August 2006

People First: Ensuring Equal Access for People with Disabilities

Bar News is pleased to publish an excerpt from a new guide, Ensuring Equal Access for People with Disabilities: A Guide for Washington Courts, developed by the Access to Justice Board's Impediments to Access to Justice Committee.

The Committee is co-chaired by Hon. Catherine Shaffer of the King County Superior Court and former WSBA Board of Governors member Howard Graham of Tacoma. Chiefly responsible for the content of the Guide were Lonnie Davis of the Washington Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities and member of the WSBA Board of Governors; David Lord, staff attorney, Washington Protection and Advocacy System; and Ann Glynn, Esq., of the Eastern Washington Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Hon. Anne Ellington, of the Court of Appeals, served as editor. Commentary was provided by many, including Ken Nakata, former Department of Justice attorney and drafter of many of the Access Board regulations.

The full Guide is an important compendium of laws, information, and suggestions for assuring equal access for all, and it includes suggested means of accommodation. Click here for a complete text of the Guide. State and federal laws require that government programs be accessible to persons with disabilities (RCW 49.60.010 et seq., Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12131 et. seq. (ADA)).

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court made the following observations in upholding application of the ADA to courts and court services:

The unequal treatment of disabled persons in the administration of judicial services has a long history, and has persisted despite several legislative efforts to remedy the problem.... Faced with considerable evidence of the shortcomings of previous legislative responses, Congress was justified in concluding that this "difficult and intractable problem" warranted [the enactment of Title II].... Recognizing that failure to accommodate persons with disabilities will often have the same practical effect as outright exclusion, Congress required the States to take reasonable measures to remove architectural and other barriers to accessibility.... [A]s it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, [Title II] constitutes a valid exercise of Congress'... authority to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Tennessee v. Lane, 124 S.Ct. 1978, 1993-4 (2004). (Italics added.)

Introduction

Three recent Washington sources have confirmed that persons with disabilities have great difficulty achieving access to facilities and services in Washington courts.

In 1999, the Civil and Legal Rights Subcommittee of the Governors' Committee on Disability Issues and Employment reviewed the accessibility of Washington state's district, municipal, and superior courts, using an ADA self-assessment tool. The following year, the WSBA Court Improvement Committee and the Access to Justice Board's Impediments to Access to Justice Committee conducted a survey of court officers, attorneys, and users of courthouses throughout the state. In 2003, the Supreme Court conducted a civil legal needs study.1 All these reviews confirmed what we already knew: Our courts and court programs are not accessible.

More than 940,000 people in Washington have disabilities.2 This is a substantial proportion of our state population of six million.3 The Civil Legal Needs Study shows that people with disabilities experience legal problems with a discrimination component at a significantly higher rate than many other low-income groups, and that low-income persons with disabilities are among the least likely to secure legal help from an attorney.

What the Law Says

Generally: Access to the courts is a fundamental right under the state and federal constitutions. State and federal statutes require that people with disabilities be afforded equal access to courthouses, courtrooms, and court services. Their access must be just as effective as the access provided to other members of the public.

Sources of the Law

• The Americans with Disabilities Act
• The Washington Law Against Discrimination4
• The United States Constitution
• The Washington Constitution
• The State Supreme Court Access to Justice Technology Principles

What Is a Disability?

The definition of "disability" is broad, and now is the same under both the ADA and the WLAD. Under the ADA, "disability" is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). A person is also considered disabled for purposes of the ADA if she has a record of such an impairment, or is perceived as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(B).

Washington state statutes contain no definition of qualifying disability. WAC 162-22-020(1) provides that "disability" is a short-hand term for "the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability" — namely "a sensory, mental, or physical condition" that is medically cognizable or diagnosable, exists as a record or history, or is perceived to exist (whether or not it actually does). In July 2006, the Washington State Supreme Court rejected this definition and adopted the ADA definition. McClarty v. Totem Elec., No.75024-6, 2006 Wash. LEXIS 504 (July 6, 2006).5

Implications for Courts

What Is Prohibited?

Title II of the ADA prohibits exclusion or unequal treatment of qualified individuals in any program, service, or activity of state or local government. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. A qualified individual is anyone who, with or without reasonable regulatory modifications, removal of barriers or auxiliary aids and services, is eligible for public services. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). In the arena of the court system, this is virtually everyone.

The WLAD prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, and requires reasonable accommodation of disabilities. RCW §§ 49.60.010, 49.60.030, 49.60.215. State implementing regulations in WAC 162-26-060, ff, set forth prohibitions and requirements similar to those under the ADA. There are additional provisions scattered throughout Washington statutes, which protect, inter alia, the constitutional rights of persons with hearing or speech impairments (RCW § 2.42.010)6 and the equal right of the "physically disabled" to "full and free use of…public buildings, public facilities, and other public places." (RCW § 70.84.010).

What Is Required?

These laws apply to courts and to administrative agencies conducting adjudicative hearings. Both courts and agencies are public entities and places of public accommodation7 fully subject to the ADA and the WLAD. Indeed, Congress intended to make it difficult for government to avoid compliance with the ADA.8 State and local government services, programs, and activities — including those of administrative and judicial courts — must be "readily accessible to and usable by" individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a). In short, the ADA applies to all judicial programs and services, and to all participants: jurors, lawyers, parties, witnesses, and observers.

The law does not require courts to make fundamental alterations to their programs or make changes that would result in undue financial or administrative burdens,9 and no action is required that would threaten the significance of a historic site.10 But the law requires reasonable efforts to remove barriers to courthouses and court services, and affirmative steps to ensure that participation in public programs is equally available to people with disabilities. This means identifying and removing barriers, or identifying and implementing accommodations. These requirements apply to court services, viewed in their entirety.

• For example, "auxiliary aids and services" must be furnished where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity conducted by a public entity. 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(1). Courts must make "reasonable modifications" to rules, practices, and policies if changes are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.11 And courts must assure that communication is as effective for people with disabilities as it is for others. 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a).
• Courts must create a procedure by which an accommodation can be requested,12 and must then investigate and ascertain what accommodation is reasonable.
• Costs must be borne by the court, and may not be passed on as a surcharge to the individuals accommodated.13
• Entities that employ 50 or more people must designate an employee to receive ADA complaints and must publish procedures for handling those complaints. 28 C.F.R. § 35.107.14
• To ensure compliance where structural changes are undertaken to achieve accessibility to a program, places of public accommodation (if they employ 50 or more persons) must develop transition plans setting forth the steps needed to complete those changes. Plans must, at a minimum, identify physical barriers and limited access to facilities, detail the methods to be used to make the facilities accessible, set a timeline for the changes, and identify the official responsible for the plan's implementation.

Is There Immunity?

The ADA expressly abrogates state sovereign immunity.15 In Tennessee v. Lane, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this abrogation, at least insofar as it applies to the accessibility of judicial services.16 Under both the WLAD and Title II, public entities — including courts — are subject to suits for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.

Judges performing judicial functions have generally been held absolutely immune,17 although their immunity will not protect others. In one local case, a judge who denied a motion for real-time transcription as an ADA accommodation was held absolutely immune. Duvall v. Kitsap County, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133, 1138 (9th Cir 2001). ("Ruling on a motion is a normal judicial function, as is exercising control over the courtroom while court is in session.") A question of fact existed, however, as to whether the court administrator who denied the accommodation request was acting in an administrative capacity (providing no immunity) or a quasi-judicial capacity (immune). Id. at 1135.18

Whether immunity protects a judge who wrongly denies accommodation as an administrative act is doubtful. "Absolute judicial immunity does not apply to non-judicial acts, i.e., the administrative … and executive functions that judges may on occasion be assigned to perform." Id. at 1133. See also Memmer v. Marin County Courts, 169 F.3d 630, 634-5 (9th Cir., 1999) (litigant had visual disability; state court provided a reader, but refused to provide specific individual requested; federal district judge held judges immune; circuit court held plaintiff failed to show accommodation was unreasonable, and did not address immunity).

Jurors

Jury service is an important civic right, and jurors are protected by the ADA. A jury summons should solicit information about any need for accommodations, and should provide contact information so the juror can work with the court before reporting for jury duty. When empanelling a jury, the judge should ask about any need for accommodations. A useful resource on jury issues is the ABA publication by Kristi Bleyer et al., Into the Jury Box: Disability Accommodation Guide for State Courts (1994).19

Pro Se Litigants with Disabilities

When a person with a disability represents himself, there may be no intermediary between the court and the litigant on the subject of necessary accommodations. It is acutely important that judicial officers, clerk's staff, and courtroom staff be alert, communicate effectively and respectfully, and determine appropriate accommodation if needed.

What About Administrative Tribunals?

Administrative agencies are public entities and places of public accommodation, and both the ADA and the WLAD apply to administrative agencies conducting adjudicative hearings. State and local government services, programs, and activities — including those of administrative and judicial courts — must be "readily accessible to and usable by" individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.150(a).

Preconceptions and Stereotypes

When most of us think about disabilities, we may imagine a person who uses a wheelchair, or who is blind. We may assume that all people with disabilities have roughly identical needs. But when we stop to imagine how a disability would affect our day-to-day activities, we realize that each disability creates different challenges and different needs.

Unfortunately, our initial responses to people with disabilities often are formed by stereotypes and myths. It takes training to recognize and reject such responses. Very often, the first step is to learn a new vocabulary that conveys respect and avoids offense. (See p. 24 for some people-first language guidelines.)

Ensuring equal access to justice chiefly depends on understanding that people with disabilities are people. They are not medical diagnoses like cerebral palsy; they are not devices like wheelchairs. They adapt to their disabilities and live their lives — go to school, work, get married, have families, shop for groceries, laugh, cry, vote, pay taxes, come to court — just like everyone else. Most people with disabilities prefer to be responsible for themselves. If we believe people have a right to equal justice, and if we remember that all of us can contribute to change, things will work out.

Providing Access

What constitutes a reasonable accommodation depends upon the particular circumstances. Here follows an introduction to four common kinds of disabilities.

Hearing or Other Communication Disability

Hearing loss varies greatly. A person with mild hearing loss may not be greatly affected in the activities of daily living. Once hearing loss is at a moderate level, however, it is likely that a person will misunderstand speech. Assistive technology can bridge the communication gap. Those with profound hearing loss will likely need interpreters.

Communication disabilities may have many causes, including medical, developmental, or other conditions. A stroke or accident can affect speech or hearing, illness can alter speech patterns, and some conditions such as autism can prevent voiced communication.

The key to providing solutions: Never assume that one solution will accommodate every person with a communication disability. In choosing among different alternatives, courts must try to abide by the preference of the person needing the accommodation. The ADA requires public entities to give "primary consideration to the requests of the individual" in deciding what auxiliary aid or service is necessary to ensure that communications with persons with disabilities are as effective as with other persons. 35 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(2).

Most people with hearing loss or communication disorders use some type of sign language or assistive technology in order to communicate effectively. Courts must provide a qualified interpreter or other effective assistive technology at every stage of a proceeding for persons who are deaf, deaf/blind, or hard of hearing, and should make this capacity known to the public.21 RCW 2.42.180 gives the court discretionary authority to order visual recording of a proceeding involving a person with a hearing loss, and makes visual recording mandatory in capital cases.

Vision Disabilities

Vision limitations also vary greatly, and may range from mild to moderate losses of visual acuity to tunnel vision, night blindness, or color blindness, to total lack of sight. Appropriate accommodations will be similarly varied, depending upon the specific nature and level of impairment. Only 10 to 15 percent "see" total darkness. The majority can distinguish light, color, and/or form.22 Enabling access for those with visual disabilities requires consideration of both communication and physical barriers.23

Mobility Limitations

People with mobility limitations may encounter obstacles getting to and entering the courthouse, or getting around once inside. The ADA mandates the "readily achievable" removal of architectural and structural barriers unless programs can be made accessible in some other way. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(2)(A)(iv), (v). Whether or not barriers exist, courts should ensure a continuous, unobstructed route from accessible public transportation and parking through an accessible public entrance into the areas where court services are conducted.

The ADA does not necessarily require that each courtroom, office, or restroom be barrier free. Rather, the services and accommodations of the courthouse, viewed as a whole, must be readily accessible and usable by people with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(a), 35.150(a). When it is not feasible to serve a person in the same place others are served, the person must be served in the most appropriate integrated setting. 18 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).

Cognitive and Other Mental Disabilities

People with cognitive and other mental disabilities often encounter paternalistic attitudes and condescending responses. They may therefore be unwilling to acknowledge a need for help, and may be suspicious or skeptical about offers of help. At other times, the presence of a mental disability may go unrecognized, and behavior may be misinterpreted.

Many conditions can affect learning and decision-making: cerebral palsy, autism, and Down syndrome; traumatic brain injuries; epilepsy or other seizure disorders; or mental illness, to name just a few. Individuals with these disabilities may be of normal intelligence or may have cognitive limitations. The major barriers to access for persons with cognitive disabilities are unnecessary complexity and ineffective communication.

Special Accommodation Issues

Guide dogs and service animals

Guide dogs are the most widely recognized kind of service animal, but people with many types of disabilities use animals for assistance. A service animal must be allowed in any area open to the public, including courtrooms.24

A service animal is "an animal that is trained for the purpose of assisting or accommodating a disabled person's sensory, mental or physical disability." RCW 49.60.040(23). Service animals may alert a person to sound, pull a wheelchair, carry or fetch things, alert its owner to a seizure or other health issue before the owner is aware of symptoms, or alleviate anxiety by engaging in specific behaviors.25

A service animal is not required to wear a cape, special harness, or other equipment, and there is no requirement that a service animal be licensed or certified as such by any government agency. Where the purpose of the animal is unclear, it is permissible to ask whether the animal is needed because of a disability, and what tasks the animal has been trained to perform. In most cases, court personnel should accept a person's statement that the animal is a service animal. The person using the animal is responsible for supervising the animal, and a service animal can be excluded if it poses a threat to property or to other people.

Valuable guidance may be found in the Department of Justice publication Commonly Asked Questions About Service Animals in Places of Business. 26

Companion animals

Individuals with disabilities are sometimes accompanied by a pet that has no specialized training but may provide relief from anxiety. For example, a companion animal may help persons with extreme fear of crowds avoid panic attacks in public places. Although untrained animals are not entitled to the protection mandated by the service animals statute, treating untrained animals as service animals may constitute a reasonable accommodation in some circumstances. 27

Support persons

Many people with disabilities, especially those with cognitive disabilities, are intimidated or confused by court proceedings. When such individuals are involved in court proceedings without representation, the assistance of someone they know well, or who is skilled at explaining court proceedings in simple terms, may constitute a very effective accommodation. Support persons may explain paperwork or follow-up obligations, or identify signs of confusion or misunderstanding, or may simply reduce the anxiety of court proceedings.

Cautions: It is the prerogative of the individual to accept or refuse such assistance. Further, the presence of a support person during attorney-client communications may have an impact on privilege in certain circumstances. See 14 A.L.R. 4th 594. Applicability of Attorney-Client Privilege to Communications Made in Presence of or Solely to or by Third Person.

Note:  2005 Statute. The Washington Legislature recently passed House Bill (HB) 2126,28 which formally recognizes the role of support persons in criminal proceedings where "dependent persons" are involved as victims or witnesses. A "dependent person" is any "person who, because of physical or mental disability, or because of extreme advanced age, is dependent upon another person to provide the basic necessities of life[.]"29 For those dependent persons, the new statutes establish certain rights in criminal and juvenile court proceedings, including: explanation of all legal proceedings and police investigations in which the person may be involved, in language easily understood by the dependent person; the presence of an advocate during court testimony, to provide emotional support; and for victims of sex or violent crimes, assistance of an advocate during interviews and to provide information to the prosecutor and court concerning the ability of the person to cooperate with the prosecution, the effect of the prosecution on the person, and the person's ability to understand the nature of the proceedings.

Multiple challenges compound

Many who are entitled to ADA accommodation also face other barriers and obstacles to the justice system, so that their difficulties compound. Such barriers or disparate treatment may result from age, religion, ethnicity or race, social class, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, or language. The findings of the Washington State Civil Legal Needs Study tell us that people who have disabilities experience discrimination more than other groups, and that many will be without financial resources as well. When disability is compounded by other factors, the situation will be more complex and difficult, and the accommodations needed may be affected. How we respond in such complex situations will likely have lasting consequences.

Accommodation Plans for Washington Courts

There is much courts can do to provide the necessary access for people with disabilities. The following steps are recommended:

1.  Read the Guide.

2.  Review current practices throughout the courthouse and courtrooms in an objective, self-aware, and critical manner.

3.  Provide education about understanding and accommodating disabilities, and train everyone working in the court system to be ready to help all people achieve effective access to the court.

4.  Adopt an accommodation plan, which should include the following steps:

• Ensure that persons with disabilities and/or the organizations representing them have the opportunity to participate in formulating the plan.
• Identify an ADA coordinator;
• Identify physical barriers, formulate solutions, and provide for emergencies.
• Educate judicial officers and staff, as described above.
• Identify assistive-technology aids, acquire and install them, and train staff in their use.
• Disseminate information about available accommodations.
• Establish and publicize a procedure by which accommodation may be requested and swiftly investigated.
• Identify accommodations frequently requested, and ensure they are ready at hand.
• Identify someone to be the assistive technology expert.
• Identify someone to be the link to outside disability organizations;
• Prepare and maintain a directory of current local services available to assist the court in providing accommodations.
• Review court forms and procedures, and amend as needed.
• Establish a procedure for receiving and acting upon complaints.
• Regularly review and update the plan.
• Assign one individual with overall responsibility for the plan.

The details of each accommodation plan will depend on the specific barriers of each courthouse and programs, but it may help to think about providing access in different stages:

Short-term goals: Consider how to provide immediate access by relocating services and informally consulting with disability groups on how to meet needs on a case-by-case basis. Review policies and procedures to identify easily made changes to enhance access. Consult with community experts to develop "fast fixes."

Medium- and long-term goals: Perform a full architectural survey of barriers and make a careful assessment of barriers posed for different disabilities. Develop a budget and schedule for implementing changes. Ensure that future structural changes incorporate the needs of people with disabilities. Evaluate technology and assistive devices, and maintain relationships with the local community for regular advice and feedback.

Conclusion

First, a reminder: The Guide addresses only the most common disabilities. Many other disabilities — some of them invisible — affect persons in our courts. These may include seizure disorders, AIDS or other serious illness, multiple sclerosis, etc. Be alert. All of us in the justice system are in this together. We must and we can make our courts accessible to those with disabilities. If we share our ideas and experiences, and if we are creative — perhaps by starting "banks" of assistive devices to be shared among courts, or publishing bibliographies, or building websites for exchanging suggestions and successes — we will get it done.
Finally, remember to consult those of us living with disabilities as you work to ensure our access!

Additional Materials:

• Ensuring Equal Access for People with Disabilities: A Guide for Washington Courts (Word version)
• Guide to Etiquette
• People First Language
• Resources

NOTES

1.  Washington State Supreme Court, 2003 Washington State Civil Legal Needs Study. Available at here. (accessed March 21, 2006).
 
2. Washington State Department of Health, Disability in Washington State (January 2001). Available at http://mchneighborhood.ichp.edu/wagenetics/ (accessed May 13, 2005).
 
3. Estimated population in 2003. Statistics available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53000.html (accessed May 13, 2005).
 
4. Many county and city ordinances also prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability.
 
5. "To provide for a single definition of "disability" that can be applied consistently throughout the WLAD, we adopt the definition of disability as set forth in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12209. We hold that a plaintiff bringing suit under the WLAD establishes that he has a disability if he has (1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities, (2) a record of such an impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment."  McClarty v. Totem Elec., No. 75024-6, 2006 Wash. LEXIS 504 at *7 (July 6, 2006). 
 
6. RCW 2.42 governs and mandates the use of interpreters in legal proceedings for persons who are deaf. RCW 2.43 governs and mandates interpreters for those who do not speak English.
 
7. See RCW 4.60.040(10); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135-1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (implicitly holding that courts are places of public accommodation under Washington statutes).
 
8. Gould, And Equal Protection for All…The Americans with Disabilities Act in the Courtroom, J. Law & Health, 123, 138 (1993-94).
 
9. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a)(3).
 
10. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a)(2).
 
11. 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7).
 
12. The ATJ Impediments Committee has proposed a court rule setting forth a procedure for requesting accommodation. The rule has been endorsed by the ATJ Board and was approved in April 2006 by the WSBA Board of Governors. The rule is now pending before the Washington State Supreme Court.
 
13. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(f).
 
14. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 has long required recipients of federal funding to undertake many of the same responsibilities as public entities under Title II of the ADA. 29 U.S.C. § 794.
 
15. 42 U.S.C. § 12202.
 
16. Tennessee v. Lane, supra, at 1993. See Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001) (Eleventh Amendment bars private suits for money damages under Title I of the ADA governing employment).
 
17. At least one federal circuit has held there is no judicial immunity from prospective and injunctive relief when a judge violates the ADA. See Livingston v. Guice, 68 F.3d 460 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished; see Westlaw WL 610355). (Note: Facts are reported in Livingston v. Guice, 855 F. Supp 834 (W.D.N.C. 1994).)
 
18. Duvall contains a useful discussion of the interplay between the federal and state statutes, and sets forth the tests to be applied in 9th Circuit cases analyzing Title II claims, including the test for proof of intentional discrimination to support claims for money damages (the deliberate indifference standard).
 
19. This publication is available from the Administrative Office for the Courts, 1206 Quince Street SE, PO Box 41170, Olympia, WA 98504-1170; 360-753-3365; Fax 360-586-8869.
 
20. See WAC 162-26-060(2).
 
21. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(1); RCW 2.42.130, 140 (delineating between "qualified" and "intermediary" interpreters, and stating when and from what sources they are to be appointed); GR 11.1 (setting forth a code of conduct for court interpreters in Washington). See also: RCW 26.50.55 (interpreters to be appointed as necessary in domestic violence proceedings).
 
22. Washington State Dept. of Services for the Blind, http://dsb.wa.gov/ (accessed October 3, 2005).
 
23. The ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) provide standards for assuring that corridors and public areas can be used safely by people with visual disabilities. ADAAG 4.4 addresses objects that protrude into walkways. ADAAG 4.30.4 deals with raised and Brailled characters and pictorial symbol signs (pictograms). ADAAG 4.30.5 deals with the finish and contrast for word signs. Location and mounting of signs is covered by ADAAG 4.30.6.
 
24. The Seattle Office for Civil Rights recently awarded a $21,222 judgment to a woman who was required to leave her dog outside while patronizing a convenience store. Seattle Times, May 3, 2005, "Woman wins bias case over service dog," Jennifer Sullivan.
 
25. See Storms v. Fred Meyer Stores, 129 Wn. App. 820, __ P.3d. __ (Div. I, Sept. 26, 2005) (dog trained to alleviate anxiety disorder met definition of service animal).
 
26. Available on the Department of Justice website at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/qasrvc.htm (accessed May 13, 2005).
 
27. Another category is therapy animals, which are specially trained to go into healthcare facilities to provide therapeutic contact with patients. Information about therapy animals is available from the Delta Society, http://deltasociety.org. See also, Service Dog Tasks for Psychiatric Disabilities, Joan Froling, http://iaadp.org/psd_tasks.html.
 
28. CH 381, 2005 Laws, effective July 24, 2005, codified at RCW 7.69B.
 
29. See HB 2126 § 1, 2(2) and RCW 9A.42.010.