While grief may meet ADA requirements, requesting ESA protection may not meet the "reasonable accomodation" part in that case. Obviously, I don't know, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm not a lawyer, just had spent intensive amounts of time reading into SD and ESA laws (the actual laws).
Bouncing off this quote, but replying to the thread -
Because of the existence of the FHA - the presumption is that the individual with the assistance animal has the right to bring that animal into their housing. The burden of challenge rests on the landlord. The landlord must engage in good faith with the tenant, interactively. By extension, the tenant should engage in good faith with the landlord. But reasonable accommodation is presumed until it's proven otherwise, as opposed to reasonable accommodation needing to BE proved. It's a little different in ADA access laws, but this thread is about the FHA, which is simpler in concept.
The FHA encourages individuals with assistance animals to be clear and cover the bases when they make their request, and 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.
And, in the context of the home environment - as long as the property is not exempt from the FHA -
the animal is presumed to be necessary and allowable, whether the disability is visible or not. Again, this is essential to the good faith concept. If the qualifying factors are all met, the landlord can't deny the tenant's right to have the animal until the animal
does something that 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 totally understand why people with ESAs think about defensive driving when it comes to landlords - because ultimately, the landlord controls the roof that we tenants want over our heads. The power differential is
entirely in their favor. That's why the FHA exists. It's to correct that imbalance, and give some rights back to the tenant.
Grieving is not a professionally diagnosed mental health disorder.
Incorrect. 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.
In the period of immediate to six months, a person may be diagnosed with adjustment disorder; there are subtypes for specific manifestations, and with bereavement - grief - there is a distinction to be drawn between those who have sufficient life circumstances/psychological wellness prior to the death event, who are able to navigate their grief and return to participating in their lives, and those who are more profoundly affected by the death event and experience an ongoing significant disturbance in the activities of daily life.
Lots of words for - yes, there are diagnoses for grief. And yes, not every grieving person is experiencing their bereavement to a degree that they need additional support.
But some people are impacted to an extent that legitimately warrants medical support.
I have a true need for an ESA - if I couldn't come home to decompress from the day with a soft warm furry hug, I truly believe I would not still be alive.
I do hear you. I think, similar to malingering - there's the 'knowing falsification' factor. If someone is trying to get away with having a pet, and doesn't have a legitimate medical need? 100% yes - they make it harder for the rest of us. No argument from me, there.
Just know your facts before you mount the soapbox, you know?
