student attends public school but has no friends in her class. Other children ignore her or tease her. She does not know how to approach peers even though she would like to play with them. The mere presence of a SSigDOG can attract positive attention and facilitate positive interactions with peers. The dog can also be trained to play with the child in such a way that other children are encouraged to join in. For instance, if the dog is playing Frisbee with the child, another child might be standing nearby watching. The autistic child is not likely to recognize this potential opening for interaction, but the dog can include the second child by bringing the Frisbee to him to throw.

Example #9: An office worker is cheerful and friendly with co-workers while in the office, but does not recognize them when he sees them outside the office. He also has trouble recognizing the sound of his name when someone calls to him in a noisy place, and recognizing attention-getting signals when someone approaches him in a crowded place. When co-workers see him in the community they may greet him, wave to him, or try to start conversations with him. They do not understand why he ignores them or acts as if he doesn't know them. They conclude that he is rude and unfriendly. After a while they stop trying to interact with him at work as well as in other places. A SSigDOG can be trained to alert the man to the presence of familiar people, to people calling his name, and to people trying to get his attention.

Example #10: A college graduate lives independently and is gainfully employed, but his social naivete and "spacey" manner make him a frequent target for exploitation. He has had wallets, cameras, knapsacks, and other belongings stolen because he put them down and was too easily distracted to notice the thieves until it was too late. Once his car was stolen from a parking lot when he left the keys in the door. He was only a few feet away, returning a shopping cart to the curbside, but he was completely unaware of the thief entering and starting his car and driving off with it. He has been mugged several times because he did not notice assailants coming up behind him. A SSigDOG can provide increased safety without any aggression training. Just the presence of a dog would deter many of these acts. In addition, the dog can be trained to alert the man to people approaching him or his belongings, so the man can be aware of what is happening and decide on a response.

Routines and changes
Autistic people have many different kinds of problems with routines and changes. They may have trouble learning a sequence of steps in a routine activity, or they may learn a routine too rigidly and have trouble modifying it when necessary. They may have trouble organizing space and constantly misplace things, or they may insist on a rigidly structured environment and become upset about minor changes. A dog's natural ability to learn routines can be used to provide the person with a system of prompts and reminders. A dog's natural ability to recognize and accommodate changes can be used to help the person gain flexibility in dealing with simple changes that cannot be specifically predicted and trained for in advance.

Example #11: A child cannot dress herself and resists her parents' attempts to teach her, but she enjoys putting on her own socks if her dog brings them to her. A SSigDOG can be trained to bring the child one article of clothing at a time, and a backwards chaining method can be used to teach the child to dress herself.

Example #12: An adult has learned all the skills necessary to get ready for work in the morning, but he has trouble getting all of them done in the right order. He may step out of the shower and put on his clothes without drying himself first, or forget to shave, or leave home without his lunch. A SSigDOG can be trained to follow the man through his daily routine and provide some prompt at each step to remind him what to do next. For instance, the dog may lead the man into the bathroom to remind him to shower, bring him a towel when he finishes showering, bring his razor to remind him to shave, etc.

Example #13: A student follows the same route when walking to and from school every day. If she encounters an obstacle (such as a puddle on the sidewalk, a parked car blocking a driveway, or an area of road under repair), she is able to recognize the obstacle, but she has trouble organizing her perceptions of the environment in order to find a way around it. For instance, if she sees that the sidewalk is covered with mud she may try to find the driest or shallowest part of the mud to walk through, instead of recognizing that she can avoid the mud entirely by walking on the grass. A SSigDOG can use its broader awareness of the environment to lead her around the obstacle.

Example #14: A person has a job doing custodial work in a school building. His normal routine includes cleaning certain classrooms every afternoon after school hours. Occasionally there are people holding an after-school meeting in one of the rooms. The man appears oblivious to the people and begins his usual cleaning activities, thereby disrupting the meeting. A dog would naturally recognize unusual people in the room as a change to be investigated. A SSigDOG can call the man's attention to such changes so he can decide whether a change in his routine activities is necessary. Example #15: A college student lives in a dormitory that has an electronically controlled lock on the main entrance. People enter the dormitory by ringing a bell and waiting for a buzzer signifying that the security monitor in the lobby has unlocked the door. Occasionally, as when students are moving their belongings in or out of the dormitory, or when deliveries are being made, the door is left propped open and the monitor does not need to buzz people in. The student does not notice the open door, and she continues to stand in the entryway ringing the bell and waiting for the buzzer to sound. A dog, unless it had been specifically trained NOT to go through the door until it heard the buzzer, would naturally recognize the open door as the most significant cue for entering the building. A SSigDOG can use this recognition to guide the woman through the door without waiting for the buzzer.

And more . . .
Autism and related disabilities interfere with basic perception and learning processes. While a dog cannot replace human reasoning and judgment, a trained SSigDOG can compensate for many perceptual and learning impairments. A SSigDOG is essentially an attention-focuser. A Caregiver Assistance SSigDOG is trained to recognize which behaviors of a dependent person require attention, and to alert caregivers to those behaviors. A Direct Assistance SSigDOG is trained to recognize which features of an independent person's environment require attention, and to alert the person to those features.
Copyright (c) 1990 Jim Sinclair

2006-02-10T08:32:00.000-06:00

CNN.com - Anderson Cooper 360° Blog

Interesting article on an adult ASpie with an SD...

http://tinyurl.com/mx5w5
Thursday, February 09, 2006

Sensory overload leads to bad buzz
You know those commercials where everything moves really fast and details are blurred, like life is on overdrive? That's how the world looks to Katrin Andberg most days.Katrin, you see, has "Asperger's Syndrome," a neurological disorder not unlike autism. People with Asperger's are very uncomfortable in social situations and can't look others in the eye. Not once during our interview, for example, did Katrin and I make eye contact. It was a little disconcerting at first, but I got used to it.Katrin, 22 years old, lives every day on sensory overload. She even hears the buzzing in fluorescent lights and sees them flicker every 30 seconds. (I didn't know they flickered.)Despite her condition, Katrin is quite functional, and smart too, as I discovered when I interviewed her at her home in Foxboro, Massachusetts, for a piece that airs tonight. Katrin graduated 6th in her high school class, runs her own business, and gets around town as long as James, her dog, is with her every step of the way. She says James calms her.People wonder why Katrin has a service dog, because she doesn't look like she needs the help. But they can't see what's going on in her brain.
Posted By Randi Kaye, CNN Correspondent: 11:02 AM 80 Comments

2006-02-04T22:49:00.000-06:00

WIBW Boy Allowed To Take Dog To School

....the news piece telling of Aric's return to school,with his service dog.

2006-02-04T22:45:00.000-06:00

A good look at the rights of service dog teams,including SDs in schools-something I haven't seen put so plainly before.

2006-02-04T22:38:00.000-06:00

WIBW Service Dog Not Allowed

The news piece on Aric's situation with the public school.

2006-02-04T22:29:00.000-06:00

(this is a ruling-I think in California-on service dogs in public schools)

Subject: THE LAW on bringing a service dog to a public school class -- the
dog and the child win, period, the school can adjust Sullivan By and Through
Sullivan v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist., 731 F.Supp. 947, 59 Ed. Law
Rep. 73 E.D.Cal. ORDER KARLTON, Chief Judge Emeritus. Plaintiff is a 16-year
old disabled student at Hogan Senior High School in Vallejo, California. She
has cerebral palsy, learning disabilities and rightside deafness. In her
first amended complaint, filed on December 26, 1989, [FN1] plaintiff alleges
that she *949 currently uses a wheelchair for mobility. In February 1988,
she participated in an intensive two-week training
Program organized by Canine Companions for Independence ("Canine Companions
), an organization that trains service dogs for use by people with
disabilities. First Amended Complaint at paras. 16 and 17; Declaration of
Bonita Bergin in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 1. At the
conclusion of the training, plaintiff received a service dog for a
probationary period which she subsequently completed. Id. FN1. Plaintiff
originally filed a verified complaint with this court on October 31, 1989.
In lieu of filing an answer, defendants noticed a motion to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6)
on November 20, 1989. Defendants' argument that plaintiff acted improperly
in filing an amended complaint is erroneous. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a) allows a plaintiff to amend her complaint once as of right any time
prior to the filing of a responsive pleading. The Ninth Circuit has
repeatedly held that a
Motion to dismiss the complaint is not a responsive pleading for purposes of
this rule. Allen v. Veterans Admin., 749 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1984), and
cases cited therein. Because plaintiff's amended pleading does not attempt
to cure the asserted defects complained of by defendants, the court will
treat the motion to dismiss as if it was directed to the first amended
complaint. Plaintiff complains that defendants have refused to allow her to
bring her service dog to school in violation of rights secured by section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 794, California Civil
Code §§ 54.1 and 54.2, and California Civil Code § 51 (Unruh Civil Rights
Act). Accordingly, she seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against the
Vallejo City Unified School District, several school administrators and
various members of the Vallejo School Board. She also seeks damages under
claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The
matter
Is currently before the court on defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6), and plaintiff's
motion for a preliminary injunction. I DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim, arguing
that plaintiff has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies and
thus this court is without subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants seek
dismissal of plaintiff's pendent claims for failure to state a claim. For
the reasons I explain below, the motion is denied. A. The Rehabilitation Act
Claim 1. Standards It is well established that the party seeking to invoke
the jurisdiction of the federal court has the burden of establishing that
jurisdiction exists. KVOS, Inc. V. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269, 278, 57 S
Ct. 197, 201, 81 L.Ed. 183 (1936); Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th
Cir.1986). On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure
12(B)(1), the standards that must be applied vary according to the nature of
the jurisdictional challenge. I have previously examined the mode of
ascertaining and applying those standards, see Cervantez v. Sullivan, 719 F
Supp. 899, 903 (E.D.Cal.1989), and it is unnecessary to repeat that
discussion at length here. [1] A complaint will be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction (1) if the cause does not "arise under" any
federal law or the United States Constitution, (2) if there is no case or
controversy within the meaning of the constitutional term, or (3) if the
cause is not one described by any jurisdictional statute. Baker v. Carr, 369
U.S. 186, 198, 82 S.Ct. 691, 699, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). 2. Exhaustion of
Claims [2] Defendants contend that this court lacks jurisdiction to
entertain plaintiff's section 504 claim because she has failed to exhaust
the administrative remedies provided by the Education of the Handicapped Act
20 U.S.C. § 1400 et
Seq. ("EHA") as required by the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of
1986, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f) ("HCPA"). Resolution of the motion turns upon a
close examination of the relationship of the three statutes. I undertake
that task below. Section 504 to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 generally
prohibits discrimination against disabled individuals by federally funded
programs. [FN2] The implementing regulations *950 promulgated by the
Department of Education make clear that educational institutions, including
preschool, elementary and secondary schools that receive federal funds come
within the ambit of the statute. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.31, et seq.; see also
Timms v. Metro. School Dist. of Wabash Cty. Ind., 722 F.2d 1310, 1317 (7th
Cir.1983). The statute has been interpreted to require federal grantees to
modify or excuse non-essential requirements which impede a disabled person
from participating in the grantee's federally funded program. It has been
held that a
grantee's refusal to make "reasonable accommodations" for the disabled
person can only be explained as "unreasonable or discriminatory."
Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 413, 99 S.Ct. 2361,
2370, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1979). FN2. The Act provides in relevant part: "No
otherwise qualified individual with handicaps as defined in Section 706(8)
of this Title shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794. The Education of the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C
§ 1400, on the other hand, is a funding statute "passed in response to
Congress' perception that a majority of handicapped children in the United
States 'were either totally excluded from schools or [were] sitting idly in
regular classrooms awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.'
" Bd. of Ed. of
Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S.
176, 179, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3037, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982), citing H.R.Rep. No.
94-332 at 2 (1975). To achieve the goal of ensuring that all handicapped
children obtain a "free appropriate public education," the statute imposes
on federally subsidized schools an affirmative obligation to create an
individualized education program" ("IEP") for each child who, as a result of
a physical, mental or emotional disability, "require[s] special education
and related services." 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(1) and (5). The Supreme Court has
held that the substantive requirements of the statute are satisfied where
the handicapped child receives "personalized instruction and sufficient
support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that
instruction." Hendrick, 458 U.S. at 203, 102 S.Ct. at 3049. The High Court
has determined that the guarantee of equal protection requires no more than
the
provision of a "basic floor of educational opportunity." Id. at 200, 102 S
Ct. at 3047. The statute, however, does impose extensive procedural
requirements upon participating states. Thus it requires that the parents or
guardians of handicapped children be provided notice and an opportunity to
be heard in an administrative proceeding regarding any proposed changes in
the child's educational program or placement. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(1)(D)
1415(b)(1)(E), 1415(b)(2) and 1415(c). [FN3] FN3. These provisions confer
on handicapped children and their parents a broad right to have complaints
resolved at a full adversary hearing before an impartial hearing officer
under the auspices of the state or local educational agency in connection
with "any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational
placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public
education to such child." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1)(E), (b)(2) and (c). Where
the
complaint is initially heard at the local or regional level, an appeal must
be available before the state educational agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c).
Thereafter, a party "aggrieved by the findings and decisions" achieved
through the administrative process may file a civil action "in any court
with jurisdiction." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). In the context of primary and
secondary education, EHA and section 504 present "a complimentary set of
standards ... to determine the appropriate educational setting for a
handicapped child." Martinez By and Through Martinez v. School Bd. of
Hillsborough Cty., Fla., 861 F.2d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir.1988). While EHA and
section 504 create parallel remedies where a school district fails in its
obligation to provide a handicapped child with a basic floor of educational
opportunity, see Timms, 722 F.2d at 1318, the substantive rights created by
the two statutes are distinct. Moreover, in certain circumstances, section
504 creates greater
substantive rights than those available under EHA. See Smith v. Robinson,
468 U.S. 992, 1021, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 3473, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984). For example
section 504 provides a remedy, unavailable under EHA, where a disabled
student has been provided basic educational opportunities *951 but has been
treated arbitrarily or in a different manner than similarly situated
able-bodied students by virtue of his or her handicap. Finally, a third
statute must be considered. In 1986, Congress passed the Handicapped
Children's Protection Act ("HCPA") as an amendment to EHA. 20 U.S.C. §
1415(f). HCPA requires exhaustion of the EHA administrative remedies prior
to filing suit under Section 504 to the extent that the relief sought in the
section 504 action would be equally available under EHA. The statute makes
clear, however, that EHA does not "restrict or limit the rights, procedures
and remedies available under ... Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973."
20 U.S.C. §
1415(f). Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring the school district to
allow plaintiff to be accompanied by her service dog at school. Defendants
argue that to achieve this goal, plaintiff can convene an IEP hearing for
the purpose of determining whether she requires the assistance of the
service dog to obtain the educational benefits guaranteed to her by EHA.
Defendants conclude that since the possibility exists that plaintiff could
achieve her objective through the IEP process, through a finding that the
service dog would be of some educational benefit to plaintiff, this court's
jurisdiction over parallel causes of action is conditioned on her exhaustion
of these procedures pursuant to the HCPA. The argument will not lie.
Defendants' argument is premised on the erroneous assumption that plaintiff
claims she is being deprived of a "free appropriate public education" within
the meaning of EHA as a result of defendants' decision to exclude her
service dog from
the school premises. Plaintiff, however, does not dispute that the IEP
created for her pursuant to EHA is adequate from an educational standpoint,
nor has she alleged that the service dog is educationally necessary.
Properly construed, plaintiff's claim is that whether or not the service dog
is educationally necessary, defendants have discriminated against her on the
basis of her handicap by arbitrarily refusing her access if she is
accompanied by her service dog. The consequences of plaintiff's pleading
relative to defendants' motion seems quite straightforward. Under plaintiff
s complaint, she may prevail by demonstrating that failing to make
reasonable accommodations for her use of a service dog amounts to arbitrary
discrimination. [FN4] Davis, 442 U.S. at 413, 99 S.Ct. at 2370. Put another
way, once plaintiff has made a threshold showing that her decision to use
the service dog is reasonably related to her disability, the sole issue to
be decided under
section 504 is whether defendants are capable of accommodating plaintiff's
choice to use a service dog. The issue of whether the service dog enhances
plaintiff's educational opportunities, which is central to the EHA inquiry,
is completely irrelevant under section 504. It thus cannot be said that the
relief sought by plaintiff--an order restraining defendants from excluding
plaintiff's service dog whether or not it is educationally enhancing--is
available under EHA. Accordingly, plaintiff need not exhaust the EHA
administrative remedies, and defendants' motion to dismiss the federal claim
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be denied. FN4. Throughout her
briefing, plaintiff suggests that section 504's non-discrimination mandate
guarantees her "the right to define her own completeness, even if that
completeness includes accommodating an animal." Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum
at 13 (filed December 4, 1989). This is not the law. Although as I explain
infra,
section 504 prevents defendants from questioning the validity of plaintiff's
choice to use a service dog to increase her physical independence,
defendants remain free to exclude the dog if they can show that no
reasonable accommodations are available. B. Pendent State Law Claims
Defendants also seek dismissal of plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to
California Civil Code § 51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act), and California Civil
Code §§ 54.1 and 54.2. 1. Standards [3] I have repeatedly discussed the
standards applicable to a motion to dismiss, see, e.g., Johnson v. City of
Chico, 725 *952 F.Supp. 1097, 1098 (E.D.Cal.1989), and no purpose would be
served by repeating that discussion here. It suffices to observe that on a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the
complaint is construed favorably to the pleader. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.
232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). The court may not
dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would
entitle him or her to relief. Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 104 S
Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46,
78 S.Ct. 99, 101- 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). 2. The Unruh Civil Rights Act
Claim [4] The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides, in relevant part: All persons
within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal and no matter what
their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin or blindness or
other physical disability are entitled to full and equal accommodations,
advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in business establishments
of every kind whatsoever. Cal.Civ.Code § 51. Defendants contend that
plaintiff's Unruh Act claim fails because a public high school is not a
business establishment" within the meaning of the statute. While this
argument
has the appeal of "plain meaning," it cannot prevail. The California Supreme
Court has taught that the "Legislature's desire to banish [discrimination]
from California's community life has led [that] court to interpret the Act's
coverage 'in the broadest sense reasonably possible.' " Isbister v. Boys
Club of Santa Cruz, Inc., 40 Cal.3d 72, 76, 219 Cal.Rptr. 150, 707 P.2d 212
(1985), citing Burks v. Poppy Construction Co., 57 Cal.2d 463, 468, 20 Cal
Rptr. 609, 370 P.2d 313 (1962). Under a parity of the reasoning adopted in
Isbister, it appears relatively certain that it is "reasonably possible"
that "business establishments" as used in the statute includes public
schools. The Unruh Act, adopted in 1959, "emanates from and is modeled upon
California's earlier statute forbidding arbitrary discrimination in public
accommodations." Isbister, 40 Cal.3d at 78, 219 Cal.Rptr. 150, 707 P.2d 212.
Its predecessor statute, first adopted in 1897, derived from the common law
doctrine prohibiting arbitrary discrimination by public enterprises. Id. The
Unruh Act "expanded the reach of the prior public accommodations statute
from common carriers and places of public accommodation and recreation such
as railroads, hotels, restaurants and theaters" to include "all business
establishments of every kind whatsoever." Id., citing Marina Point, Ltd. v.
Wolfson, 30 Cal.3d 721, 731, 730, 180 Cal.Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 115 (1982).
This language was included in the Unruh Act to vindicate the Legislature's
concern that the courts were construing the 1897 public accommodations
statute too strictly." Id. The Court has explained that: The original
version of the bill which became the Unruh Act extended its
antidiscriminatory provisions to "all public or private groups,
organizations, associations, business establishments, schools, and public
facilities...." Later versions dropped all the specific enumerations except
business establishments" but added
to the later phrase the modifying words "of every kind whatsoever." The
broadened scope of business establishments in the final version of the bill,
in our view, is indicative of an intent by the Legislature to include
therein all private and public groups or organizations [specified in the
original bill] that may reasonably be found to constitute "business
establishments of every type [sic] whatsoever." Isbister, quoting O'Connor v
Village Green Owners Ass'n, 33 Cal.3d 790, 795-96, 191 Cal.Rptr. 320, 662 P
2d 427 (1983) (citations omitted; emphasis added in Isbister ). Under this
interpretation, the California Supreme Court has found that a non- profit
homeowners' association, O'Connor, and a non-profit boys club, Isbister,
qualified as "business establishments" under Unruh. *953 In like fashion,
since public schools were among those organizations listed in the original
version of the Unruh Act, it must follow that for purposes of the Act they
are business
establishments as well. [FN5] In view of the California Supreme Court's
broad reading of the statutory language as well as its understanding of the
intention of the Legislature as read against the historical background, the
motion to dismiss plaintiff's Unruh Act claim must be denied. FN5. I note in
passing that one of the pre-Unruh decisions which the Legislature acted to
overrule, when it adopted Unruh in 1959, had held that private schools were
not subject to the existing public accommodations statute. Reed v. Hollywood
Professional School, 169 Cal.App.2d Supp. 887, 338 P.2d 633 (1959). 3. Civil
Code Section 54.2 [5] In addition to the general prohibition on arbitrary
discrimination created by the Unruh Act, the California Legislature has
specifically determined that physically disabled individuals shall have the
right to be accompanied by a service dog in places of accommodation. See Cal
Civ.Code §§ 54.1(a), 54.2(a). The right of access created by these
statutes extends to a broad range of facilities including Common carriers,
airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motorbuses, streetcars, boats or
any other public conveyances or modes of transportation, telephone
facilities, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation,
amusement or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited
.. Cal.Civ.Code § 54.1(a). Defendants contend that plaintiff cannot state a
claim under this statute. They argue that since public high schools may
restrict access to their premises, facilities of this type cannot be
characterized as "places to which the general public is invited." Defendants
assertion that Cal.Civ.Code § 54.1 does not apply to facilities that
restrict access to certain sectors of the population for administrative or
other non-discriminatory reasons cannot be reconciled with either the
statute's inclusive language or its remedial purpose. While the terms
public accommodations" and
"places to which the general public is invited" are not defined in the
statute itself, in view of the comprehensive statutory scheme designed to
ensure that disabled persons in California have "the same right as the
able-bodied to the full and free use ... of public places," Cal.Civ.Code §
54, these terms must be construed broadly. As the California Attorney
General has concluded in an analogous context, "for purposes of Sections 54
1 and 54.2, it is irrelevant that some groups of the general public are
excluded from the facility." 70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 104, 107 (1987) (private
medical facilities deemed public accommodations for purposes of Civil Code
§§ 54.1 and 54.2). Rather, the statute mandates that to the extent a
facility is open to members of the general public, even where some sectors
of the population have been excluded, access must be equally available to
disabled and able-bodied persons alike. See id. To construe the statute in
any other manner would
undermine its evident remedial purpose. There are few, if any, public
facilities which are open to every member of the general public without
limitation. Under defendants' theory, any public facility that provides
services on an unlimited basis to a particular segment of the population
would be free to discriminate against disabled individuals who meet the
other admission criteria, but who require the services of a guide, signal,
or service dog. [FN6] Under this interpretation, the catchall category
included at the end of the specifically enumerated list would severely
restrict, rather than broaden, the type and number of facilities subject to
the statutory non-discrimination mandate. It seems apparent *954 that such a
construction conflicts with the statute's underlying objective of creating
conditions which would increase the participation of disabled persons in
public life. FN6. For example, certain businesses, such as drinking
establishments and movie
theaters, routinely exclude minors but remain open to all other members of
the general public. Publicly financed housing excludes persons on the basis
of income. Private hospitals limit their services to persons with the
ability to pay. Public libraries exclude persons who make noise. Under
defendants' theory, each of these business establishments would be exempt
from the requirements of California Civil Code section 54.2 on the ground
that certain sectors of the general population are excluded. Defendants make
a related argument that the Legislature's intent to exclude public schools
from the scope of Civil Code section 54.1 is evidenced by California
Education Code section 39839 which excludes school buses from the scope of
California Civil Code section 54.1. It appears to the court, however, that
the Education Code provision, to the extent it is relevant at all, suggests
a conclusion quite the opposite of that argued for by defendants. The
existence of a
specific exemption to the application of California Civil Code section 54.1
in the education area suggests that the Legislature was fully aware of the
statute's effect and limited its scope where it thought appropriate.
Contrary to defendants' assertion, public schools seem to fall comfortably
within the ambit of Civil Code § 54.1. Public schools serve a significant
segment of the population; indeed generally speaking, public school
attendance is mandatory for California's children between the ages of six
and sixteen. Cal.Educ.Code §§ 48200, et seq. Because the mission of the
state's public schools is to educate all of California's children, it is
difficult to even conceive of a rationale under which the Legislature would
except schools from the important remedial function of the statute;
certainly defendants tender none. Under these circumstances, defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim predicated on California Civil Code §§
54.1 and 54.2 must be denied.
[FN7] FN7. It appears to the court, after reviewing defendants' response to
the State of California's amicus brief, that defendants have abandoned their
argument that public accessibility to disabled persons is governed by
California Government Code § 4450, the architectural barriers statute,
rather than California Civil Code §§ 51 and 54.1. Although it is apparent
that this argument could not prevail for the reasons articulated in the
initial brief submitted by Amicus, I will refrain from addressing the
argument in any detail. C. Conclusion For the reasons articulated above,
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's discrimination claims must be
denied in its entirety. I now turn to an analysis of whether plaintiff is
entitled to preliminary relief under any of these theories. II PLAINTIFF'S
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION A. Preliminary Injunction Standards Two
threshold issues relative to the appropriate standards governing the instant
motion are presented
by this case. First, I must determine the standards applicable to plaintiff
s request for a mandatory injunction pursuant to her federal Rehabilitation
Act claim. Second, I must decide whether federal or state law standards
govern a motion for preliminary relief relative to pendent state law claims
where, as here, the court's jurisdiction is predicated on the presence of a
federal question. 1. Federal Mandatory Injunction Standards [6] I begin by
noting that the purpose of an award of preliminary relief as authorized by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 is to preserve the relative positions of
the parties--the status quo anti litem, or the last uncontested
status--until a full trial on the merits can be conducted. University of
Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 1834, 68 L.Ed.2d 175
(1981). The Ninth Circuit has explained that although "the basis for
injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable injury
and the inadequacy
of legal remedies," Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S
Ct. 1798, 1803, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982), "where a party seeks mandatory
preliminary relief that goes well beyond maintaining the status quo pendente
lite, courts should be extremely cautious about issuing a preliminary
injunction." Martin v. International Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 675
(9th Cir.1984). Thus, under the law of this circuit, as a *955 general rule
mandatory preliminary relief is not to be granted unless both the facts and
the law clearly favor the moving party and extreme or very serious damage
will result. Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.1979).
[I]n doubtful cases, or where the injury complained of is capable of
compensation in damages" a mandatory injunction will not issue. Id.
Plaintiff concedes that the preliminary relief sought in this case is of a
mandatory character; that concession is wholly appropriate in view of the
fact that she has not
previously been accompanied by her service dog at school. She argues,
however, that the less stringent traditional standards, see, e.g.,
Wilderness Society v. Tyrrel, 701 F.Supp. 1473, 1476, 1477 (E.D.Cal.1988),
govern where the injunctive relief sought would require the defendants to
comply with federal civil rights laws. Plaintiff concludes that, in these
circumstances, the injunction may be characterized as mandatory in form but
prohibitory in effect. She relies on People v. Mobile Magic Sales, Inc., 96
Cal.App.3d 1, 157 Cal.Rptr. 749 (1979), as the sole support of this
proposition. Although Mobile Magic Sales, Inc. has analytical appeal, it was
decided under California law, and as far as this court can determine, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has not adopted this form of analysis.
Plaintiff also argues that the Ninth Circuit routinely employs the
traditional preliminary injunction standards in section 504 cases without
considering whether the relief
sought is mandatory or prohibitory in character. I cannot agree. In all of
the cases relied on by plaintiff, the preliminary injunctive relief sought
was designed to return the parties to the last uncontested status and was
therefore truly prohibitory in character. [FN8] Here, in contrast, plaintiff
has never been accompanied by her service dog at school nor have defendants
ever indicated that they would grant such a request. An injunction requiring
the defendant school district to make accommodations for the dog would thus
alter the status quo ante litem. Absent indicia from the Ninth Circuit that
the ordinary standards governing an award of mandatory preliminary relief
are to be relaxed where civil rights violations are alleged, I must conclude
that the conventional standards apply. FN8. In Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court,
Cent. Dist. of Cal., 840 F.2d 701 (9th Cir.1988), plaintiff sought
reinstatement to her teaching position after being terminated on the basis
that
she had AIDS. Similarly, in Thomas v. Atascadero Unified School Dist., 662 F
Supp. 376 (C.D.Cal.1986), plaintiff was a child with AIDS who sought an
injunction compelling his readmission to school after having been excluded
on the basis of his disease. Finally, in Kling v. County of Los Angeles, 633
F.2d 876 (9th Cir.1980), rev'd 474 U.S. 936, 106 S.Ct. 300, 88 L.Ed.2d 277
(1985), plaintiff, who suffered from Crohn's disease, sought an injunction
compelling the defendant nursing school to reinstate its prior decision
admitting her to a nursing program. 2. Pendent State Claims [7] The second
threshold issue I must resolve is whether federal or state law standards
guide this court's determination of plaintiff's entitlement to a preliminary
injunction on her pendent state claims. Both plaintiff and defendants agree
that federal law supplies the controlling standards. Recognizing that state
law standards are likely more favorable to plaintiff's position,
however, Amicus, the State of California, reaches the opposite conclusion.
It argues that where injunctive relief is authorized under state law to
enforce a state law right, the Erie doctrine compels application of state
law standards. Although this argument is not without strength, I conclude
that it is erroneous. It is clear that the principles enunciated by the
Supreme Court in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed
1188 (1938), regarding the application of federal or state law in the
diversity context apply with equal force where the federal court exercises
its pendent jurisdiction over state law claims. United Mine Workers of
America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218
(1966). Under the Erie doctrine, federal courts are bound to apply state
substantive law and federal rules of procedure to state law claims. Hanna v.
Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 465, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 1140, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965). The
High Court has
cautioned *956 that "choices between state and federal law are to be made
not by application of any automatic litmus test, but rather by reference to
the policies underlying the Erie rule," id. at 467, 85 S.Ct. at 1141, and
most particularly the policy which insures "substantial uniformity of
predictable outcome between cases tried in federal court and cases tried in
the courts of the state in which the federal court sits." Guaranty Trust Co.
of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 1470, 89 L.Ed. 2079
(1945). Amicus asserts that injunctive relief is a primary means of securing
the rights guaranteed by both the Unruh Civil Rights Act and California
Civil Code §§ 54.1 and 54.2. From this, Amicus concludes that application of
state law standards for granting preliminary injunctive relief is crucial to
ensuring that these rights are as fully protected in federal court as they
would be in state court. This argument fails to recognize the important
difference in the character of permanent and preliminary injunctive relief.
A permanent injunction is a creature of equity designed to enforce
substantive law rights. 7 Moore's Federal Practice, Pt. 2, para. 65.18[1].
In this sense, the availability of injunctive relief is an integral
component of the substantive law right. Where federal courts are called upon
to adjudicate a claim predicated on state law, under either its diversity or
pendent claim jurisdiction, there appears to be no question that the
ultimate issue of whether injunctive relief may issue must be decided under
applicable state law. Id. Were the rule otherwise, a substantial risk that
different outcomes could be achieved in state and federal court would be
presented in direct violation of the Erie doctrine. The purpose of a
preliminary injunction, by contrast, is both to preserve the relative
positions of the parties and minimize the risk of irreparable harm until a
trial on the merits can be
held." Capital Tool and Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Maschinenfabrik Herkules, 837 F.2d
171, 172 (4th Cir.1988). Although the court makes an initial determination
regarding the merits of the underlying claim, "a party is not required to
prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction hearing ... and the
findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court granting a
preliminary injunction are not binding at trial on the merits." Wilderness
Soc'y, 701 F.Supp. at 1476, quoting University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U
S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 1834, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). [FN9] In sum, the
standards supplied by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 to aid the court in
exercising its discretion cannot be characterized as either a component of
the substantive right sought to be enforced or outcome determinative for
purposes of the Erie doctrine. As the Ninth Circuit has recently explained,
Rule 65 merely sets forth the procedural terms for the issuance of
injunctions and
restraining orders and does not itself authorize injunctive relief." Sims
Snowboards, Inc. v. Kelly, 863 F.2d 643, 646 (9th Cir.1988). FN9. It is true
that where preliminary mandatory relief is sought, a higher standard must be
applied and the moving party bears a greater burden of persuasion.
Nonetheless, the granting of preliminary mandatory relief like the granting
of preliminary prohibitory relief is not a finding on the merits, and the
court is free to reweigh the evidence and the law upon trial on the merits.
The above analysis is not meant to suggest that state law may not inform the
court's exercise of its equitable powers in determining whether preliminary
injunctive relief is available in a particular case. In order to make the
determination that the moving party is likely to succeed on the merits of
its substantive claim, a federal court must inquire into whether injunctive
relief would be available as a matter of state law. Where a party seeks
injunctive relief under a state law based claim which would not be available
in the state forum, a federal district court may not exercise the discretion
it has under the federal standard to grant an injunction. The Ninth Circuit
implicitly adopted this analysis in the recent Sims Snowboards decision.
There, the circuit vacated a district court order granting a preliminary
injunction on a state law based breach of contract claim where injunctive
relief was unavailable under California *957 law. In reviewing the trial
court order, the circuit referred explicitly to the procedural requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, but explained, "[t]he general
equitable powers of federal courts should not enable a party suing in
diversity to obtain an injunction if state law clearly rejects the
availability of that remedy." Id. at 647. Similarly, in Kaiser Trading Co. v
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp., the court explained that "the best
approach would be to
look to state law to determine if a preliminary injunction is permissible ..
[and then to] look to federal law to determine whether the court should
exercise its discretion." 321 F.Supp. 923, 931 n. 14 (N.D.Cal.1970), appeal
dismissed, 443 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir.1971). Here, plaintiff seeks a preliminary
injunction on her state statutory claims for discrimination. It may be that
the state law standards governing mandatory preliminary relief are more
relaxed than the federal standards described above, see People v. Mobile
Magic Sales, Inc., 96 Cal.App.3d 1, 157 Cal.Rptr. 749 (1979), but that is
not the issue. While a favorable ruling on plaintiff's motion represents an
indication as to how the court will rule on the substantive issues, it in no
way represents a final ruling on the merits. Given that conclusion, it
appears to this court that federal law provides the standards governing
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief with respect to both
her
federal and state law claims. I now proceed to the substance of the motion.
B. Probability of Success on the Merits [8] Plaintiff asserts an entitlement
to a mandatory preliminary injunction on her federal handicap discrimination
claim as well as her claims predicated on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal
Civ.Code § 51 and California Civil Code §§ 54.1 and 54.2. Because I conclude
that plaintiff has demonstrated a clear probability of success on the merits
under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and California Civil Code
sections 54.1 and 54.2, I need not reach her Unruh Civil Rights Act claim. 1
The Section 504 Claim To make out a prima facie case of discrimination
under section 504, plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that she is
(1) "handicapped," (2) "otherwise qualified" to participate in the federally
financed program and has been excluded from participation by reason of his
or her handicap, and that (3) the relevant program receives federal
financial assistance. Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry, 659 F.Supp.
662, 671 (W.D.Tenn.), aff'd, 862 F.2d 570 (6th Cir.1988). Once a prima facie
case has been established, the burden shifts to the defendant to produce
evidence to rebut the inference of discrimination. Sisson v. Helms, 751 F.2d
991, 993 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 846, 106 S.Ct. 137, 88 L.Ed.2d
113 (1985). As in all civil litigation, the plaintiff bears the burden of
persuading the trier of fact by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant engaged in impermissible handicap discrimination. Id. at 993.
Where the issue of reasonable accommodation is at issue, as in this case,
the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that accommodations cannot
reasonably be made that would enable the handicapped person to participate.
Id. Thus, if the defendant proffers credible evidence that reasonable
accommodation is not "possible or practicable," plaintiff bears the ultimate
burden of
coming forward with evidence that an accommodation may in fact be made. Id.
a. Prima Facie Case In the instant case, there is no dispute that plaintiff
meets the first criteria for establishing a prima facie case of handicap
discrimination. A person is "handicapped" within the meaning of the statute
who has a physical or mental impediment which substantially limits one or
more of such person's major life activities. 29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(B).
Plaintiff here has cerebral palsy, a physically disabling condition, which
severely limits mobility. Declaration of Vincent Pasquarillo in Support of
Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 2. She uses the auxiliary aids of a
wheelchair and a service dog to overcome her physical limitations. Id. at 2;
Declaration of Christine *958 Sullivan in Support of Motion for Preliminary
Injunction at 2-3. Moreover, it is not contested that the defendant high
school district is a recipient of federal funds, and thus the third criteria
is
satisfied. Defendants maintain that plaintiff cannot satisfy the second
element necessary to establish a prima facie case, arguing that they have
excluded only plaintiff's service dog from the school premises and not
plaintiff herself. [FN10] Defendants' attempt to distinguish between
plaintiff and her service dog for purposes of admission to the school
premises cannot be reconciled with either the letter or the spirit of the
Rehabilitation Act. The statute defines "handicapped individual" broadly to
include both persons who are impaired and who are regarded as disabled. 29 U
S.C. § 706(8). Its dual purpose is to increase the participation of
handicapped persons in society, see Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 300,
105 S.Ct. 712, 719, 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985), and "to ensure that handicapped
persons are not denied ... benefits because of the prejudiced attitudes and
ignorance of others." School Bd. of Nassau County, Fla. v. Arline, 480 U.S.
273, 284, 107 S.Ct.
1123, 1129, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987). Because a central purpose of the Act is
to prevent discrimination based on public perception of a person's handicap,
deference must be shown to the manner in which a handicapped person chooses
to overcome the limitations created by her disabling condition. Put simply,
the statute requires accommodation to the plaintiff's handicap; it does not
require that she accommodate to the views of the public about her condition.
In sum, as long as the choices the handicapped person makes concerning how
to effectively address her circumstances are reasonable, the Rehabilitation
Act both protects those choices from scrutiny, and prohibits discrimination
against the disabled person on the basis of those choices. FN10. There is no
dispute that plaintiff is qualified, within the meaning of the statute, to
participate in the defendants' public school program. See Southeastern
Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. at 406, 99 S.Ct. at 2367
("otherwise qualified individual" is one who is able to meet all of the
program's requirements in spite of his or her handicap). Indeed, under EHA,
defendants are required to create an individualized educational program that
enables plaintiff to participate. Moreover, she has successfully attended
Hogan High School for two years. In the matter at bar, plaintiff has chosen
to use a service dog to increase her physical independence and to decrease
her need to rely on others to perform tasks that are beyond her own physical
capacity. The choice to employ a service dog for these purposes is akin to
choosing to use a wheelchair to increase her mobility rather than a pair of
crutches. By excluding her service dog, defendants have asked plaintiff to
assume a different persona while she attends school, i.e., the persona of a
disabled person without a service dog. In this basic sense, the effect of
defendants' decision to deny entrance to the service dog is to exclude
the person who exists everywhere but in school, i.e., a disabled person with
a service dog, from participation in the educational program as well.
Because the statute does not permit such an exclusion, I conclude that
plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of handicap discrimination under
section 504. b. Impermissible Discrimination Plaintiff must also demonstrate
a clear probability of success on the merits of her claim that, in violation
of section 504, defendants have failed to make reasonable accommodations to
her condition as a disabled person using a service dog. For the reasons I
explain below, plaintiff has succeeded in this task. The Supreme Court has
held that section 504 imposes on federally funded programs a duty to
accommodate handicapped persons, to the extent possible, to ensure that
non-essential requirements and practices do not "arbitrarily deprive
genuinely qualified persons of the opportunity to participate in a covered
program." Davis, 442
U.S. at 412, 99 S.Ct. at 2370. Put another way, a program may not be defined
in a way that effectively denies meaningful access to an otherwise qualified
handicapped person. Choate, 469 U.S. at 301, 105 S.Ct. at 720. To ensure
this principle is respected, where it appears that a handicapped person
satisfies *959 a federally funded program's basic requirements, section 504
requires the court to determine whether any "reasonable accommodations" can
be made by the grantee to facilitate the handicapped person's participation.
Arline, 480 U.S. at 288 n. 17, 107 S.Ct. at 1131 n. 17. As noted above, a
defendant's refusal to modify an existing program to eliminate non-essential
requirements that would prevent a handicapped person from participation must
be condemned as "unreasonable and discriminatory." Davis, 442 U.S. at 413,
99 S.Ct. at 2370. On the other hand, an accommodation is not reasonable "if
it either imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the
grantee, or requires a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program."
Id., at 412, 99 S.Ct. at 2370. In California, the scope of the duty of
reasonable accommodation is, at the minimum, defined by the provisions of
state law which require the defendant school district to grant access to
plaintiff's service dog. As I noted above, California Civil Code § 54.1
mandates that "physically disabled persons shall be entitled to full and
equal access, as other members of the general public ... to places to which
the general public is invited." The equal access mandate of section 54.1 is
implemented, in part, by California Civil Code § 54.2, which requires that
[e]very ... physically handicapped person shall have the right to be
accompanied by a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog, especially trained
for that purpose, in any of the places specified in Section 54.1" (emphasis
supplied). The only limitations which may be imposed on this broad right are
"those
established by law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to
all persons." Cal.Civ.Code § 54.1(a). The mandatory language employed
indicates a clear legislative purpose to ensure that persons such as
plaintiff shall not be denied access to public facilities while accompanied
by their service dogs. [FN11] Through these provisions, the California
Legislature has determined that in the absence of legal authority to the
contrary, there are no circumstances in which it would be reasonable to
exclude a service dog from a public facility. See Cal.Civ.Code § 54.1. For
purposes of applying section 504 to entities which are also covered by
California Civil Code §§ 54.1 and 54.2, such as the defendant school
district, service, signal and guide dogs are presumptively entitled to
access. Thus, in a case such as the one at bar, a facility covered by Civil
Code §§ 54.1 and 54.2 may not claim that it cannot reasonably accommodate a
disabled person's choice to use a
service, guide or signal dog under section 504 on grounds that to do so
would impose an undue administrative or financial burden on the institution.
FN11. Defendants' argument that California Civil Code § 54.2 has no
application where the handicapped person does not require the services of
the dog to attain access to a public facility cannot be countenanced.
Defendants readily concede that there is a strong state policy in California
evidenced by numerous legislative enactments, to integrate disabled
individuals into society on a full and equal basis. See, e.g., Cal.Civ.Code
§§ 51, 54.1, 54.2, 55; Cal.Penal Code § 365.5. These provisions would have
no meaning were they construed to permit a public facility to substitute its
own judgment as to whether a disabled person requires the assistance of an
auxiliary aid, whether it be a service dog or a wheelchair, to gain access
to its premises. Under this theory, a public facility could ban wheelchairs
from its
premises as long as it provided attendants to carry mobility impaired
persons from place to place. The guarantees embodied in both California
Civil Code § 54.1 and the anti-discrimination mandate of section 504 must
mean more than this. For the reasons I have explained above, California
Civil Code §§ 54.1 and 54.2 apply to public schools, and plaintiff is
entitled to their protection. Plaintiff uses the service dog to overcome the
physical limitations resulting from her cerebral palsy. The service dog is
specially trained to assist plaintiff in achieving greater physical
independence. The evidence shows that the dog received two years of training
from Canine Companions before being matched with plaintiff and performs
tasks that she cannot perform herself. Bergin Declaration at 2-3; Christine
Sullivan Declaration at 2; Michelle Sullivan Declaration at 2. It is
therefore clear that plaintiff has a near absolute right under state law to
be accompanied by her
service dog at school. *960 Defendants seek to justify the exclusion of
plaintiff's service dog on two grounds. First, that the dog is unnecessary,
and second, on space and health concerns. Neither justification is
persuasive. Defendants' assertion that plaintiff does not need the service
dog at school, and thus cannot benefit from the statutory scheme must be
rejected in view of their admission that due to plaintiff's physical
limitations she must rely on others to perform various physical tasks that
she cannot perform herself. They further concede that such tasks include
those which may be performed by a service dog, such as retrieving dropped
items. They insist, however, that these circumstances are of no real concern
because plaintiff needs to have those tasks performed infrequently. Joseph
Declaration at 3, para. 8; Murphy Declaration at 3, para. 6. Defendants'
argument not only demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the special needs of
physically disabled
people, it also appears to be contradicted by their own affidavits, and
finally, may well be irrelevant to her section 504 claim. Plaintiff's
physical mobility is severely restricted as a result of cerebral palsy. As
she has eloquently described in her affidavit, to live a life dependent on
others to perform simple physical tasks is painful and difficult. By using a
service dog who she controls to perform these tasks, plaintiff is able to
exercise greater control over her environment and achieve greater
independence in all aspects of her life. By denying access to plaintiff's
service dog, defendants have greatly diminished the dog's usefulness to
plaintiff and, thereby, have deprived her of her independence. See Christine
Sullivan Declaration at 4; Michelle Sullivan Declaration at 5. The
protection created by California Civil Code §§ 54.1 and 54.2 would be
seriously undermined were defendants able to deny plaintiff's right to use
the service dog outside of school
by prohibiting her from being accompanied by the service dog in school. Thus
whether or not plaintiff requires the services of the dog to perform
particular tasks for her during the school day is simply not dispositive.
Defendants' decision to exclude the service dog from their premises is
predicated on asserted space and health concerns, as well as their own views
about plaintiff's social and emotional development. See Declaration of
Pennee Hughes at 7, para. 16(a)-(f). The California Legislature, however,
has determined that concerns of this character may not override the right of
a disabled person who uses a service dog to have full and equal access to
public facilities accompanied by his or her dog. As a result, the reasons
articulated by defendants for excluding plaintiff's service dog from their
premises do not satisfy the defendants' burden of demonstrating that
reasonable accommodations are "neither practicable nor possible" for
purposes of section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See Sisson v. Helms, 751 F.2d at 993.
Defendants' corollary decision to create an Individualized Educational
Program ("IEP") for plaintiff that likely precludes her ability to be
accompanied by her service dog also violates section 504. To repeat,
plaintiff is a person who uses a service dog as a matter of right under
state law. Under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, defendants
are therefore required to develop an IEP which incorporates plaintiff's
choice to use a service dog. By placing plaintiff in a classroom taught by a
person known to have severe allergies to animal dander, defendants have
failed in their obligation to ensure that plaintiff will have meaningful
access to their educational program. Choate, 469 U.S. at 301, 105 S.Ct. at
720. This conduct can only be characterized as "unreasonable and
discriminatory." Davis, 442 U.S. at 413, 99 S.Ct. at 2370. Under these
circumstances, I must conclude that plaintiff
has demonstrated a clear probability of success on the merits of her federal
handicap discrimination claim. 2. California Civil Code Sections 54.1 and 54
2 For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff has also succeeded in
demonstrating a clear probability of success on her state *961 law claim
predicated on California Civil Code §§ 54.1 and 54.2. C. Irreparable
Injury/Balance of Hardships Plaintiff has also shown that she will likely
suffer grave and irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction does not
issue. Her declarations amply demonstrate that each day she is forced to be
separated from her service dog in school, his usefulness to her is
diminished. Christine Sullivan Declaration at 4, paras. 14, 15; Michelle
Sullivan Declaration at 5, paras. 15, 18 and 19. As a consequence of
defendants' conduct, plaintiff's ability to function as an independent
person, according to her own self- definition, both in and out of school is
injured daily. Neither an award of
damages nor a permanent injunction following the conclusion of this
litigation could possibly restore to plaintiff the loss of independence she
is likely to suffer in the interim as a result of defendants' conduct.
Moreover, the balance of hardships tips strongly in plaintiff's favor. The
defendant school district has shown only that it will suffer the apparently
minor inconvenience of having to restructure plaintiff's educational program
in order to accommodate her service dog. In view of its legal obligation to
do so, however, this type of inconvenience cannot outweigh the injury
suffered by plaintiff to both her working relationship with her dog and her
dignity and self-respect. Defendants' additional argument that they have an
interest in the quality of plaintiff's educational program that would be
injured by the requested injunction is, at best, disingenuous. As her papers
reflect, plaintiff is fully aware that, due to her teacher's animal dander
allergies,
her placement will likely have to be changed as a result of her choice to
use her service dog in school. Given the limited nature of the special
education program at Hogan, it may even be that the quality of her
educational program will be diminished. It would appear, however, that
plaintiff and her parents have determined that the benefits to be gained
from plaintiff's use of the service dog in all aspects of her life outweigh
any negative effects on the quality of her formal education. This is a
choice that belongs solely to plaintiff and her parents, and not the
defendant school district. For these reasons, I conclude that plaintiff has
satisfied the requirements for preliminary relief and an order enjoining
defendants from preventing plaintiff from bringing her service dog to school
D. Remedy Having determined that plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary
injunction, I must now decide the appropriate scope of the remedial decree.
Although the state law
guarantee of equal protection prevents defendants from excluding the service
dog from their premises, the space and health concerns which defendants
contend motivated their initial decision remain relevant in determining the
appropriate manner of incorporating the service dog into the school
environment. [FN12] Although I have held that plaintiff is entitled to be
accompanied by her service dog at school, it would be entirely reasonable
for defendants to take steps to ensure that plaintiff's choice is
accommodated in a manner that does not injure the legitimate and legally
protectable rights of others. Thus, as plaintiff concedes, her placement
will likely have to be changed once the service dog is incorporated into her
school program due to the allergies of her primary teacher. On the other
hand, it is important to note that defendants are required to place
plaintiff in the least restrictive environment possible, given the choices
she has made. Martinez, 861 F.2d
at 1506. Accordingly, defendants may not alter *962 plaintiff's placement to
accommodate the purely personal feelings of others, either students or
faculty, about dogs in the school environment. Conduct of this character
would clearly contravene the purpose of section 504 "to protect ...
handicapped persons from deprivations based on prejudice, stereotypes and
unfounded fear." Arline, 480 U.S. at 287, 107 S.Ct. at 1131. FN12. Of
principle concern is the suggestion that plaintiff's primary teacher is
severely allergic to animal dander. I emphasize here, however, that
defendants' belief that the service dog would impede plaintiff's social and
emotional development, which is expressed throughout the defendants'
declarations, may play no role in the decision as to how best to incorporate
the service dog into plaintiff's educational program. As I explain at length
in the text, section 504 compels defendants to respect plaintiff's choice
about how best to overcome the
limitation created by her physical disability. On the record before me, I
cannot determine whether defendants may be able to accommodate plaintiff and
her service dog by simply altering plaintiff's placement in a manner
consistent with the objectives outlined in her current IEP, or whether more
fundamental changes are required. Although it may be that plaintiff can no
longer remain in Ms. Murphy's physically handicapped classroom, defendants'
declarations suggest that there may be another class which would meet the
educational objectives outlined in plaintiff's current IEP. See Declaration
of Pennee Hughes at 8, para. 16(e). On the other hand, it may be that due to
the limited nature of the special education program at Hogan High School, a
new IEP will have to be created. For example, although it appears that Hogan
High School is the only campus in the Vallejo Unified School District that
is fully wheelchair accessible, Declaration of Pennee Hughes at 8 para.
16(e), there may be another partially accessible campus which offers special
education classes that are appropriate for plaintiff's educational needs. In
the final analysis, once plaintiff's right to be accompanied by her service
dog is accepted as a given, decisions regarding an appropriate placement are
educational decisions which are properly the subject of the EHA procedures
described at Section I(B)(2) above. For these reasons, I must defer the
decision as to plaintiff's proper placement to the established
administrative procedures mandated by the Education of the Handicapped Act,
20 U.S.C. § 1400. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1.
Defendants and their employees, agents, or any and all other persons acting
on defendants' behalf or under defendants' control are hereby RESTRAINED
from interfering in any way with plaintiff's right to be accompanied by her
service dog while attending public school. 2. Defendants shall convene a new
IEP within
seven (7) days of the effective date of this order for the purpose of
modifying plaintiff's existing educational program, or creating a new IEP
which ensures that plaintiff's right to be accompanied by her service dog in
all aspects of her educational program is not impaired. 3. The modified or
new IEP shall be in place so that plaintiff may be accompanied by her
service dog no later than twenty (20) days thereafter. The parties shall
submit a status report to the court at that time demonstrating that this
order has been complied with. IT IS SO ORDERED. E.D.Cal.,1990. END OF
DOCUMENT

2005-11-05T22:38:00.000-06:00

* “Dogs are not allowed in public places.”
Answer: Guide dogs have been accepted in public around the world for over 100 years, and in the United States from the early 1920s. In 1975 Canine Companions For Independence was founded, to make specially trained service dogs available to people with disabilities other than blindness. This was met with resistance and dispute, until the passage of Federal laws that protect the rights of the disabled. The main laws are part of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA“), and this covers the right to use a service dog that is trained to mitigate their disability with one or more tasks. Under the ADA, disabled owners of service dogs have the right to enter all places open to the public-governmental, educational, and business-accompanied by their service dogs. The only places that this law does not cover are private property, such as private homes and religious facilities, and in certain areas of medical facilities.

* “Dogs are not allowed in schools.”
Answer: Not true! Many schools across the country have in-house Therapy Dogs, who spend all day, every day, in public schools, often walking free through the halls. Guide dogs have ‘attended’ schools and universities with their owners for over 50 years, and service dogs for at least 30 years. This is required under Federal and state laws because public schools, colleges and universities are public institutions, funded by tax monies, and any one may make use of these facilities. There is no law, no part of the ADA or other Federal law, including the Individuals With Disabilities Educational Act (“IDEA”) that supports the preventing a service dog team attending any publicly funded school.

* “So anyone can just show up here with a dog, claim it is their service dog, and we are forced to permit this? Are there no safeguards against abuse of this law to protect students from people who just want to send a child’s pet with them to help them feel better?”
Answer: No, not every disabled person can or should use a service dog. And not every animal that wears a harness or vest is a service dog. There are rigid criteria that define exactly what a service dog is and is not, and though less clearly defined, there are also criteria that stipulate who can use a service dog. Unless these are met, the animal is at worst a pet, or it may qualify as an Emotional Support Dog (“EmoSD”), but unless the dog has been trained to perform on command at least one task that mitigates one aspect of the person’s disability, it does not qualify as a service dog under the ADA. And the choosing and training of dogs for this work is rigorous, detailed and takes months or years to complete. The work of training a service dog is long and exhausting for both trainer and dog, involving usually a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) hours of training over a period of no less than six (6) months. To quote from the standards set out by Assistance Dogs International, http://www.adionline.org/Standards/servstand.html ,

“1. A minimum of one hundred twenty (120) hours of training over a period of no
less than six (6) months, must take place under the supervision of a program's
trainer. During that time at least thirty (30) hours of regularly scheduled
training must be devoted to field trips and public exposure.
2. Basic
obedience skills the dogs must master with voice and/or hand signals are: sit,
stay come, down, heel and off leash recall.
3. The dog must show social
behavior skills of no aggression, no inappropriate barking, no biting, no
snapping/growling, no inappropriate jumping on strangers, no begging and no
sniffing of people.
4. The service dog must be trained to perform at least
three physical tasks.
5. The training time with the student prior to
placement must be a minimum of no less than 60 hours. This is both public and
private. All graduates must be given a solid education in appropriate behavior
of the team. The dog should stay as invisible as possible and not interfere with
people.”

As can be clearly seen by this, this is far more training than any pet receives, and when a dog is seen to not meet these standards of behaviour, most likely it is either a pet dressed as a service dog, or perhaps a service dog from a program, whose owner has not kept up the training.

As with any business, a school may ask 1) Are you disabled? 2) Is this a service dog? 3) What does the dog do for you? Under existing Federal laws, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is legally all that a school may ask. But I believe it is reasonable for the school to ask for further information: for some form of proof of the child’s disability, the tasks the service dog does for the child, why it is necessary that the dog accompany the child to school, who will be the handler of the dog during the school day, what care will the dog need during the time at school, what equipment is necessary and so on. After all, when one applies to a program to obtain a service dog, this info and much more is asked, and is necessary for the trainers of the dog to assure a proper matching of service dog to new owner.

As was previously mentioned, not all who are disabled could or should have a service dog- it is not a universal remedy for all disabilities. Service dogs are considered medical equipment under the law, like canes or wheelchairs, and while those items are relatively common and simple to use by the majority, a dog, as a living being, requires much more care and maintenance. Daily feeding, grooming, exercise, and regular training to maintain the skills and tasks at the necessary level is more work than many disabled are able to cope with, though the performance of this care is in itself of great therapeutic value. Then, too, many may be physically or temperamentally unsuited to handling a service dog, be unable to afford the minimum care and feeding, or any one of many other reasons. This is even more important in the case of children with service dogs. To be permitted to handle a service dog themselves, unaccompanied by a parent, is a great responsibility that not many children are mature enough to take on. It is quite possible, but requires both a child with unusual maturity and sense of responsibility, and a dog that is particularly calm and unlikely to take advantage of the child’s occasional handling mistakes or omissions. The child must be able to absorb a great deal of training in the handling of the dog, its daily care, and proper ettiquete in the handling of a service dog in public. Otherwise, it is necessary for the parent to accompany the child to school daily, to handle the service dog for the child, as it is unreasonable to expect the school to take on this job-the parent is the one who has received the training in the use of the service dog, not the school, and the parent is intimately familiar with the child, and therefore is the only one who is able to do this.

So, it has here been demonstrated that it is easily determined if a dog presented by a parent is actually a service dog, and how to facilitate the admission of children with them. It is also demonstrated that it is completely legal for service dogs to accompany their owners to all public places, including public schools, colleges and universities, provided that the usually accepted service dog etiquette and handling practices are observed.

©P.G.Nichols
November 5,2005
Students With Service Dogs©
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SDs_In_Schools

2005-11-05T16:53:00.000-06:00

+
Students with Service Dogs ©

Common Objections to Service Dogs by Public Schools
~Physical~

* “Dogs cause allergies.“
Answer: Yes, they do. So do many other things, such as different foods, fabrics, perfumes, cleaning supplies and other things that are commonly accepted at all schools. Yet these things are not banned, because they are useful and simple precautions can help avert problems for those with severe reactions to these things. The mere presence of a well cared for service dog will be no more triggering than any other common environmental allergen.

* “Dogs bite.”
Answer: Yes, any dog can bite, under sufficient provocation. The purpose of training is, among other things, to raise the service dog’s level of tolerance to such a point as to make this possibility highly unlikely. While in training, service dogs are exposed to increasing levels of new sights, sounds and experiences that they may encounter, and their reaction is very carefully monitored for signs of anxiety or stress, and any dog who cannot cope is taken out of training, never to be more than a well trained pet. Service dogs are trained to put up with the problems of their owners dropping items on or around them, tripping, stumbling, and even stepping on and falling on them, so little bothers them to any extreme.

* “Dogs carry parasites.”
Answer: yes, they can. So can humans. The answer to both is simple: good hygiene and normal health care. Service dogs receive better health care than any other dogs, because their owners lives depend on them. Internal parasites are therefore not a problem, and a well groomed and clean service dog will have been receiving regular flea prevention.

* “Dogs eliminate-that is a great health hazard.”
Answer: Yes, dogs do have the need to ‘answer the call of nature’, but unlike pets, service dogs are completely housebroken, and trained to eliminate on command while on duty. Owners of service dogs carry with them plastic bags for clean up and disposal of waste, and many have small clean up kits with them for wiping paws and other small sanitizing needs. Normal procedure is to take the service dog some place where it is unlikely others will walk, to allow the dog necessary time for what is needed, and then the result is collected and thrown away in the nearest outdoor trash can.

* “Dogs shed hair and track in mud in wet weather.”
Answer: Yes, anyone standing by any door will see every foot bringing in water and mud-and human shoes with the popular deep treads bring in much more than any four dog paws ever could. As for shedding, yes, shedding is a fact of life with any dog and unavoidable. But the normal grooming every service dog receives daily keeps this to a minimum, and the conscientious handler is aware of the problem, and cleans up the stray fur that is visible, if any is left. Many students with service dogs carry a mat or blanket for their dog to lie on, for this reason.

* “Dogs are a distraction to the other students.”
Answer: Yes, they are…but normally only for a short time, while everyone becomes accustomed to the change in their daily routine, when they will then simply become ’part of the furniture’, so to speak. Service dogs are trained to be quiet and unobtrusive at all times, and will settle beside the student and remain quietly until needed.

* “Dogs bark, whine and make noise.”
Answer: Yes, they do, and this is something that is vital to many who use service dogs. Service dogs are trained to use their voices to alert, to signal, and even to comfort. They do not bark or vocalize without reason.

* “You make these animals sound magical- are you saying that a service dog will never shed, throw up, or make other messes? That it will never bark or whine or be noisy? Can you guarantee that it will never bite or scratch anyone?”
Answer: For all the training these animals receive, they are still animals, and there is always a chance of a problem. But with proper care and handling, chances for these things are greatly minimized, and the handler is prepared to cope with any care the dog needs away from home. Trained service dogs have been used in public places all over the world for over 100 years, and the training and uses of them is being expanded and refined constantly. The incredible benefits from the use of a service dog far outweigh the occasional minor problem.

© Copyright November 5,2005
Patricia G. Nichols
Students With Service Dogs©
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SDs_In_Schools/

2005-11-05T16:18:00.000-06:00

....yikes,its been awhile since i've had the time to update this,but what an update!

October,2005

Aric and Tagg: Service Dog Pioneers on the Oregon Trail

By P.G.Nichols

Our son,Aric,who is 14,has a high functioning form of autism called Asperger's Syndrome. He has had the assistance at home of a service dog for many years,but circumstances and lack of maturity prevented him from having his service dog with him at school as well,which meant that he was not able to attend school,but rather be homeschooled...his stress at being around other children and unknown situations is more than he can cope with alone. But with a service dog trained to alert him to rising stress and anxiety,and then calms him by insisting that Aric focus on him,with petting and so on,among other tasks,Aric is now able to face the world on his own for longer periods of time. Together,Aric and Tagg,his sable rough collie service dog,go out to do errands,walk to therapy at the clinic across town,or just go out to the minimart for a coke and a treat for them both. Aric and Tagg are a well known sight around our little Kansas town-the tall,handsome boy with the shy smile,and the handsome sable rough collie in the bright red backpack who always greets new friends with a 'handshake'. None of these things were possible for Aric before he had Tagg....now we can let him do more and more things that 'other kids' can do,without worry about his getting disoriented or lost,or even having the 'wrong sort' of stranger approach them and try to strike up a conversation with Aric,who is too friendly for his own safety-Tagg is very alert to how everyone around him is feeling,and when he doesn't like a particular person,he simply takes Aric away from them,easily done,since his leash is one that goes over Aric's shoulder and across the body...he just walks off and Aric knows it is time to listen to Tagg and leave. Tagg has a number of tasks,and all have verbal commands,but most of what he does is in trained response to situations. This way, we can count on him to know when to help Aric,and to do so without always needing a direct command.
These two were recently featured on the local CBS TV affiliate,because of the local public school refusing to allow Aric to attend classes with his service dog,even though this obviously in violation of Federal law permitting the disabled access to free education. We have been in contact with the school district regarding this for many months,and have made available to them the laws on this,and many precedents of high schoolers attending class with service dogs,and for months would not allow him to attend school. But finally,after months of waiting and work,Aric and Tagg got the green light to come to school together! We are so proud of them both,and they are both so special that their story could be a help to other teenagers and young adults who have Asperger's Syndrome,and who could be helped by a service dog....and collies seem to have a special talent for this work. Tagg is literally a Cinderella story,of the dog who was so often in the pound that he was about to be put to sleep,who became a service dog,helped shape the service dog laws of Kansas while making friends in the Kansas Statehouse,and now working with Aric in class and out.

As we came out of the decisive IEP meeting, Aric turned to me,and says,"Well,Tagg and I have blazed a new part of the Oregon Trail,to help other disabled kids come to school with their service dogs".....that totally blew me away! Where we live,here in Kansas,we literally do live on the Trail-it is our alley and back yard as it cuts through our town,and we often remind the kids of different things that happened to folks as they traveled through here long ago. But to have that kind of sense of history, it was amazing!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(this is a list of Tagg's tasks that we prepared as part of presenting his case to the IEP team in charge of Aric's studies in the public school)

Tagg's Service Dog Task List,Oct4,'05

Aric Nichols' service dog,Tagg:
Breed: purebred rough collie
Age:about 7 or 8 years old.neutered.
Training: Obedience basics,Service Dog tasks,Public Access Training,Delta
Society Therapy Dog training.

***SERVICE DOG TASKS:

(As Aric is autistic,and often forgets commands when upset,Tagg is trained
to work without direct command,in response to situations. Many commands are
ones that we,his parents,use more often than Aric.)

Physical:

*stops at curbs,to alert to street.If car approaches,service dog holds back
and alerts to danger. Aric often walks out into the street when distracted
and has had too many close calls.

* orienting-knows usual routes to and from familiar destinations,cues Aric
when he is unsure of direction.

*physical boundary with strangers-if service dog is unsure of new person,he
will stand/sit between Aric and them in a non threatening way. This is
important,because Aric is too friendly,and not able to properly judge
intentions,or mistakes a stranger for a known friend.

*Retrieving belongings-Aric often puts down things while in public,and the
service dog is on the alert for this,and calls his attention to the dropped
item/retrieves it. (work in progress)

Mental:

* Emotional stabiliser/safety valve: Aric is very good at not showing how he
really feels,both physically and emotionally. His service dog's presence is
a constant,a calming,know quantity that is soothing to him by touch,scent
and sound,and prevents his emotions building up to a dangerous level where
he has hurt others in the past. His service dog permits extended
petting/grooming sessions,and something we call 'kid attacks' where Aric
when under a great deal of tension (both good and bad), will suddenly swarm
all over the dog,with pettings,crooning,and heavy physical contact
such as partially lying on the dog, the dog standing over or lying on him,
washing his face, We have tried out more than one dog in the search for a
dog tolerant of this,who enjoys this intensity of contact,and it is rare.
This task is also enabling Aric to avoid the depressive episodes he used to
have when faced with the dichotomy of his abilities vs. friends,the
cruelties of teasing the 'different' kid,and so on. His SD is a natural
antidepressant/mood stabiliser,without the dangerous chemical side effects.

[quote from the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners website,
http://www.iaadp.org/ on this task:

Provide Tactile Stimulation to Disrupt the Overload
Tasks that will provide a tactile distraction from disorder symptoms are
useful in emotional overload situations. In addition these tasks provide a
reality affirmation. This type of diversion tactic becomes an actual task
when the behavior can be reliably induced on command rather than depending
on the breed of dog, a dog’s whim, or the handler needing to coax a dog into
the right mood. Most dogs do not rush sympathetically to the side of the
human partner to comfort the person when he or she becomes tearful or lies
there trembling with fear or other emotions. Nor do they engage in the
following behaviors automatically, without specific schooling. The following
tasks have been effective ways to accomplish the desired results. (e.G. to
help mitigate the symptoms)
Dog will lay head in lap, then do nudging, on command or cue till partner
can respond.
Dog will do “Lap Up” - Putting forepaws in lap, hold that position and may
be taught to put his head on the partner’s shoulder, if tall enough.
Dog will lick face on command or without, or nuzzles partner to help bring
partner to full awareness and to prevent withdrawal or the onset of more
sleep disturbances.
Dog trained to get up on the bed on command and to tolerate a lengthy stay,
obediently lying across the person’s lap or next to them for as long as
needed to permit the use of a team relaxation technique like the Tellington
Touch to mitigate the emotional overload.

Social:
* serves as a 'bridge' to other,non disabled people as a conversation
starter,as a safe haven to focus on before the pressure of the unfamiliar
conversation becomes an overload. The service dog also serves as an
emotional "boundrary" of safety,when Aric is unsure or apprehensive of a
social situation,by being the 'friend',the 'go between' that the attention
is funneled through to and from Aric. This has already had good results,with
Aric obsessing less over subjects he is interested in when in conversations
and better able for the give and take of a 'normal' conversation. This is a
task comprised of several elements that can vary from one time to the next
but usually entail tactile contact, some boundary work,and often a simple
trick or two.]

~~~~~~~~

This is a new team,and they are still in the bonding stages,and we are
seeing the beginnings of new tasks that with training can help Aric to
better mange his disability. A service dog is always in training,till the
day they die,and are always learning new tasks for their masters....Aric' s
service dog,Tagg is already a experienced SD,as well as a Therapy Dog,and is
learning more every day.

Partial Commands List:
Sit
Stay
Down
Heel
Come
Stand (doubles as the command to brace)
Easy
Speak
Paws Up
Come Up
Shake
Potty Time
Hup
Get Down
Want a Drink?
Are You Hungry?
Where's Aric?
Go Help Aric
Where's Dad?
Playtime
Where's The Door?
Get It/Pick it up
Watch

October 4,2005

»§«.,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«
For more info:
Students With Service Dogs
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SDs_In_Schools/
And
DePorres Service Dog Trainers Guild
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DePorresServiceDogs

Patricia Gail Nichols
deerskin@oct.net

2005-09-17T19:02:00.000-06:00

+
Links to sites with information on service dogs for the autistic....

DePorres Service Dog Trainers Guild (this is a link to the Yahoo group i own... we have many members who are autistic,and parents who have kids on the spectrum who have trained or are training SDs for them)
A Child's Best Friend Service Animals for Autism
A Service Dog For Anne
Aric's Page-ServiceDogsAutistic.h
Assistance Dog for Asperger's Syndrome
Autism Assistance Dogs
Autism Dogs
Autism into Adulthood
Autism Service Dogs of America
Autism Society of America - Central Ohio Newsletter
Autistic child can get out more thanks to his 'social therapy' dog MetroWest Daily News - Local News Coverage
Autistic girl matched with guide dog
Canine Companions
Child finishes successful school year with help of Yogi
Children with autism benefit from canine friend -- March 5,
Communication of Emotion and the Possibility of Empathy in Animalshttp--www.medicine.uiowa.edu-prestonresearch-EmpathyChapter.pdf
Delta Society Relationships Between Young People with Autism and Their Pets
Dogs help the autistic come out of their shell CNN - Tomorrow-Today - Oct. 30, 1997
Jim Sinclair's Web Site-AUTISM SDs!!
LOVE UNLEASHED 4-legged therapist helps teen learn to socialize, verbalize
North Star Dogs - We help children find their way. Dogs and
Our Hope Is In the Children Autism PDD service dogs ADA Incl
Pet Ferret Helps Autistic Child Autism PDD Service Animals
Pets and the Spectrum
Service Animals and Children with Autism
Service Animals and the Law
Service Dogs and Autism
Service Dogs for Children with Autism
ServiceDogsAutistic.h
SSigDOG tasks
Welcome to National Service Dogs

2005-09-16T08:48:00.000-06:00

+The Essentials of the Situation.....

.....i'm just another mom with a kid and service dog team and i just have to share our story,in the hopes that it will help other parents in similar situations. i'll try to keep this updated,so that there is a record of what happens,so folks can see what works and doesn't work in our situation....

we are in the middle of an ugly access battle over the refusal of the public school here to allow our 14 year old son,who has a high functioning form of autism, to attend part time classes with his service dog,Tagg. it has been extremely stressful for him and for the rest of our family,to have him barred from school in this manner. his SD,a rough collie folks always call 'Lassie' when we are out and about,helps him,among other tasks, maintain emotional balance by alerting him to his stress level,gives him calming sensory imput through touch,scent,and sound,keeps him alert and oriented to his surroundings when he is out on his own (something we NEVER dreamed would be possible,in the days before he had Tagg!),and provides not only a marvelous social bridge for him,facilitating contact with new people,but also presents a new,positive image for the autistic....too many think "RainMan" or "retard" when they think of the autistic. Instead,now they see this tall,handsome boy,rather shy,with the beautiful collie,dressed in a bright blue SD pack,at his side who always sits down to present a shining white paw for a handshake....Aric and Tagg are well known around town now,and are even making friends in towns where we have to travel to shop,the nearest market being 7 miles away,and the nearest Walmart 30 miles away.

....but the school district,after having originally agreed to the situation-verbally- reneged on the agreement,they actually tried to stop it the first day,so my husband took them to school that morning,and were met at the door by the teacher who later that day sent Aric and Tagg home. the teacher tried prevent their entering the school, telling my husband "it wasn't allowed",and Wayne just reminded him that this is federal law,and took them to their classroom....and,later that day-not even their usual full time,only two days after Aric and Tagg began school,sent them home,without even a note or call to me first before sending them home,with the harsh words,' You are welcome back to school anytime,but without the dog'.....no prior warning to us,nothing. the reason? none given whatsoever,except a vague mutter about one teacher being 'allergic to dogs'. no complaints at all about either Tagg's behaviour,or Aric's handling of him......and in the months and meetings since then,there has been more and more idiotcy clouding the issue....mainly tiny things they are grasping at,to stall and try to wait us out,i think.

~*~*~

the 'reasons' given for the ban on Tagg's presence at school with Aric are specious and ridiculous,to say the least:

* " he isn't disabled''.....sorry,but he has had many doctors repeatedly test him,and the results have always come back as his having Asperger's Syndrome. and he has been recieving SSI for many years....and that is given to the disabled.

* ''AS isn't mitigated by any service dog tasks"....oops,that is also incorrect. while SDs for autism is one of the more recently publicised kinds of service dog work,it is hardly new or unknown....the tasks performed by Tagg are ones that are very common for psychiactric service dogs(PSD). I had originally trained Tagg for myself,as i have a number of disabilities myself,and Tagg was my first PSD,so i am very familiar with his abilties.

* "we don't want the child to look different"....sorry,wrong again! for one thing,anyone who speaks with Aric for more than a few minutes will become very aware that he *is* different. but since when is different something to be avoided or feared? isn't our country one of diversity? many cultures,races,abilities and disabilites,all coming together in a marvelous whole,with each of us benifiting greatly from all of it,even if we are not aware of it. too many today have the mindset of 'curbie',as in eliminating autism and its cousins,while totally forgetting that this is the same thing that contributed so much to what made up the genius of many of history's and today's great minds.....i have often called AS "God's blueprint for genius',because it seems to give the person an abiltiy to focus and concentrate on a subject,to the exclusion of all else,and to extract from it insights that have led to the creation of many works of art,science and literature. true,this gift comes at the price of being what many call 'socially retarded' or 'nerds',but it it were not for those on the autistic spectrum,this world would be much poorer in many inventions,art,science and such that we cannot imagine living without.

* "one of the teachers is allergic to dogs-we can't allow a dog here because of her'....nope. not a good enough reason. for this to work,this person would have to have so severe an allergic reaction to dogs as to be disabling,as set out in the guidelines of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).....and even then,it wouldn't fly,because both the teacher and the student would be covered under the ADA,the teacher for her allergy disability and the student for his. so accomodations would be made for both,like seperating them in the building,and so on.

* "what if the dog bites someone?" wrong again. service dogs are carefully screened for temperment,tested and trained in conditions that gradually ramp up to and including expousure to airplanes,cargo hangers,auto repair shops,playgrounds at the height of recess, butcher shops,pet stores full of puppies and kittens...you name it,its likely been trained and tested for. a properly trained SD will,at most,give a cursory glance at a pen full of kittens,or a tail wag to a passing dog while going on with his work. any dog can and will bite,given sufficient provocation....but those situations are so extreme that it is just as likely that the humans around would be either the cause of the SD's agitation,or stressing it so much that it felt that it and its handler were in danger. either way,these are rare and extreme situations,that every precaution is taken to prevent,both in the SDs training,and in the use of it later.

* "the dog is not professionally trained! he isn't from an accredited school,so he can't be a certified service dog"....wrong on all points. under federal law,and that of most states, a service dog can be trained by its owner as well as by a program.....both are perfectly legal and acceptable. and under federal law,it is not necessary for a service dog to be certified. there is no national or state standard to which service dogs are held to,so there is no way to certify them. the only thing that service dogs could be tested for would be for proper obedience training and training in public access deportment.....not a bad idea at all,but not one that is requred by law anywhere that i am aware of,certainly not on the federal level. and the federal law trumps all state laws if it gives the greater protection.

...these are but a few of the excuses that have been blocking the way for Aric and Tagg returning to school....that,and spurious statements like 'the IDEA trumps the ADA,and under the IDEA the school is not bound by the ADA and does not have to admit a service dog unless we feel it is to the advantage of the child'.....can you believe it?! i have studied both in depth,and no where can i find anything that even remotely hints at such a thing,but rather that the IDEA actually supports the use of assistive equipment/devices/etc in enabling the child to learn more easily. so the notion of a service dog being disallowed by anything in the IDEA.

~*~*~*~

....here are two items that were given to the school,and sent to the Special Education director,regarding Tagg's tasks,and what to expect of him while at school:

~~~~~~~~~~~~

An explaination of some of Tagg's tasks,from a list we sent to be given to Aric's teachers:

*Physical:*stops at curbs,to alert to street.If car approaches,service dog holds back and alerts to danger. Aric often walks out into the street when distracted,and has had too many close calls.* orienting-knows usual routes to and from familiar destinations,cues Aric when he is unsure of direction.*physical boundary with strangers-if service dog is unsure of new person,he will stand/sit between Aric and them in a non threatening way. This is important,because Aric is too friendly,and not able to properly judge intentions,or mistakes a stranger for a known friend.

*Retrieving belongings-Aric often puts down things while in public,and the service dog is on the alert for this,and calls his attention to the dropped item/retrieves it. (work in progress)

Mental:* Emotional stabiliser/safety valve: Aric is very good at not showing how he really feels,both physically and emotionally. His service dog's presence is a constant,a calming,know quantity that is soothing to him by touch,scent and sound,and prevents his emotions building up to a dangerous level where he has hurt others in the past. His service dog permits extended petting/grooming sessions,and something we call 'kid attacks' where Aric,when under a great deal of tension (both good and bad), will suddenly swarm all over the service dog,with pettings,crooning,and heavy physical contact,such as partially lying on the dog, the dog standing over or lying on him, washing his face, We have tried out more than one dog in the search for a dog tolerant of this,who enjoys this intensity of contact,and it is rare. This task is also enabling Aric to avoid the depressive episodes he used to have when faced with the dichotomy of his abilities vs. friends,the cruelties of teasing the 'different' kid,and so on. His SD is a natural antidepressant/mood stabiliser,without the dangerous chemical side effects.(quote from the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners website on this task:Provide Tactile Stimulation to Disrupt the OverloadTasks that will provide a tactile distraction from disorder symptoms are useful in emotional overload situations. In addition these tasks provide a reality affirmation. This type of diversion tactic becomes an actual task when the behavior can be reliably induced on command rather than depending on the breed of dog, a dog’s whim, or the handler needing to coax a dog into the right mood. Most dogs do not rush sympathetically to the side of the human partner to comfort the person when he or she becomes tearful or lies there trembling with fear or other emotions. Nor do they engage in the following behaviors automatically, without specific schooling. The following tasks have been effective ways to accomplish the desired results. (e.g. to help mitigate the symptoms)Dog will lay head in lap, then do nudging, on command or cue till partner can respond.Dog will do “Lap Up” - Putting forepaws in lap, hold that position and may be taught to put his head on the partner’s shoulder, if tall enough.Dog will lick face on command, or nuzzles partner to help bring partner to full awareness and to prevent withdrawal or the onset of more sleep disturbances.Dog trained to get up on the bed on command and to tolerate a lengthy stay, obediently lying across the person’s lap or next to them for as long as needed to permit the use of a team relaxation technique like the Tellington Touch to mitigate the emotional overload. )

*Social:* serves as a 'bridge' to other,non disabled people as a conversation starter,as a safe haven to focus on before the pressure of the unfamiliar conversation becomes an overload. The service dog also can serve as an emotional "boundrary" of safety,when Aric is unsure or apprehensive of a social situation,by being the 'friend',the 'go between' that the attention is funneled through to and from Aric. This has already had good results,with Aric obsessing less over subjects he is interested in when in conversations,and better able for the give and take of a 'normal' conversation. This is a task comprised of several elements that can vary from one time to the next,but usually entail tactile contact, some boundary work,and often a simple trick or two.

* Emotional stabiliser/safety valve: See above,under 'Mental'.

~~~~

(...from a sheet given to the school,information for the teachers,etc)

*Basics of Service Dog team in school*

Aric is attending school with his certified Service/Therapy Dog,Taggart. The service dog ("SD") will always be clearly marked as such,by wearing harness,backpack or vest with "SERVICE DOG" or "ASSISTANCE DOG" patches on it in plain view,and with photo ID,as is required under Kansas state law
This SD is to be handled only by Aric,his owner at all times. No one else is permitted to take the leash from Aric at any time,under any circumstances,except one of the school personnel,and then only under extreme circumstances (injury to Aric,for instance). Even then,the SD is to be kept with him at all times,and never separated from him.* Petting is permitted,but only when the SD is not in work mode. Aric knows the drill: the SD is to sit at his side,and only then may one child at a time pet the SD. No one may take the SD from Aric. Only petting is to be allowed-under no circumstances will the SD be allowed offleash to play or any other reason. This is a very friendly,affectionate dog,and one that loves petting,but he is there in a professional capacity,not as a pet or a plaything.* On a normal day,Aric will come to school with his SD,and before class,he will put down a blanket for his SD to lie on beside him or under the table or desk, and out of the traffic patterns. Please remind him of this,if he needs to tuck the SD in a bit more,as the dog moves about. The SD is trained to remain on a down/stay on command,and will lie there quietly,with a toy or such to occupy him if need be,or sleep. Aric has with him all that his SD needs:blanket,toy,treat. Aric will maintain control at all times of his SD by means of the harness or leash,which is normally worn across his shoulder,he will not put down the leash for any reason. Aric will take his SD outside for potty breaks,and is prepared to collect any waste that may be left. He is taught the how and where of this,and this SD is well trained in this respect.

~*~*~*~*~
....here are some of the laws that have a bearing on this case:

The Department of Justice brief,regarding access-applies to all state,Federal and public places:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/svcanimb.htm
ADA Business BRIEF: Service Animals
Service animals are animals that are individually trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities such as guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling wheelchairs, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, or performing other special tasks. Service animals are working animals, not pets.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), businesses and organizations that serve the public must allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals into all areas of the facility where customers are normally allowed to go. This federal law applies to all businesses open to the public, including restaurants, hotels, taxis and shuttles, grocery and department stores, hospitals and medical offices, theaters, health clubs, parks, and zoos.
Caption: Businesses that serve the public must allow people with disabilities to enter with their service animal.
Businesses may ask if an animal is a service animal or ask what tasks the animal has been trained to perform, but cannot require special ID cards for the animal or ask about the person's disability.
People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be charged extra fees, isolated from other patrons, or treated less favorably than other patrons. However, if a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.
A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the animal is out of control and the animal's owner does not take effective action to control it (for example, a dog that barks repeatedly during a movie) or (2) the animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.
In these cases, the business should give the person with the disability the option to obtain goods and services without having the animal on the premises.
Businesses that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.
A business is not required to provide care or food for a service animal or provide a special location for it to relieve itself.
Allergies and fear of animals are generally not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people with service animals.
Violators of the ADA can be required to pay money damages and penalties.

Caption: Service animals are individually trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities.
If you have additional questions concerning the ADA and service animals, please call the Department's ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY) or visit the ADA Business Connection at ada.gov.Duplication is encouraged. April 2002

~~~

Kansas state laws regarding access:
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=16047
Kansas state laws on Service Dogs
KANSAS / K.S.A. 39-1101, Sections 39-1101 through 39-1106, amended in 1981 Kansas statutory law guarantees a blind person the legal right to be accompanied by a specially trained dog guide in all public accommodations and on all common carriers. No extra charge can be levied because of the dog's presence, but the dog guide user is liable for any damage to the premises that the dog might cause. It is Kansas state policy to ensure equal opportunity in employment to blind persons in its state service, or in the service of its political subdivisions, in public schools, and in all public employment, supported in whole or in part by public funds, except where the disability prevents performance of the work involved. Public accommodations include public buildings, hotels, lodging places, establishment for sale of food, places of resort and amusement, and all other places to which the general public is invited. (Sect. 39-1101, Sect 39-1102) Common carriers include boats, airplanes, buses, trains, and all other modes of transportation offered for public use. (Sect. 39-1101, Sect. 39-1102) Violation: Any person, firm, or corporation or agent thereof who interferes with the above enumerated rights is guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable accordingly. (Sect. 29-1103)
(.....laws for guide dogs are the same as for service dogs.....I know,because I was there when the laws were crafted. What is being done to our son Aric is a violation of state law and federal law and of his civil rights. )
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=16047
39-1113
Chapter 39.--MENTALLY ILL, INCAPACITATED AND DEPENDENT PERSONS; SOCIAL WELFARE
Article 11.--PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS
39-1113. Assistance dogs and professional therapy dogs; definitions. As used in this act and in K.S.A. 39-1101 through 39-1109, and amendments thereto:
(a) "Assistance dog" means any guide dog, hearing assistance dog or service dog.
(b) "Guide dog" means a dog which has been specially selected, trained and tested for the purpose of guiding a person who is legally blind.
(c) "Hearing assistance dog" means a dog which is specially selected, trained and tested to alert or warn individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to specific sounds.
(d) "Professional therapy dog" means a dog which is selected, trained and tested to provide specific physical or therapeutic functions, under the direction and control of a qualified handler who works with the dog as a team, and as a part of the handler's occupation or profession. Such dogs, with their handlers, perform such functions in institutional settings, community based group settings, or when providing services to specific persons who have disabilities. "Professional therapy dog" does not include dogs, certified or not, which are used by volunteers for pet visitation therapy.
(e) "Service dog" means a dog which has been specially selected, trained and tested to perform a variety of tasks for persons with disabilities. These tasks include, but are not limited to: Pulling wheelchairs, lending balance support, picking up dropped objects or providing assistance in, or to avoid, a medical crisis, or to otherwise mitigate the effects of a disability.
(f) The presence of a dog for comfort, protection or personal defense does not qualify a dog as being trained to mitigate an individual's disability and therefor does not qualify the dog as an assistance dog covered under the provisions of this act.
History: L. 2003, ch. 64, § 1; July 1.
39-1108

Chapter 39.--MENTALLY ILL, INCAPACITATED AND DEPENDENT PERSONS; SOCIAL WELFARE
Article 11.--PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS
39-1108. Same; use of service dog by person with disability. Every person with a disability shall have the right to be accompanied by a service dog, specially selected, trained and tested for the purpose which shall include, but not be limited to, pulling a wheelchair, opening doors and picking up objects, in or upon any of the places listed in K.S.A. 39-1101, and amendments thereto, in the acquisition and use of rental, residential housing and in the purchase and use of residential housing without being required to pay an extra charge for the service dog. Such person shall be liable for any damage done to the premises by such dog.
History: L. 1989, ch. 127, § 1; L. 1992, ch. 205, § 14; L. 2003, ch. 64, § 6; July 1.

»§«.,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«