Talk:Courthouse facility dog

Whether references to therapy dogs in court is appropriate for this page

This page is specifically about courthouse facility dogs, not all dogs that appear in courtrooms and other places in the criminal justice process. The presence and legality of therapy dogs in courts does not belong on this page because therapy dogs are not synonymous with courthouse facility dogs. That information would be much more appropriate on a page about therapy dogs. - Ryangorey (talk), 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed appropriate since this page discusses Therapy/Emotional Support dogs used in a court facility. There is no special dispensation granted from on high that makes one emotional support dog different from another simply because of a title which describes where their therapy is given. The ADA specifically recognizes service dogs and Therapy dogs in their Federal guidelines and nowhere in the rgulations is a specific mention of Facility dogs thereby classifying them as therapy dogs. It is agreed and very clear that Neither Facility dogs or Therapy dogs can be classified as "Service Dogs" as they are not trained for a specific individuals disability. Since facility dogs fall under the ADA's definition of a therapy dog and not a service dog, public access to any facility is not granted by law but by permission of the facility. Both Therapy dogs used for emotional support in the court facilities and facility dogs used for emotional support go home with their handlers and are treated as pets at home (1). In fact the only discernible difference since both nomenclatures of emotional support dogs must be tested and pass stringent practical tests certifying their behavior with children and public access is that one handler is a volunteer sworn to confidentiality and the other is tax payer funded government employee who must now divide their time between dog handling/training and the task for which they were hired - Stormins

(1) ADI training standards ""The assistance dog team must meet all of the standards as laid out in the minimum standards for Assistance Dogs in Public and the dog should be equally well behaved in the home.""

Hello, Stormins! Thanks for writing me back.

First off, this page specifically discusses -courthouse facility dogs- used in a courthouse. Not -all- dogs that provide some level of emotional support in a courthouse facility. If you agree that there is a distinction, that's really the end of this. It would be like mentioning that apples are also grown on trees on a page about lemon trees. It's not relevant to the subject matter of the page.

So for the rest of this, I'll assume that you do not see a big distinction between a courthouse facility dog and a therapy dog working in a courthouse. I'll address that next. You claim that facility dogs fall under the ADA's definition of therapy dogs because facility dogs are not classified as service animals. However, multiple things are wrong with this assertion. First, this act only seeks to define service animals. It does not purport or intend to define all working dogs or animals. It just makes a distinction between service animals and other animals (1). Just because this act does not make a distinction between therapy dogs and facility dogs does not mean one does not exist. In fact, the word "therapy" does not appear even once in this document, so it certainly does not explicitly recognize or classify therapy dogs either. The ADA has nothing to do with facility dogs or therapy dogs - it merely provides special access benefits to service animals.

Furthermore, just because both facility dogs and therapy dogs live with handlers and are not "on duty" at home does not make them the same. That's just one similarity between the two.

Here are some difference between the two: to the best of my knowledge, no pet therapy dog organization will permit a child to even touch the dog during the evaluation process out of concern that if the dog were to bite the child, they could be sued. Therefore these dogs are being identified as pet therapy dogs without any assessment as to whether or not this dog is safe during close contact children. In contrast, facility dogs that are graduates from assistance dogs organizations that are accredited by Assistance Dogs International have been carefully evaluated by professional dog trainers over the period of 6 months to 2 years to determine whether or not the dogs are comfortable with close contact with children. In addition, before facility dogs are placed with their handler, they must pass a public access test that is the same test that service dogs must pass, and passing this test certifies that the handler/dog team will not create a public hazard.

For decades, Assistance Dog Organizations have been placing facility dogs with professionals in multiple fields such as special education, healthcare, physical therapists to enhance the services they already provide to their clients. The organizations also provide extensive training to the handler working with a facility dog on how to incorporate the dog into the services they provide to improve the quality of their work.

These standards are not met by therapy dog organizations. These are the standards explicitly written on ADI's website (2). Thus, there is a very clear distinction between the two.

You also need not rely solely on ADI's website to make this distinction. Multiple laws have been passed that explicitly recognize (and only recognize) facility dogs by name. The laws have been passed in Hawaii (3) (4), Arizona (5), Illinois (6), and Arkansas (7). Beyond the legislation, the use of facility dogs has also been distinguished by the courts in Ohio (8), Washington (9), and others.

Wikipedia is not the place to argue whether or not those distinctions are necessary. The fact that the exist, and are treated differently under the laws justifies their separation. Different standards in training certainly do mean that the two groups are separate.

Again, no one is saying that therapy dogs should or should not be used in courtrooms on this page. It's simply not relevant here.

1. https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

2. http://www.assistancedogsinternational.org/standards/assistance-dogs/standards-for-dogs/training-standards-for-facility-dogs/

3. http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32359012/new-law-allows-dogs-in-hawaii-courtrooms-for-vulnerable-witnesses?sf30132242=1

4. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2016/bills/HB1668_CD1_.htm

5. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/hb2375s.pdf

6. http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20150721/news/150729752/

7. http://thecabin.net/news/local/2015-04-03/arkansas-adopts-courthouse-dogs-child-witnesses#.V31OtbgrKCi

8. https://co.summitoh.net/prosecutor/jdownloads/MediaRoom/News%20Releases/2015/October/Avery%20Ninth%20District%20Appeals%20release%20102115.pdf

Ryangorey (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Again I reiterate that it is completely relevant as this page is in reference to dogs used in courthouse facilities. Wordsmithing does not change the fact that there is NO distinction between the two.  :::Both are:

a) dogs

b) trained to provide emotional support/therapy/comfort (pick your term but the dog performs the exact same task of empathy regardless of what terminology the handler uses)

c) performing the task of emotional support in a facility which happens to be in this case, a courtroom.(the dog does NOT know or care what facility it is in only that he/she performs the task that pleases his handler) limiting a dog to one facility indicates they are not trained well enough or stable enough emotionally to handle multiple types of facilities

In regards to 2 of your statements

"""to the best of my knowledge, no pet therapy dog organization will permit a child to even touch the dog during the evaluation process out of concern that if the dog were to bite the child, they could be sued. Therefore these dogs are being identified as pet therapy dogs without any assessment as to whether or not this dog is safe during close contact children."""

Both are patently false and in my opinion are being used to create a difference that just isn't there. For example, My 2 therapy dogs work with Children on a regular basis and were a) Selected for the proper temperament needed to work with children a CRITICALLY important factor that this wiki spends little time on which concerns me greatly as ALL dogs can bite regardless of training if they do not possess the proper temperament b) Highly trained by professional trainers c) Tested in an extensive, comprehensive test WITH children before they were certified as therapy dogs d) used on a regular basis to provide therapy to children e) required to pass a public access test before certification. There are NO federally mandated standards for emotional support dogs and you are to be commended for having a training protocol, but just as there are as many training methods as there are trainers and protocols, exclusivity by your organization does NOT preclude other organizations from returning the same results, IE a courtroom facility dog. The standards of public access, emotional non-confrontational support, and a well behaved trained animal, are not only met but exceeded with many Therapy dog organizations as is codified in state laws. An Oklahoma statute enacted in 2014 (12-2611) requires that dogs used in such proceedings should be certified therapeutic dogs, which are defined as having “received the requisite training or certification from the American Kennel Club, Therapy Dogs Incorporated, or an equivalent organization such as ADI. Certification granted by thorough testing is the proper procedure to guarantee that whatever training protocol was used was successful. TRAINING ALONE does not guarantee the proper response(s) in a courtroom facility with a dog any more that pilot training guarantees a pilot is proficient and is competent enough to pass his/her check rides. I for one would walk off a plane before I would ride behind a pilot who went through a training course (and there are many) but had not passed the requisite FAA tests to become certified.

On a personal note I have had children and babies beat on my Shepherds heads, pull their tails, step on their bellies, put their hands in their mouths and even poke them in the eyes .....all things you can expect children un-accustomed to dogs to do, which can happen so quickly the handler does not have time to intervene. There has NEVER been even a raised lip let alone a growl, raised hackle or any other precursor to a bite. And NO bites.

Most animals, including but not limited to those labeled as Companion Animals, Emotional Support Animals and Therapy Animals or pets are NOT service animals according to ADA’s Definition, as they have NOT been individually trained to perform disability mitigating tasks. Thus their handlers do not legally qualify for public access rights. This would include facility dogs. Your quote "" The ADA has nothing to do with facility dogs or therapy dogs - it merely provides special access benefits to service animals. "" Is correct which also states there is no difference or preferential treatment given to any type of facility or therapy dog since neither are service dogs which corroborates my statement that there is no difference between dogs used in courthouse facilities regardless of the number of news articles you have quoted as sources which are simply repeating the ADI story as supplied to the reporter by ADI.

While attempting to create a monopoly on courthouse dogs is certainly a noble endeavor, 4 states having passed your model law is scarcely a sweeping referendum for ADI and an ADI supplied facility dog monopoly in the courts .... in fact it is just the opposite as the amount of time ADI has spent pushing a non-existent distinction has resulted in just as many states passing laws allowing/requiring therapy dogs as the courthouse facility dog of choice in the courts. Why? because the children need all of our dogs assistance and they are afraid that the 1 facility dog to service all of Chicago (Cook County Il) caused by creating a guild with an unattainable standard would be the fate that would befall their state despite the pressure ADI brought lobbying for Facility dog exclusivity..

In summation, whether ADI supplies the courthouse facility dogs or a therapy dog organization supplies the courthouse facility dogs, it is the children devastated by crime who benefit from the comfort given by these courthouse dogs regardless of the source.

Stormins (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Stormins

Hello again, Stormins! Thanks for your response.

I'm afraid I still have to push back. You wrote that my claim, as follows, was false: "To the best of my knowledge, no pet therapy dog organization will permit a child to even touch the dog during the evaluation process out of concern that if the dog were to bite the child, they could be sued. Therefore these dogs are being identified as pet therapy dogs without any assessment as to whether or not this dog is safe during close contact children."

You wrote that was not true, but did not actually provide evidence that it was false. You cited your own two therapy dogs - I don't intend to comment on the rigor with which your particular dogs were trained. I'm happy to hear you've had so much success with them. However, the actions which your particular dogs can tolerate are not tested for in the training standards. No therapy dog organization allows a child to touch a dog in the registration process, much less do the things that you described children doing to your dogs.

I'll provide an example. Therapy Dogs International is one of the leading schools certifying therapy dogs (other large ones are Pet Partners and Alliance of Therapy Dogs (formerly known as Therapy Dogs, Inc.)). Of those three, Therapy Dogs International is the only organization that has publicly released the actual, specific tests the dogs must pass to be certified, so I'll be using it as my primary example. In it's list of tests, which can be found here (http://www.tdi-dog.org/HowToJoin.aspx?Page=New+TDI+Test), Therapy Dogs International has explicitly written, "this test can only show us reactions to the presence of children since we do not allow physical contact with the unregistered dog." At no point, ever, are dogs required to have physical contact with children before being certified. This is extremely significant when these dogs will be interacting with children, often on the level that you described children interacting with your own dogs. Your two dogs may handle it fine, others may not. Unfortunately, Therapy Dogs International can't tell us before the dogs are certified. I'm not making up a distinction here - it's explicitly in the training standards.

You're totally right that some states are passing different laws allowing different kinds of dogs in courts. They are distinct type of dogs. I do not work for ADI or a training school accredited by ADI. Those laws would be great to include on the therapy dogs page.

A final point - you can't argue that two things aren't the same just by pointing out things they have in common. You and I are both people, and we both write on Wikipedia - that doesn't make us the same person. A professor and a high school teacher both work with teenage students - that doesn't make them the same thing. I've cited clear distinctions between these dogs in both training standards documented by these schools, training tests (as explicitly outlined by Therapy Dogs International), laws written (some of which explicitly call for therapy dogs, and some of which explicitly call for facility dogs), and court decisions that explicitly refer to facility dogs. I really don't know what more to provide you with. They aren't the same thing. I've also been citing all of my work here. You have not when disagreeing with many of my arguments.

Ryangorey (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Presumably you have not been through a rigorous therapy dog certification process as I have. Even though you cannot categorically dispute my statement with 2 of the Therapy dog organizations you cited, I must thankyou for citing <http://www.tdi-dog.org/HowToJoin.aspx?Page=New+TDI+Test> which does prove that your statement "Therefore these dogs are being identified as pet therapy dogs without any assessment as to whether or not this dog is safe during close contact children." " is indeed false. Children ARE used in the evaluation. The TDI method does not need or require tactile contact to determine a dogs reaction to children as any student of dog psychology can attest. May I remind you we are discussing dogs and as a professional trainer (And I assume from comments you have made in regards to the testing and psychology of dogs that you are not) the statement I made earlier that the ADI method of training and testing is no less superior or inferior to for example the TDI method to produce a facility dog is still valid. Indeed as you stated a Professor and a high school teacher may use different methods with a teenager however the results will be the same regardless of the methodology used as it is limited not by the instructor but by the limitations of a teenage student who does posses the faculties of either instructor. I can assure you the limitation is not ADI or TDI or their respective training/testing methodologies it is the canine since both training/testing methodologies achieve the same end result a qualified facility dog.

TDI expressly authorizes children touching the dogs once they are certified and insured. Regrettably I have been unable to find any reference, requirement, or evidence of insurance on an ADI facility dog for the protection of the child or citizens when an ADI facility dog harms an individual. THIS IS CRITICAL and is supplied by TDI for example when working with children as it is an undisputed fact that all dogs can bite, even ADI trained/certified facility dogs, given the proper stimuli Again I need to remind you these are canines, living biological beings, with minds of their own, not robots trained by a set software code.

05:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Stormins05:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Stormins!

First, I'll respond to the published therapy dog certification process discussion. I don't think my statement is false. I'll provide the citation again for convenience: "this test can only show us reactions to the presence of children since we do not allow physical contact with the unregistered dog." It is explicitly written that children may not touch the dog. I would still maintain that children are not in close contact with the dogs during the examination, but I can amend that statement to "no children are allowed to make physical contact with the dog during the certification process." I also noted in the test that the children are not directed to even acknowledge that the dog is there. I can't accept your assertion that physical contact is not necessary to determine a dog's reaction to children without a citation. I also can't accept that you can measure a dog's reaction to children without the children actively (and not necessarily physically) engaging with the dog without a citation.

On a different note, I'm starting to think that this particular discussion is getting beyond the initial thread. Is the main point of contention here whether or not facility dogs are distinct from therapy dogs? If so, can I suggest that we make a new discussion section on the talk page? This discussion is getting pretty broad, and I'm worried it isn't moving our understanding forward. Do you feel the same way? I'd love to figure this out together!

Ryangorey (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There was actually another important difference I forgot to point out earlier. Courthouse facility dogs are -not- there to expressly provide therapy for victims of crimes. They are there to enhance the work of the professional who handles them. Sometimes, it may do so by the child being comforted by its presence, but its purpose to enhance the ability of say, a forensic investigator, to complete their interview as successfully as possible. The purpose of a therapy dog is expressly to provide emotional support/comfort.

Ryangorey (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please explain in detail how your version of courthouse facility dogs use their intelligence and training to help conduct the interview and cite how they enhance it with their presence.

Stormins (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Stormins05:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Stormins!

I'm starting to think that this particular discussion is getting beyond the initial thread. Could you help me understand how this furthers our discussion? If you think it's still relevant, this could be a good time to start a few discussions on the talk page to constrain some of our conversations a little. They're getting really broad for me, and I'm fearing that they aren't moving us forward in this state.

I also wanted to note that I'm feeling some hostility between us in our responses. If I've written anything to offend you, I do apologize! I would love to get to the bottom of this matter together in a positive way!

Ryangorey (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

References

File:CHD Defendant.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CHD Defendant.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I was wondering what is the policy regarding minors in photos, especially when they have permission from both the minor and their guardians to post the photo? For reference, the subject in the photograph was actually 16 or 17 years old when the photograph was taken. The photo was recently removed because the subject was said to be underage. Is there an actual policy that can be cited to justify its removal (so I may remedy the process by either reverting the edit, or find a suitable photo that will not violate other policies)? Thanks for getting back to me! Ryangorey (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization

An editor made a change to the lead, as follows: "Courthouse Dogs is a trademark of Courthouse Dogs Foundation, a non-profit organization working to promote the use of professionally trained facility dogs in all aspects of the justice system," and then proceeded to change further mention of "courthouse dogs" to "facilities dogs." This Talk page section is being opened to allow that editor to explain the reason for the change and to gain WP:consensus on what to do. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Facility Dogs is a name coined by Assistance dogs International for Comfort/therapy/emotional support dogs used in a court facility

Stormins (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Canines in the Courtroom

By Debra S. Hart–Cohen

Research into the benefits of human–animal bonding dates to the 1700s in York, England, where the Society of Friends established a facility called The Retreat to provide humane treatment for the mentally ill. Society officials theorized that having patients care for the many farm animals on the estate would aid in the patients’ rehabilitation.

Through the ensuing centuries, therapists, sociologists, pediatricians, and psychologists have devoted countless hours researching the physiological benefits of human-animal interactions. Such studies have shown that the mere presence of a friendly animal can result in decreased anxiety and lessened sympathetic nervous systems arousal. Benefits include reduced blood pressure, lowered heart rate, a decrease in depression, increased speech and memory functions, and heightened mental clarity.

As a result of these studies, many in the criminal justice systems have become convinced of the positive effects of using animals as a “comfort item” to aid victims during their testimony in the courtroom, particularly in child abuse cases.

The use of “support persons” and “comfort items” by victims and witnesses in court has been widely accepted—and supported by general case law—for years. Specific statutes or rules may also apply, depending on the jurisdiction. The use of such support persons and items is almost always applicable in cases involving children, and often with adults, as well. In cases involving children, support persons can include parents, teachers, or victim advocates. Comfort items have traditionally included familiar objects such as toys or dolls.

Increasingly, however, child advocates in the courts are expanding this list to include animals such as therapy dogs. Indeed, prosecutors and judges are finding that the presence of a well–trained dog aids witness testimony by providing the victim with emotional support and comfort both in the witness room and in the courtroom. Success stories are beginning to emerge demonstrating that the use of canines in the courtroom not only provides the victim with a more positive outcome but also offers the victim a positive, life–changing experience.

One of the original courthouse dogs to aid young victims was a German Shepherd named Vachss, used by the Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) in Jackson, Mississippi, in the 1990s. In 1994 Vachss was presented with the Hero of the Year award for his role comforting children in the courtroom while they testified in abuse cases. (For more on the story of Vachss, along with a memorandum supporting the use of a dog to accompany the witness to the stand, see www.vachss.com/dogs/vachss_dog.html.)

More recently, the Children’s Advocacy Center of Johnson County, Cleburne, Texas, has started using a therapy dog program. They have dogs accompany children in the courts and the interviewing rooms. The program, the first of its kind in Texas, has been such a success that the prosecutors’ offices in California, Colorado, Idaho, and Michigan have contacted the center for advice on starting their own courtroom therapy dog programs. In 2007 the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse Update newsletter ran a two–part “Animal Assistance” series discussing the program (both parts, “The Use of Animal Assistance at Child Advocacy Centers” and “Pets in the Courtroom: The New ‘Comfort Item,’” are available online at the National District Attorneys Association website, www.ndaa.org).

In Florida the Second Judicial Circuit has partnered with the Office of the State Attorney, the Leon County Board of County Commissioners, and a local volunteer animal visitation program called ComForT to create the Pet Therapy in the Courts Program. According to Susan Wilson, Leon County’s senior deputy court administrator and the program’s coordinator, “[t]he goal of the program is to have the dogs provide comfort to reduce the victim’s anxiety, resulting in more accurate testimony” (“Comfort for Crime Victims in the Court System,” ). Because of the program’s success, state attorney victim advocates now mail brochures about it to victims of violent crimes following the defendant’s first court appearance. Helene Pollock, director of the Victim/Witness Assistance Program for State Attorney Willie Meggs, states, “We’re confident that many crime victims and their families will benefit from this progra

Some of the first dogs being retroactively termed facility dogs and then deleted from this page were in fact therapy dogs used in the courtroom 1989: A retired Seeing-Eye dog Sheba assisted child sexual-abuse victims in the Special Victims Bureau of the Queens, NY, District Attorney’s Office.[11] 1990: Vachess, a German shepherd, made a courtroom appearance at the feet of a 5-year-old girl in a preliminary hearing in Rankin County, MS.[12]

The National District Attorneys Association NDAA Recommends and issues guidelines for using therapy dogs in the court system Many of the court cases cited as upholding the use of dogs in the courtroom were actually rulings made for the use of therapy dogs in the courtroom A 2015 habeas petition by Spence failed in the federal district court for the Southern District of California, Spence v. Beard, No. 14cv1624-BAS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56280 (SD Cal. 2015). Spence claimed he had been denied due process when the trial court allowed the child to have both a therapy dog and a support advocate accompany her to the witness stand during her trial testimony. The federal district court found this argument without merit, noting that it appeared from the record that the dog sat at the child’s feet and “was unobtrusive.” There was no showing that the presence of the therapy dog adversely influenced the jury, and there was no evidence that use of the dog “so fundamentally infected the trial process as to violate the petitioner’s due process right

A dogs purpose in the courtroom is to provide therapy (emotional support) to the victim(s) Whether they are wards of the state assigned to one facility or owned by individuals and used in the courtroom as they are under existing Laws in Florida, and Oklahoma A Florida statute dating from 2012, provides that that a court can allow a child to testify in a proceeding involving a sexual offense in the presence of “a service or therapy animal that has been evaluated and registered according to national standards.”

An Oklahoma statute enacted in 2014 (12-2611) requires that dogs used in such proceedings should be certified therapeutic dogs, which are defined as having “received the requisite training or certification from the American Kennel Club, Therapy Dogs Incorporated, or an equivalent organization.

A commenter in a Houston Law Review Symposium (Holder,) argues that an “appropriate canine should be one specifically trained for the legal world by an organization that specializes in training court facility dogs.” It is the author’s opinion that no specific organization should be designated with authority to train or test dogs for work at trials. The prosecution should have the burden of establishing the dog was adequately trained or has evidenced the ability to function appropriately in a courtroom before. The standards provided by Assistance Dogs International for facility dogs are well drafted, but substantially similar to obedience and behavioral requirements for therapy dogs licensed by national therapy dog organizations. There is no need to create such a monopoly for a single or limited number of service or therapy dog organizations or trainers, or to turn the qualification of a handler for such a dog into a guild controlled by a small group of organizations. As will be discussed in the decisions that have dealt with facility dogs, courts have generally asked for a showing that the dog used would behave in the courtroom while performing its function. There is no need to disturb this case-by-case approach.

The 2 years of professional training cited in ADI's model laws consist of 18 months in a foster home and 6 months of actual training however Elle was personally trained by it's owner/handler

To attempt to limit the assistance so sorely needed by juvenile victims to therapy dogs that are only coined as facility dogs certified by one organization when the federal government clearly states that assistance dogs need only fill a need regardless of whether the training is done personally or professionally is doing a grave disservice to the victims needing help.

States that passed bills limiting this service to one organization that supplies therapy dogs assigned to facilities due in part to the scare tactics that a therapy dog might bite a child (when in fact ANY dog regardless of training may bite given a certain stimuli) are now finding they do not have the needed dogs available to assist that they would have had if their bills had not limited sourcing to one organization.

The public understands using therapy dogs in the court system but is getting confused with the semantics and word parsing with the term facility dog which simply put is a therapy dog assigned to one particular government employee along with the resultant expense and loss of productivity by high salaried government attorneys who will spend a notable amount of their time caring for their assigned dog that they bring to work every day.

---

Hello, Stormin!

The two dogs you cited were removed for exactly the reason you stated - they were not facility dogs, so they are not relevant to this page. They are certainly relevant on the therapy dog's page.

This page in no way argues that courthouse facility dogs are the only model for using dogs in court to help victims of crimes. The courthouse facility dog page is not an appropriate place to argue for either model or to assert there are no differences between them. Wikipedia is a place to report what is happening. The model is distinct in the training provided. Please see my response to you above for details on how the standards differ between facility dogs and therapy dogs.

You also wrote that Ellie was trained personally by their owner/handler. That's incorrect. You can read how Ellie was trained here http://thebark.com/content/dogs-courtroom. Ellie was trained by Canine Companions for Independence, a school that is accredited by ADI.

You also provide several critiques about the courthouse facility dog model of using dogs in court. That still doesn't explain why this page should include therapy dogs at all. Wikipedia does not allow characterizations of evidence - terms like "scare tactics" are not objective, and are not in line with what is allowed to be posted. Also, just because more of these dogs are needed does not mean that therapy dogs should be included on the wikipedia page (again, this is about the page, not the model).

The distinction between therapy dogs and facility dogs is not simply a matter of semantics. These are the requirements: http://www.assistancedogsinternational.org/standards/assistance-dogs/standards-for-dogs/training-standards-for-facility-dogs/. Those standards are not required by therapy dog organizations. Your definition of a facility dog is not the definition that is clearly outlined in laws or ADI. We can't use our own definitions of things when writing wikipedia pages. Multiple laws, court decisions, and training schools do perceive an important difference in training standards between therapy dogs and facility dogs. Evidence for that can be found in response to you above.

Thanks for taking your time to write here!

Best, Ryan Ryangorey (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ryangorey (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ryan

Mission accomplished! The Governor of Alabama just signed SB273, the courthouse therapy dog bill I drafted into law. "Koda's Law" was named after my German Shepherd Therapy dog Koda This settles our discussion over the interchangeability of Therapy dogs and Facility therapy dogs being equally used in court as there is now a law on the books granting equal status and recognition to Therapy dogs and facility therapy dogs work in the courts. Also there is NO monopoly granted to ADI, nor is there any requirements that facility therapy dogs be trained by ADI or even meet their standards. Florida has just passed a similar law granting equal standing for Therapy dogs and facility therapy dogs used in the court system. To date they have had almost 300 cases where Therapy dogs have assisted children in the Leon county circuit alone..

The important thing to remember is that dogs don't know or care who trained them, what title they have or how they arrived at the courthouse. They don't care about turf wars, semantics, or monopolies, they just want to help children. We must not forget that the Mission is helping our ABUSED CHILDREN which is why both types of Therapy courthouse dog teams are equal partners in Alabama's court system

Thsnks

Stormin

Stormins (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)stormins

• If you two would like to review Help:Using talk pages so there's some structure here, that is cool too. -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Just reviewed that, thanks a ton! I'll start indenting my comments now! --Ryangorey (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

References