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)
References
![]() |
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
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.
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)
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)
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,” [1]). 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 [2] 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) [3] 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
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
References
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
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)
References
![]() |
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
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.
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)
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)
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,” [1]). 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 [2] 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) [3] 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
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
References