Thank you
@joeylittle for the warranted clarifications and extensions on the topic.
First things first:
But some people are impacted to an extent that legitimately warrants medical support.
I just wanted to emphasize that I by absolutely no means meant to minimize the very real and potentially disabling impact of grief nor that sometimes bereaved people may legit require medical support. I really merely was coming from it from the legal angle -- and (as I tried to clear up in my post, and think failed) stand correctly in my first assessment.
Prolonged grief disorder is a diagnosis in the IDC 11 and the DSM 5. It is essentially defined as grief persisting beyond six months, and in a way that it has a significant impact on daily functioning.
I'm curious (I'm so sorry, I don't currently have the bandwidth to go dive into the DSM), but how is prolonged grief disorder different from depression? Genuinely asking so I can learn.
In the period of immediate to six months, a person may be diagnosed with adjustment disorder
Coming back to the ESA topic... the FHA bases their requiements for an animal to qualify as an assistance animal (EAS+SAs) on the ADA definition of the person having a disability. Now, ADA allows for remission, for additional (already working) treatment (such as medication, therapy, ...) etc. . I know we've talked about this at length, before.
I'm just trying to understand how that would play out in reality. Someone is diagnosed with a *temporary* disability, such as adjustment disorder (or e.g. a severe prolonged other medical issue, e.g. cancer). At that point it would/might meet ADA requirements to be considered a disability. Which would make them eligible for their pet to be considered an ESA pending treatment team approval/agreement that said pet is essential to the treatment of their *temporary* disability. With that, they qualify for the legal protection and reasonable accomodations.
What happens when they no longer would meet the ADA disability requirement, because they're considered healed (or the adjustment disorder symptoms resolved and didn't convert into Prolonged Grief/Depression/a different disorder)? Wouldn't the animal at that point loose the ESA protection?
I wasn't careful in my wording when I used "may not qualify for reasonable accomodation" because as you correctly stated, if a person meets the FHA requirements, allowing the animal is the default reasonable accomodation a landlord must request (with some exceptions, actually - I just looked that up earlier this spring, e.g. if the dwelling is owner-occupied). I guess what I was trying to get at was what the situation would be for cases where it's most likely going to be temporary from the get go. (this honestly feels loop-holey and I guess hence why I'm having a bit of a hard time computing that that would actually fly, were it to go to court).
Not sure I'm getting across what I mean, so sorry.
The burden of challenge rests on the landlord. The landlord must engage in good faith with the tenant, interactively.
the individual with the assistance animal has the right to bring that animal into their housing.
From what I remember, the landlord may request written proof from the treatment team, though. This is different from PA for service dogs, as for housing it applies for both ESAs and SDs. Obviously the landlord cannot request actual diagnoses, but from what I remember they also don't have to take the person's word for it.
But reasonable accommodation is presumed until it's proven otherwise, as opposed to reasonable accommodation needing to BE proved.
Thank you for clarifying the wording. Important distinction and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Not always good with words, on my end.
as of 2020, have done their best to codify what those bases are, for service animals and for assistance animals. I have a link somewhere, if anyone's interested.
Yes, please, here. I think my in-depth review of the matter predates 2020 and I only skimmed it recently this spring.
If the qualifying factors are all met, the landlord can't deny the tenant's right
violates the 'reasonable' concept (which generally means, it poses some sort of threat to other tenants, threatens the livelihood of the landlord, or adds undue financial burden)
I'm pretty sure we talked about this, before. And from what I remember and *think*, it's not quite as inclusive as most people would like and doesn't have to only be in case of a "threat"?
E.g. ... allowing two cats would be hard not to be considered reasonable. 10 cats? Probably wouldn't fly. How about mixed-species households? Might be hard to medically justify the *need* for a bunny and a turtle and two cats and a large-bree dog?
And who defines "undue financial burden"? I've seen landlords literally freak out about microscratches in their flooring some previous pet caused (and hence them now going no-pet)... you know, what technically would be considered 'normal wear and tear', but the landlord might consider a financial burden. Increased landscaping costs from dog pee destroying the grass in the yard? I feel this is quite vague and considering which side you ask, many landlords will consider significant financial burdens what us tenants would... not. Because they think in "investment" and we think in "home", hence coming from completely different angles.
Not challenging this, genuinely curious, I'm wondering whether the law considers animal welfare in addition to "threat to other tenants/livelihood of the landlord/undue financial burden". E.g. a landlord (and a judge) may consider one but not two cats a "reasonable accomodation", while cats should actually not be kept as solitary animals any longer.
Also genuinely curious... because a landlord may deny the reasonable accomodation if it would pose a 'threat to the landlord'. How about situations where the landlord is highly allergic?
but the doctor's opinion on whether their patient needs the emotional support.
sliiiiiiiiippery slope if that was the only requirement, ya know?
The joke was rather apparent, no one in their right mind thinks a donkey qualifies as an ESH.
Yeah.... nope. Again, there is a place and time for jokes like this. And this just wasn't it. Especially since the 'joke' was talking about public access, which isn't even a thing for ESAs ...
As someone who's recently experienced severe hardship as the result of legislation changes thanks to all those people abusing the system, it's simply not a laughing matter. At all. ESAs are consistently ridiculed and minimized from all sides, from the service dog community (who really should know better) and from the healthy population. We really don't need to keep reinforcing the already existing stigma, even just for fun and in an attempt to lighten the mood. Especially considering that "animals that no one in their right mind would think qualify as ESA" have consistently been used to ridicule the topic of ESAs as a whole - and in the process downplay the very ground for existence of legit ESAs. I hope you realize that the actual "ESA peacock" actually did start that very public debate with all its recent consequences ...?
probably could get them certified
NO such thing as ESA (nor SD) "certification".
---
All of that being said, I keep beating my personal soapbox that I genuinely think the entire ESA system in the US needs a severe overhaul if not abandonment (with integration of "ESAs" into existing SD laws), but that's a different topic, I think, and I do feel like a broken (very broken and frustrated) record.
All pets provide significant comfort to their owners and others. That's why animal-assisted-therapy is a thing. ESAs are more than pets (I hate the commonly encountered term "glorified pets"). They're treatment. Hence why they receive legal protection. Only, the actual legal requirements aren't widely known. I'm certain a lot of people whould shy away of faking their pet as an ESA if they publicly would have to accept them actually having a *disability*.
It's correctly been pointed out in a previous reply: There is a difference between
want and
need. It's legally quite clearly defined for good reasons. But there's also mindsets at play, in the US in particular. This has come up a few years ago in a different thread. Too many Americans confuse rights with privileges. Too many Americans think they're entitled to whatever, just because.
And while I really absolutely did not mean to diminish the very real severity that grief can be, that's why wordings such as "after the husband passed she
made her dog an ESA" rubbed me wrong. Which was not meant to mean that I don't think she deserved the emotional support and the legal protection if needed.
