Removing B.C. girl’s ’emotional support rats’ was not discrimination

Article content

Taking away a child’s emotional support rats doesn’t constitute discrimination based on mental disability, according to a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

Article content

Article content

The girl, who is now an adult, is identified only by the initials AS. She complained about her treatment while in the care of the province’s Ministry of Children and Family Development and Brian Young, its director of child protection.

Article content

“AS says the rats helped her in dealing with depression and anxiety,” Ijeamaka Anika, a member of the tribunal, said in a written decision.

The province denied discriminating against AS and argued successfully her complaint should be dismissed because, at the time, the rats weren’t prescribed for the girl’s treatment.

AS was living in a care facility contracted by the province when the rat problem arose.

“In February 2020, AS went to a pet store to purchase two rats,” said the decision, which notes caregivers accompanied her and allowed her to buy them in the hope the rats “would be therapeutic for her.”

AS told the tribunal she bought the rats to help with her depression and “major anxiety.”

She was supposed to be responsible for caring for the rats, but in February of 2020, “placement staff filed the first critical incident report regarding AS,” said the decision.

“A staff member heard sounds from AS’s room which suggested that AS (was) yelling at her rat and throwing objects at it,” said the decision. “The staff member told AS to be gentle with her rat and AS yelled at the staff member not to tell her how to treat her pets.”

Article content

Article content

Later that same day, another staffer watched AS take one of the rats outside and throw snowballs at it.

“The staff member told AS to be gentle with the rat. AS stopped throwing the snowballs, came inside the house and told the staff member that she was ‘mad’ at the rat for chewing on computer cords.”

A few days later, one of her caregivers reported via email that AS “was taking the two rats everywhere including into the bath. The same email stated that AS was not cleaning the rats’ cage appropriately and one of the rats had become ill and needed to be taken to the pet store.”

The girl was feeling dizzy and fainted sometimes but refused to see a doctor, said the tribunal’s decision.

“The care team consulted with AS’s doctor who noted that AS’s symptoms could be related to how she handled the rats, particularly regarding AS bathing with the rats, not cleaning their feces, and feeding them raw meat without sanitizing afterwards.”

By the end of February 2020, the care home’s staff created a set of rules governing the care of the rats and went over them with AS.

“In March 2020, a placement staff emailed the care team that AS was clipping the rats’ nails at the kitchen table, throwing rat feces at the placement staff, putting the rats in her underwear, and allowing the rats to defecate on her bed. The email also stated that AS refused to follow the rules and became defensive each time the rules were mentioned.”

Article content

Her caregivers agreed they “would go over the rules again with AS.”

In April of that year, one of her caregivers filed a second critical report about AS. “The report stated that AS had engaged in self-harm, and disclosed to placement staff that she was letting the rats lick the cuts in her arms and that she had ‘put rat piss’ into the wounds.”

In May of 2020, her caregivers met to discuss how, “on several occasions, AS followed maintenance workers who were working in the resource home and put rats on them despite the workers telling AS they felt uncomfortable when she put the rats on them.”

They also discussed complaints that “AS fed raw meat to one of her rats and did not clean up the raw meat left in the home.”

Rat feces was left on the care facility’s back deck, said the decision. “AS had the rats inside her clothes and in her bed.”

Her caregivers agreed to tell “AS that if she did not abide by the rules, the rats would be rehomed.”

The animals were only to eat food from the pet store, according to the rules. “The rats need to stay in the cage unless for a snuggle, a roll in the ball or for their weekly bath.”

Article content

The rats could be bathed once a week. “Rat bath day is Sunday! Please use a small amount of no-tears baby soap,” said the rules. “The rats are not to come into the bath with humans.”

The rat cage needed to be cleaned regularly and AS was to ensure they got fresh food and water daily.

The rules noted AS should ask others before putting rats on them. “Some people are not completely comfortable around certain animals.”

AS was told not to put rats inside her clothing. “If the rats would like to snuggle, please use the rat carrier.”

But in June of 2020, one of her caregivers observed “the rats making crying sounds while AS was trimming their nails. The staff member told AS that she may be trimming the nails the wrong way. AS ignored the staff member.”

When one rat started bleeding, “AS suggested giving it a saltwater bath. The staff member told AS this would likely hurt and AS allowed the staff member to apply ointment to the wound.”

But the rat kept licking the area, “and AS stated that she may put hot sauce or lemon juice on the wound if the rat did not stop licking the wound. The staff member told her that might also be painful for the rat.”

Article content

The girl put the rat in the cage “and put a heat lamp very close to the cage, stating the rat needed to stay warm. Two placement staff members told AS the rat was in discomfort due to heat from the lamp being so close to the rat’s cage.”

That’s when her caregivers decided the rats had to go.

AS complained the facility where she was living did not have “a no-pet policy, and she was not harming the rats. AS says she spoiled them, kept the rats’ cage clean, and provided them with fresh food and water. AS also says her rats liked to burrow under her clothing, and she accidentally cut their nails too short once.”

On July 17, 2020, the girl’s psychiatrist wrote a letter to the Ministry of Children and Family Development saying AS “was receiving additional support from her emotional support rats.”

AS denied she was hurting the rodents, going into the showers with them or “keeping the animals in her bra and underclothes.”

She complained about severe depression and a lack of motivation after the rats were removed. “She has indicated that she has become emotionally unstable and irritable.”

Article content

AS wanted another chance, but her caregivers decided against it. “The respondents say that despite the psychiatrist’s letter, the concerns around AS’s mistreatment of the rats remained.”

In September of 2020, after the rats “were surrendered to the BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,” her uncle adopted the rats and found a caregiver for them.

Her psychiatrist kept pushing for AS to get the rats back, but that didn’t happen.

“I am satisfied that the respondents are reasonably certain to establish that they would have incurred undue hardship by allowing AS to continue to keep the rats,” Anika said in dismissing the complaint.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Article content