If you have been on a commercial airplane in the last few years, chances are you have seen a passenger accompanied by what appears to be their house pet—a dog, cat, rabbit, a bird—maybe even a mini-pig. That is because in 2012, the federal government passed a law under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) allowing people with disabilities—physical and mental—to have an “assistive animal” in their home (regardless of the rules about pets) and on airplanes. But according to researchers at The University of Missouri (MU), the influx of people taking advantage of this law presents potential problems for the mental health profession, as well as for individual psychologists who are certifying these pets as Emotional Support Animals (ESAs).
Mo’ Support Pets, Mo’ Problems
Cassie Boness, one of the researchers and a graduate student in clinical psychology at MU College of Arts and Science, lays it out like this: Let’s say you are a therapist and you certify a client’s dog as an ESA, therefore allowing it to live in an apartment building where pets would not normally be allowed. Then that ESA bites a child. The therapist could be legally implicated. But because of the lack of scientific guidelines around ESAs, forensic psychologist Jeffrey Younggren (who worked with Boness on a study examining ESAs) points out that the therapist would likely have a hard time defending their decision in a court of law.
This might be true. But isn’t the issue more that a parent of a child who was bit by a dog would actually attempt to sue the landlord of the building where the dog owner lived—and not just the dog owner? If a lawsuit like that could hold up in court, it’s a wonder that any apartment or condo complex would allow pets for any reason. And if this type of scenario is why many building owners opt for a no-pets policy, isn’t that discrimination? So…only those who can afford to own homes are allowed to own pets? I’m sorry, but as my kindergarten teacher used to say: that’s utter mishigas.
I’m Not Just a Writer, I’m Also an Owner
As an apartment dweller and ESA owner (a criminally cute Bichon/Lhasa mix named Benson—see above), I can understand both sides. On one hand, not everyone likes animals and not everyone owns a likable or well-behaved animal, so it’s hard to make sweeping generalizations about what types of pets should be allowed and where. But on the other hand, the FHA already has made a ruling along those lines and the law protects the rights of owners who have pets designated as assistive animals, a category that includes all ESAs. Unlike Guide, Signal and Service animals, ESAs aren’t required to be trained in anything except love for their owner. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense that a therapist—who merely confirmed that the companionship of a loyal and furry friend might help lessen their patient’s depression and anxiety (which Benson does for me in spades)—would be held responsible for anything that animal does. ESA certification letters do not require mental health professionals to attest to the disposition of a specific animal, only to confirm that they have formally recommended one as an extension of treatment.
As many of us work to breakdown stigmas around addiction and mental health, I am well aware that it’s hard for those who don’t suffer from mental or emotional issues to understand what its like to live with them. I also understand that even within the mental and behavioral health world there are judgments about taking medication, the varying methods of treatment and whether it’s ever okay to bring a house cat on a plane (argue allergies and I will argue children, for which there is no Claritin).
All I know is that from personal experience, my life has gone from moderately dismal to filled with comfort, love and joy simply from owning a pet that has been designated an ESA. Benson has skyrocketed the quality of my life in ways I could have never imagined. What right does anyone have to deny me that?
Beating Depression or Beating the System?
But the crux of Boness’ concern is that some may be taking advantage of the law. “People not necessarily exhibiting a mental or physical disability are eluding the system by asking their mental health professionals to certify [their pets as ESAs],” she says. But why would someone without a mental disability even have a mental health professional to get certification from in the first place? I assume what she is trying to say is that while a lot of people seek professional therapy, not all of them are in need of ESAs. But how the hell would she know?
The fact is that many, many, many more people in this country see a shrink than people who have ESAs. Even patients who have pets aren’t necessarily making them ESAs. Those who do ask their therapist to write a note for their landlord or the airlines are more than likely being treated for a disorder that falls under the ESA qualification category—so what is the problem? I mean, if it benefits a person to have an animal sit on their lap the entirety of six-hour flight, who are we to judge?
But Boness and Younggren are urging psychologists who treat patients for depression and other related mental health disorders to stop certifying ESAs as part of treatment. All I can say is that I really hope my psychiatrist doesn’t read their article.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I am going to spend six to eight minutes therapeutically snuggling with my dog.
Photo courtesy of the author.
Sponsored DISCLAIMER: This is a paid advertisement for California Behavioral Health, LLC, a CA licensed substance abuse treatment provider and not a service provided by The Fix. Calls to this number are answered by CBH, free and without obligation to the consumer. No one who answers the call receives a fee based upon the consumer’s choice to enter treatment. For additional info on other treatment providers and options visit www.samhsa.gov.
