He was suspended from his $43,175-a-year-job.
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Thursday, December 22, 2016
California Passing A New Bill To Increase The Seizure of Kids From Parents
ew California Proposed Bill to Increase Government Seizure of Children from Families?
Posted By Admin - Orissa On December 21, 2016 @ 2:56 pm In Headline,News | Comments Disabled
by Paul Fassa
Health Impact News
You may be familiar with the phrase “as California goes, so goes the nation.” California’s legislative innovations are increasingly becoming harbingers of medical tyranny over children and their families.
California Senator Dr. Richard Pan pushed through the mandatory vaccine law SB 277 last year with financial backing from vaccine manufacturers to ban children from public and private schools unless most of the CDC vaccine schedule was completed. Previous allowable vaccination exemptions are no longer allowed, except for medical exemptions.
However, one prestigious California pediatrician is being threatened with losing his license to practice for issuing a medical exemption to vaccines to one of his patients. (Source) [1] Could this be the State’s method of shutting down doctors who dare to write vaccine exemptions, so that soon not even medical exemptions will be readily available to those who need them?
Other such state bills mandating vaccines and removing exemptions were easily defeated across the U.S. in 2015, due to public outcry. Yet even though the public outcry was probably the loudest in California in opposition to SB 277, it somehow still passed. California became the first state to remove religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccines. Two other states, Mississippi and West Virginia, have never had such exemptions, and their yearly health statistics on children are consistently among the worst in the United States. Will the health of California’s children now decline due to mandated increases in vaccination rates?
(See: Study: Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Kids – Doctors Agree [2])
Now that same state senator, Dr. Pan, is introducing new legislation, SB 18, that allows the state to assume total ownership of a child’s well being, as defined by state and medical bureaucratic “experts.”
SB 18: Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in California
This new bill references a 2009 Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 80. An ACR is a resolution created by members of the California Assembly, which is actually their state house of representatives. It was originally intended as a bill of rights for foster children.
SB 18 is a very loosely worded open ended draft introduced in the state senate, which permits future additional rules and regulations that are meant to “organize” and “codify” (create more laws) ACR 80 according to “experts” observations and evaluations. (Source) [3]
And who would be the “experts” mentioned in SB 18? They would be mainstream medical professionals who consider the only treatments for cancer are surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.
They would be the CDC and other pro-vaccine medical doctors who consider multiple heavy vaccinations as necessary for good health. These are activities that so far most adults can pass on for safer and more effective alternative means. But the government does not want you to have those choices for your own kids.
“Medical Child Abuse” – The New Diagnosis Used for Medical Tyranny and State-sponsored Child Kidnapping
The common claim of “medical child abuse” is used for not acquiescing to medical procedures, some experimental, that most knowledgeable adults shun. Parents and children in some cases have had to go on the lam as fugitives from the law when they decided to discontinue medical practices that were harming their children. (Source) [4]
A whole new pediatric sub-specialty was created in recent years with the advent of the “Child Abuse Specialist [5].” This is a pediatrician that acts more like a law enforcement officer by looking at x-rays and medical records to determine if a child has been abused by their parents or caregivers. They seldom interview the parents or children, or even the family pediatrician who knows the family. Finding abuse is necessary to justify their profession, and courts are increasingly finding that many innocent people have been wrongly convicted. (See: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Opens the Legal Door to Retry All Shaken Baby Syndrome Convictions [6])
The DEA’s “war on drugs” is also used to remove children from homes where parents used marijuana for medical reasons in many states where it is legal.
Experts can also be public education bureaucrats who look down on homeschooling as depriving a child’s optimal education, even though public schools turn out semi-literate kids who are incapable of critical thinking. They will also support efforts to diagnose children with ADHD and drug them with psychotropics.
Increased Role for CPS?
Removing children from existing parents to enforce state bureaucratic perspectives of what’s good for children, according to experts, is left to the Child Protective Services (CPS), which does so by removing children from their families and placing them into private and/or institutional foster homes.
CPS depends on federal funding for each child they remove from a home and place into foster care. So many CPS officials are motivated to lie, distort, and falsify documents to achieve their successes of removing children from parents.
California’s CPS system (Department of Children and Family Services – DCFS) is among the most corrupt and dangerous in the nation. See:
Former LA County Social Worker Reveals Corruption in Child “Protection” Services [7]
LA County DCFS Whistleblower Reveals how Parents are Losing Their Children to a Corrupt System[8]
It’s estimated only around five percent of children taken are from actual cases of parental abuse. Often poverty is considered neglect, while false abuse reports are considered valid even while based on hearsay or speculation without proof. See:
The U.S. Foster Care System: Modern Day Slavery and Child Trafficking [9]
This agency is often favorably collaborated by the local judicial system and its judges, who often are just as corrupt [10] as CPS itself.
Actual biological parents often don’t get their kids back. If they do, it’s usually after major damage is done to the family. The kids are emotionally and mentally damaged from what happened to them as wards of the state, while the parents are emotionally and financially stressed from failed efforts at getting CPS and its family court allies to return their children.
Foster parents get paid by the government along with CPS. States get paid by the federal government for every child they place into the foster care system of their states. This investigative report done several years ago in Kentucky reveals just how this corrupt system works:
Trafficking Foster Children for Sexual Abuse to People in Power
More often than is publicized, CPS actions force children into foster homes where they somehow get lost or disappear. Foster homes and institutions often do not report missing children. And what happens to children missing from CPS placed foster homes or institutions?
Some are prescribed psychotropics if they have behavioral issues or forced into drug trials [11] against their will. Some die as a result.
Some of those children who were initially kidnapped by CPS social workers wind up in the ever increasingly reported child trafficking for sex trades. It has been reported that the illegal money earned from sexual trafficking exceeds the money earned from the flow of illegal drugs. See:
Child Sex Trafficking through Child “Protection” Services Exposed – Kidnapping Children for Sex[12]
Ironically, it appears there’s much more public denial regarding enforced pedophilia among kidnapped children from political figures and government officials than there has been with Catholic priests picking on available parish kids.
The general public disbelief and denial for high ranking government officials’ and high rollers’ pedophilia has been their shield for a few decades.
Former and current victims are often not believed. Perpetrators are protected. The higher their status or position the more they are protected. Pedophile activities among the governing elites are ruthlessly covered up.
There are too many who may be inclined to blow the whistle on high level offenders but dare not because their lively-hoods are affected by these sexual predators, and in some cases it’s not just their lively-hoods that are threatened, but their lives.
Oppose SB 18!
SB 18 and overzealous attempts of state authority to prevail over the fate of all children, using Child Protective Services or family court systems is a potential threat to all families regardless of their innocence. It’s yet another attempt at allowing the state to be in charge of children against their will without parental consent.
Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com. [13]
Sources:
http://bolenreport.com/california-state-senator-richard-state-owns-child-pan/ [14]
[3]
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/bombshell-sacrificing-children-to-the-state-of-california-sb18/ [15]
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=caldocs_assembly [16]
http://medicalkidnap.com/2016/04/15/the-u-s-foster-care-system-modern-day-slavery-and-child-trafficking/ [9]
http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/07/21/child-sex-trafficking-through-child-protection-services-exposed-kidnapping-children-for-sex/ [12]
https://healthimpactnews.com/2016/medical-kidnapping-a-threat-to-every-child-in-america-today/ [17]
http://medicalkidnap.com/2016/12/21/new-california-proposed-bill-to-increase-government-seizure-of-children-from-families/print/
Posted By Admin - Orissa On December 21, 2016 @ 2:56 pm In Headline,News | Comments Disabled
by Paul Fassa
Health Impact News
You may be familiar with the phrase “as California goes, so goes the nation.” California’s legislative innovations are increasingly becoming harbingers of medical tyranny over children and their families.
California Senator Dr. Richard Pan pushed through the mandatory vaccine law SB 277 last year with financial backing from vaccine manufacturers to ban children from public and private schools unless most of the CDC vaccine schedule was completed. Previous allowable vaccination exemptions are no longer allowed, except for medical exemptions.
However, one prestigious California pediatrician is being threatened with losing his license to practice for issuing a medical exemption to vaccines to one of his patients. (Source) [1] Could this be the State’s method of shutting down doctors who dare to write vaccine exemptions, so that soon not even medical exemptions will be readily available to those who need them?
Other such state bills mandating vaccines and removing exemptions were easily defeated across the U.S. in 2015, due to public outcry. Yet even though the public outcry was probably the loudest in California in opposition to SB 277, it somehow still passed. California became the first state to remove religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccines. Two other states, Mississippi and West Virginia, have never had such exemptions, and their yearly health statistics on children are consistently among the worst in the United States. Will the health of California’s children now decline due to mandated increases in vaccination rates?
(See: Study: Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Kids – Doctors Agree [2])
Now that same state senator, Dr. Pan, is introducing new legislation, SB 18, that allows the state to assume total ownership of a child’s well being, as defined by state and medical bureaucratic “experts.”
SB 18: Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in California
This new bill references a 2009 Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 80. An ACR is a resolution created by members of the California Assembly, which is actually their state house of representatives. It was originally intended as a bill of rights for foster children.
SB 18 is a very loosely worded open ended draft introduced in the state senate, which permits future additional rules and regulations that are meant to “organize” and “codify” (create more laws) ACR 80 according to “experts” observations and evaluations. (Source) [3]
And who would be the “experts” mentioned in SB 18? They would be mainstream medical professionals who consider the only treatments for cancer are surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.
They would be the CDC and other pro-vaccine medical doctors who consider multiple heavy vaccinations as necessary for good health. These are activities that so far most adults can pass on for safer and more effective alternative means. But the government does not want you to have those choices for your own kids.
“Medical Child Abuse” – The New Diagnosis Used for Medical Tyranny and State-sponsored Child Kidnapping
The common claim of “medical child abuse” is used for not acquiescing to medical procedures, some experimental, that most knowledgeable adults shun. Parents and children in some cases have had to go on the lam as fugitives from the law when they decided to discontinue medical practices that were harming their children. (Source) [4]
A whole new pediatric sub-specialty was created in recent years with the advent of the “Child Abuse Specialist [5].” This is a pediatrician that acts more like a law enforcement officer by looking at x-rays and medical records to determine if a child has been abused by their parents or caregivers. They seldom interview the parents or children, or even the family pediatrician who knows the family. Finding abuse is necessary to justify their profession, and courts are increasingly finding that many innocent people have been wrongly convicted. (See: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Opens the Legal Door to Retry All Shaken Baby Syndrome Convictions [6])
The DEA’s “war on drugs” is also used to remove children from homes where parents used marijuana for medical reasons in many states where it is legal.
Experts can also be public education bureaucrats who look down on homeschooling as depriving a child’s optimal education, even though public schools turn out semi-literate kids who are incapable of critical thinking. They will also support efforts to diagnose children with ADHD and drug them with psychotropics.
Increased Role for CPS?
Removing children from existing parents to enforce state bureaucratic perspectives of what’s good for children, according to experts, is left to the Child Protective Services (CPS), which does so by removing children from their families and placing them into private and/or institutional foster homes.
CPS depends on federal funding for each child they remove from a home and place into foster care. So many CPS officials are motivated to lie, distort, and falsify documents to achieve their successes of removing children from parents.
California’s CPS system (Department of Children and Family Services – DCFS) is among the most corrupt and dangerous in the nation. See:
Former LA County Social Worker Reveals Corruption in Child “Protection” Services [7]
LA County DCFS Whistleblower Reveals how Parents are Losing Their Children to a Corrupt System[8]
It’s estimated only around five percent of children taken are from actual cases of parental abuse. Often poverty is considered neglect, while false abuse reports are considered valid even while based on hearsay or speculation without proof. See:
The U.S. Foster Care System: Modern Day Slavery and Child Trafficking [9]
This agency is often favorably collaborated by the local judicial system and its judges, who often are just as corrupt [10] as CPS itself.
Actual biological parents often don’t get their kids back. If they do, it’s usually after major damage is done to the family. The kids are emotionally and mentally damaged from what happened to them as wards of the state, while the parents are emotionally and financially stressed from failed efforts at getting CPS and its family court allies to return their children.
Foster parents get paid by the government along with CPS. States get paid by the federal government for every child they place into the foster care system of their states. This investigative report done several years ago in Kentucky reveals just how this corrupt system works:
Trafficking Foster Children for Sexual Abuse to People in Power
More often than is publicized, CPS actions force children into foster homes where they somehow get lost or disappear. Foster homes and institutions often do not report missing children. And what happens to children missing from CPS placed foster homes or institutions?
Some are prescribed psychotropics if they have behavioral issues or forced into drug trials [11] against their will. Some die as a result.
Some of those children who were initially kidnapped by CPS social workers wind up in the ever increasingly reported child trafficking for sex trades. It has been reported that the illegal money earned from sexual trafficking exceeds the money earned from the flow of illegal drugs. See:
Child Sex Trafficking through Child “Protection” Services Exposed – Kidnapping Children for Sex[12]
Ironically, it appears there’s much more public denial regarding enforced pedophilia among kidnapped children from political figures and government officials than there has been with Catholic priests picking on available parish kids.
The general public disbelief and denial for high ranking government officials’ and high rollers’ pedophilia has been their shield for a few decades.
Former and current victims are often not believed. Perpetrators are protected. The higher their status or position the more they are protected. Pedophile activities among the governing elites are ruthlessly covered up.
There are too many who may be inclined to blow the whistle on high level offenders but dare not because their lively-hoods are affected by these sexual predators, and in some cases it’s not just their lively-hoods that are threatened, but their lives.
Oppose SB 18!
SB 18 and overzealous attempts of state authority to prevail over the fate of all children, using Child Protective Services or family court systems is a potential threat to all families regardless of their innocence. It’s yet another attempt at allowing the state to be in charge of children against their will without parental consent.
Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com. [13]
Sources:
http://bolenreport.com/california-state-senator-richard-state-owns-child-pan/ [14]
[3]
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/bombshell-sacrificing-children-to-the-state-of-california-sb18/ [15]
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=caldocs_assembly [16]
http://medicalkidnap.com/2016/04/15/the-u-s-foster-care-system-modern-day-slavery-and-child-trafficking/ [9]
http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/07/21/child-sex-trafficking-through-child-protection-services-exposed-kidnapping-children-for-sex/ [12]
https://healthimpactnews.com/2016/medical-kidnapping-a-threat-to-every-child-in-america-today/ [17]
http://medicalkidnap.com/2016/12/21/new-california-proposed-bill-to-increase-government-seizure-of-children-from-families/print/
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Monday, December 12, 2016
N.J. child welfare worker indicted for extorting sex from mothers he supervised
By
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on December 05, 2016 at 5:47 PM, updated December 05, 2016 at 5:48 PM
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on December 05, 2016 at 5:47 PM, updated December 05, 2016 at 5:48 PM
Lamont King, 40, of Trenton.
TRENTON -- A former state family services worker has been indicted on charges that he used his position to extort sex from two mothers he supervised during their visitations with their children, authorities said.
Lamont King, of Trenton, was an assistant family services worker in the Division of Child Protection and Permanency at the state Department of Children and Families, where his duties included transporting parents and children to and from court-ordered visits and supervising them.
He faces charges including official misconduct, sexual assault, bribery and records tampering after a State Police investigation found he was pressuring vulnerable women into sex acts by threatening their custody of their children, according to the state Attorney General's Office.
Attorney General Christopher Porrino said Monday that King was "alleged to have ruthlessly exploited a mother's love for her children and his power over that emotionally charged relationship to coerce them into having sex with him."
"It's hard to imagine a more offensive abuse of authority," the attorney general said.
An attorney for King did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on the charges.
King, 40, was charged in June and suspended from his $43,000-a-year public job after investigators allegedly found he had sex with a mother under his supervision on multiple occasions, kissing and groping the woman in his car and driving her to a Pennsylvania motel for another encounter.
The woman did not report the behavior because she feared speaking out would "negatively affect her visits with her children," according to a statement from Porrino's office.
After he was charged, investigators identified another woman who King allegedly pressured into sex while driving her to visits with her children, who were under foster care.
On one occasion, authorities claim, King told the woman he "had the power to allow the visits to be unsupervised" before unbuttoning his pants and placing her hand on his genitals.
Afterward, he allowed the woman to go to the mall with her children unsupervised, authorities said, again requesting sexual favors after dropping the kids off.
The mother told detectives she was afraid nobody would believe her if she reported King's behavior, and he allegedly went on to request oral sex from the woman on subsequent visits, authorities said.
In March of 2016, authorities claim King drove the woman to a park in his own car and began removing her pants and underwear and touching her inappropriately, but the woman refused his sexual advances. He allegedly never showed at her next scheduled visit, and the woman told her caseworker she didn't want King driving her anymore, the statement said.
"King's alleged abuse of position and authority to garner sexual favors from scared mothers terrified of losing custody of their children is absolutely sickening," Col. Rick Fuentes, the head of the State Police, said in the statement.
King was arrested on a warrant Friday and is being held at the Mercer County Jail on $75,000 bail awaiting a court hearing.
S.P. Sullivan may be reached at ssullivan@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter. Find NJ.com on Facebook.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/nj_child_welfare_worker_indicted_for_extorting_sex.html
Sunday, December 4, 2016
What is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)became law in 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public. The purpose of the law is to make sure that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications. The ADA is divided into five titles (or sections) that relate to different areas of public life.
In 2008, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) was signed into law and became effective on January 1, 2009. The ADAAA made a number of significant changes to the definition of “disability.” The changes in the definition of disability in the ADAAA apply to all titles of the ADA, including Title I (employment practices of private employers with 15 or more employees, state and local governments, employment agencies, labor unions, agents of the employer and joint management labor committees); Title II (programs and activities of state and local government entities); and Title III (private entities that are considered places of public accommodation).
More About the ADA
Glossary of ADA TermsADA Acronyms and AbbreviationsRead ADA Publications/Fact SheetsFrequently Asked Questions About the ADA
Title I (Employment)
Equal Employment Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities
This title is designed to help people with disabilities access the same employment opportunities and benefits available to people without disabilities. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified applicants or employees. A reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment to a job or the work environment that will enable an applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the application process or to perform essential job functions.
This portion of the law is regulated and enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(link is external). Employers with 15 or more employees must comply with this law. The regulations for Title I define disability, establish guidelines for the reasonable accommodation process, address medical examinations and inquiries, and define “direct threat” when there is significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual employee with a disability or others.
More information and events related to ADA Title I (Employment).
Title II (State and Local Government)
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services
Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all programs, activities, and services of public entities. It applies to all state and local governments, their departments and agencies, and any other instrumentalities or special purpose districts of state or local governments. It clarifies the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, for public transportation systems that receive federal financial assistance, and extends coverage to all public entities that provide public transportation, whether or not they receive federal financial assistance. It establishes detailed standards for the operation of public transit systems, including commuter and intercity rail (e.g., AMTRAK).
This title outlines the administrative processes to be followed, including requirements for self-evaluation and planning; requirements for making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination; architectural barriers to be identified; and the need for effective communication with people with hearing, vision and speech disabilities. This title is regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.
More information and events related to ADA Title II (State and Local Government).
Title III (Public Accommodations)
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities
This title prohibits private places of public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Examples of public accommodations include privately-owned, leased or operated facilities like hotels, restaurants, retail merchants, doctor’s offices, golf courses, private schools, day care centers, health clubs, sports stadiums, movie theaters, and so on. This title sets the minimum standards for accessibility for alterations and new construction of facilities. It also requires public accommodations to remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense. This title directs businesses to make "reasonable modifications" to their usual ways of doing things when serving people with disabilities. It also requires that they take steps necessary to communicate effectively with customers with vision, hearing, and speech disabilities. This title is regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.
More information and events related to ADA Title III (Public Accommodations).
Title IV (Telecommunications)
This title requires telephone and Internet companies to provide a nationwide system of interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services that allows individuals with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate over the telephone. This title also requires closed captioning of federally funded public service announcements. This title is regulated by the Federal Communication Commission.
More information and events related to ADA Title IV (Telecommunications).
Title V (Miscellaneous Provisions)
The final title contains a variety of provisions relating to the ADA as a whole, including its relationship to other laws, state immunity, its impact on insurance providers and benefits, prohibition against retaliation and coercion, illegal use of drugs, and attorney’s fees. This title also provides a list of certain conditions that are not to be considered as disabilities.
https://adata.org/learn-about-ada
In 2008, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) was signed into law and became effective on January 1, 2009. The ADAAA made a number of significant changes to the definition of “disability.” The changes in the definition of disability in the ADAAA apply to all titles of the ADA, including Title I (employment practices of private employers with 15 or more employees, state and local governments, employment agencies, labor unions, agents of the employer and joint management labor committees); Title II (programs and activities of state and local government entities); and Title III (private entities that are considered places of public accommodation).
More About the ADA
Glossary of ADA TermsADA Acronyms and AbbreviationsRead ADA Publications/Fact SheetsFrequently Asked Questions About the ADA
Title I (Employment)
Equal Employment Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities
This title is designed to help people with disabilities access the same employment opportunities and benefits available to people without disabilities. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified applicants or employees. A reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment to a job or the work environment that will enable an applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the application process or to perform essential job functions.
This portion of the law is regulated and enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(link is external). Employers with 15 or more employees must comply with this law. The regulations for Title I define disability, establish guidelines for the reasonable accommodation process, address medical examinations and inquiries, and define “direct threat” when there is significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual employee with a disability or others.
More information and events related to ADA Title I (Employment).
Title II (State and Local Government)
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services
Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all programs, activities, and services of public entities. It applies to all state and local governments, their departments and agencies, and any other instrumentalities or special purpose districts of state or local governments. It clarifies the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, for public transportation systems that receive federal financial assistance, and extends coverage to all public entities that provide public transportation, whether or not they receive federal financial assistance. It establishes detailed standards for the operation of public transit systems, including commuter and intercity rail (e.g., AMTRAK).
This title outlines the administrative processes to be followed, including requirements for self-evaluation and planning; requirements for making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination; architectural barriers to be identified; and the need for effective communication with people with hearing, vision and speech disabilities. This title is regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.
More information and events related to ADA Title II (State and Local Government).
Title III (Public Accommodations)
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities
This title prohibits private places of public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Examples of public accommodations include privately-owned, leased or operated facilities like hotels, restaurants, retail merchants, doctor’s offices, golf courses, private schools, day care centers, health clubs, sports stadiums, movie theaters, and so on. This title sets the minimum standards for accessibility for alterations and new construction of facilities. It also requires public accommodations to remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense. This title directs businesses to make "reasonable modifications" to their usual ways of doing things when serving people with disabilities. It also requires that they take steps necessary to communicate effectively with customers with vision, hearing, and speech disabilities. This title is regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.
More information and events related to ADA Title III (Public Accommodations).
Title IV (Telecommunications)
This title requires telephone and Internet companies to provide a nationwide system of interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services that allows individuals with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate over the telephone. This title also requires closed captioning of federally funded public service announcements. This title is regulated by the Federal Communication Commission.
More information and events related to ADA Title IV (Telecommunications).
Title V (Miscellaneous Provisions)
The final title contains a variety of provisions relating to the ADA as a whole, including its relationship to other laws, state immunity, its impact on insurance providers and benefits, prohibition against retaliation and coercion, illegal use of drugs, and attorney’s fees. This title also provides a list of certain conditions that are not to be considered as disabilities.
https://adata.org/learn-about-ada
Friday, December 2, 2016
Tenant Troubles: Can My Landlord Refuse To Allow Me A Service Animal? by Dave Crow
Can a landlord legally refuse to rent to a tenant who owns a dog, if the prospective tenant is disabled and the dog helps his disability?
If not, what if the disability is only psychiatric in nature?
And if not, how would the prospective tenant be able to prove to the landlord that his dog is for his disability?
If your lease prohibits pets (and many of them do) a landlord can in initially refuse to allow a tenant to get a pet. Note that I said initially. If you are disabled and you need a pet to provide service or emotional support, you have the right to ask your landlord to allow a pet in the premises regardless of the language in the lease.
A guide dog for a blind person is a classic service animal. A landlord who refused a request for such an animal is clearly discriminating against the tenant based upon disability.
A request to allow an emotional support animal is a little more tricky, but your rights are still clearly defined under the law.
Asking your landlord to add a pet based upon your disability is called a request for a reasonable accommodation. Your request must be reasonable. For example, you cannot request that the landlord, to accommodate your disability, purchase Malachy, the pekinese best in show winner at this year’s Westminster Kennel Club dog show and add him to your lease. That would be unreasonable.
It might also be unreasonable to get a big, untrained, vicious dog because the landlord could be liable if the dog bit someone in the building.
You must also be prepared to prove to the landlord that you are disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
If your disability is psychiatric your are absolutely entitled to request a reasonable accommodation that could include owning a pet. Take a look at this link from the the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
The Bazelon site is the “go to” resource for any questions about the law pertaining to mental disability and your rights under the various laws that prohibit discrimination based upon mental disability.
Usually you can get a letter from your treating doctor describing your disability and that having a pet would mitigate your, say, your anxiety disorder. The Bazelon link above provides a sample doctor’s letter that briefly describes the patient’s mental disability and “prescribes” a pet to provide some alleviation of the symptoms.
If you are planning to request a reasonable accommodation to get a pet, you should also check out PAWS (Pets Are Wonderful Support). Their site provides a step-by-step procedure to request a reasonable accommodation to get a support animal. The PAWS suggestions about a health provider’s letter are simple, accurate descriptions of the legal requirements for such a letter:
In order to prove that a dog is a service or support animal, you may be asked to have documentation from a licensed professional (doctor, nurse practitioner, psychiatrist, other mental-health professional or social worker) stating that the animal is an essential part of treatment for a disability. A doctor’s letter must have two essential components.
1. It must state that you have a disability. The disability does not need to be identified.
2. It must state that it is the professional opinion of the provider that is it essential for you to have a service/support animal.
From my point of view, the biggest mistake a tenant can make is getting a pet first and then attempting to justify the need for the animal later–after the landlord, during his annual, unannounced, illegal inspection, discovers Fluffy hiding in a closet.
If your lease prohibits pets, ask first, in writing. If your landlord accepts your request, get it in writing. If your landlord refuses and you can demonstrate your need based on disability, go through the steps as outlined above.
If you are not disabled and your landlord refuses your request, forget it. I’ve seen too many instances in which long-term tenants are forced to choose between their beloved dog and living in the streets.
Dave Crow is an attorney who specializes in San Francisco landlord tenant law. However, the opinions expressed in these articles are those of the author, do not constitute legal advice, and the information is general in nature. Consult the advice of an attorney for any specific problem. You understand that no attorney-client relationship will exist with Dave Crow or his firm, Crow & Rose unless they have agreed to represent you. You should not respond to this site with any information that you believe is highly confidential.
Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.
http://sfappeal.com/2012/05/tenant-troubles-can-my-landlord-refuse-to-allow-me-a-service-animal/
If not, what if the disability is only psychiatric in nature?
And if not, how would the prospective tenant be able to prove to the landlord that his dog is for his disability?
If your lease prohibits pets (and many of them do) a landlord can in initially refuse to allow a tenant to get a pet. Note that I said initially. If you are disabled and you need a pet to provide service or emotional support, you have the right to ask your landlord to allow a pet in the premises regardless of the language in the lease.
A guide dog for a blind person is a classic service animal. A landlord who refused a request for such an animal is clearly discriminating against the tenant based upon disability.
A request to allow an emotional support animal is a little more tricky, but your rights are still clearly defined under the law.
Asking your landlord to add a pet based upon your disability is called a request for a reasonable accommodation. Your request must be reasonable. For example, you cannot request that the landlord, to accommodate your disability, purchase Malachy, the pekinese best in show winner at this year’s Westminster Kennel Club dog show and add him to your lease. That would be unreasonable.
It might also be unreasonable to get a big, untrained, vicious dog because the landlord could be liable if the dog bit someone in the building.
You must also be prepared to prove to the landlord that you are disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
If your disability is psychiatric your are absolutely entitled to request a reasonable accommodation that could include owning a pet. Take a look at this link from the the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
The Bazelon site is the “go to” resource for any questions about the law pertaining to mental disability and your rights under the various laws that prohibit discrimination based upon mental disability.
Usually you can get a letter from your treating doctor describing your disability and that having a pet would mitigate your, say, your anxiety disorder. The Bazelon link above provides a sample doctor’s letter that briefly describes the patient’s mental disability and “prescribes” a pet to provide some alleviation of the symptoms.
If you are planning to request a reasonable accommodation to get a pet, you should also check out PAWS (Pets Are Wonderful Support). Their site provides a step-by-step procedure to request a reasonable accommodation to get a support animal. The PAWS suggestions about a health provider’s letter are simple, accurate descriptions of the legal requirements for such a letter:
In order to prove that a dog is a service or support animal, you may be asked to have documentation from a licensed professional (doctor, nurse practitioner, psychiatrist, other mental-health professional or social worker) stating that the animal is an essential part of treatment for a disability. A doctor’s letter must have two essential components.
1. It must state that you have a disability. The disability does not need to be identified.
2. It must state that it is the professional opinion of the provider that is it essential for you to have a service/support animal.
From my point of view, the biggest mistake a tenant can make is getting a pet first and then attempting to justify the need for the animal later–after the landlord, during his annual, unannounced, illegal inspection, discovers Fluffy hiding in a closet.
If your lease prohibits pets, ask first, in writing. If your landlord accepts your request, get it in writing. If your landlord refuses and you can demonstrate your need based on disability, go through the steps as outlined above.
If you are not disabled and your landlord refuses your request, forget it. I’ve seen too many instances in which long-term tenants are forced to choose between their beloved dog and living in the streets.
Dave Crow is an attorney who specializes in San Francisco landlord tenant law. However, the opinions expressed in these articles are those of the author, do not constitute legal advice, and the information is general in nature. Consult the advice of an attorney for any specific problem. You understand that no attorney-client relationship will exist with Dave Crow or his firm, Crow & Rose unless they have agreed to represent you. You should not respond to this site with any information that you believe is highly confidential.
Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.
http://sfappeal.com/2012/05/tenant-troubles-can-my-landlord-refuse-to-allow-me-a-service-animal/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)