After months of meetings and negotiation, followed by a complaint that eventually required an additional complaint and the intervention of our senior U.S. Senator, the Civil Rights Division of the federal Department of Justice has agreed to investigate a situation involving Andrew, my 8-year old client with autism.

My involvement began in April 2008, when Andrew’s school district refused to allow him to attend school with his trained autism assistance dog, Sadie.  His parents had gone to the effort and expense of acquiring the specially trained dog from a unique program in Ohio that trains assistance dogs for children with autism, 4 Paws for Ability.  

Andrew and his mom traveled to Ohio and spent more than a week at the program to bond with Sadie and learn how she could help the boy safely interact with others in public settings.  Sadie is also specifically trained to perform tasks designed to quickly de-escalate Andrew’s particular autism-related behaviors, on command or when he becomes agitated.  When he becomes aggressive, Sadie maintains a set distance on a tether by pulling him backwards.  To calm him, she lays down on him to apply comforting pressure, and then licks his face. 

Almost immediately, Sadie allowed Andrew to safely and happily participate in many normal community activities that had been difficult or impossible for him on his own.  His mom is now able to bring him with her to stores, restaurants, and other public places that had been impossible before Sadie.  Also, Sadie’s friendliness fosters positive interactions with other children, something typically difficult for a child with autism. 

Although Sadie clearly benefits both Andrew and the people around him, the school district refused to allow Andrew to bring Sadie to school.  That decision also cut Sadie out of Andrew’s life for about 6 hours every weekday, something that Sadie’s trainers believe reduces her effectiveness in other settings.

The school justified its decision with a number of objections.  One was that under state law, only students who are blind or severely physically disabled are entitled to have assistance animals at school.  Another was that allowing Andrew to bring Sadie to school with him would lead to an unending string of requests for other “therapy animals” from other students, and that the ensuing menagerie would cause allergic reactions and other potential harm that would prove disruptive and potentially lead to lawsuits.

Media reports of other instances in which similarly trained autism assistance dogs had been permitted to accompany students to school with minimal problems and excellent results failed to persuade school district administrators.  They also rejected a number of proposals by Andrew’s parents that included finding out if there were objections by other parents or children, implementing a “test” period to see if concerns were justified, kenneling Sadie during some classes, and professionally grooming Sadie once a week to minimize allergy problems.

The school district’s lawyer argued that the dispute was about special education and therefore could only be about whether my client was receiving adequate special education services.  

The district refused to consider that Andrew has an independent right to attend school with the support he needs and prefers – the same right that a paraplegic has when choosing between using a walker or a wheelchair to navigate in a public place that is supported with public dollars. According to the district, Disability Rights Oregon needed to challenge the rather good special education services that Andrew receives and then, after presumably losing at a due process hearing, go to federal court.

The recent acceptance of our case for investigation by the U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division is a stark rejection of that legal theory.  Perhaps more importantly, DOJ’s involvement in our case is likely to make the district rethink its position that the protections of special education laws automatically strip students of other rights that protect people with disabilities.  I am hopeful that Andrew will attend school with Sadie by his side by the beginning of the next school year.

(The names used are to protect the privacy of client and family.)