so most of us here, already privvy to the many pet vs service/support animal posts, know by now that true service/support animals are not just pets.  they are disability assistance animals that are differentiated from pets by having been prescribed/recommended by a licensed healthcare professional (ie, physician or pscychologist/therapist).

enter pet therapists. they might prescribe a pet (or petS) for xyz reasons. but the moment the pet is prescribed/recommended it seems a pet obtained or used for that purpose transforms into a support animal, and is protected under provisions of the ADA.

with service and support animals, proof of need is required (especially in NO PET policy units/buildings) in order to document that we are not discriminating against any other tenant(s) that may want to have an animal as a pet (as opposed to as a service or suport animal).

enter the likelihood that we will likely be given a prescription or recommendation letter that at bare minimum will indicate the tenant has some sort of disability, plus may or may not share what physical, health and/or psychological condition(s) the animal was indicated for, or in the case of more than one support animal, which symptom each pet assists with.

a predicament?

tenant A loves dogs but the building policy prohibits pets. one day, tenant A notices thru the front window that tenant B moved in with 2 dogs (a pit bull mix and a german sheperd mix) with the PM present and no issue was apparently raised; landlord even pet and played with the dogs. 

tenant A feels betrayed and goes out and buys a yorkie. landlord finds out and issues notice of breach of contract and to vacate or restore the apt to its pet-free requirements.

tenant A contronts landlord and demands explanation as to why tenant B has 2 big dogs but tenant A cant have 1 tiny one. landlord discloses tenant B provided proof that each of the 2 dogs are emotional support animals.

tenant A asks tenant B why does she have 2 emotional support animals, and for a referral to a professional that could also recommend 2 or 3 dogs so he can keep his yorkie and get a playmate for his and maybe even the yorkie's 'emotional support' each.

tenant B is insulted and files a HUD complaint that landlord shared that she needs emotional support (per Fair Housing Act, landlords may not divulge that a tenant has any disability to any third party).

meanwhile, tenant C whose toddler was soon after mauled to death by tenant B's sheperd mix, has just won a case in California Supreme Court finding the landlord to be a statutory owner of the dog since it was accepted onto the premises simply based on a letter written by a 'pet therapist' without regard - and consequentially, with negligence - to the other tenants' safety and thus responsible for $2,000,000 in compensation to tenant C for the loss of precious human life, regardless of whether landlord was negligent or not, and regardless of whether animal was a service/support animal or pet.

landlord, having lost his countersuit against tenant B for vicious 'support' animal's lethal actions, files claim for his homeowner's insurance to cover the $250 million he owes tenant C but claim is denied altogether on basis that building had a no pet policy and dogs were not declared and the pit bull mix, though recommended, was never even licensed.

last but not least, landlord receives summons, subpoenas, etc from HUD and appears for trial in Federal Civil Court. judge finds landlord guilty of divulging that tenant has a disability and orders landlord to pay the statutory $16,000 for one county of housing discrimination, plus 300,000 in actual damages for the complainant (and of course, her attorneys fees) for she is emotionally scarred for life!

tenant A gets evicted but marries tenant B, gets a recommendation to keep yorkie for emotional support, and anyways, buys the building thru a court ordered forced sale to satisfy judgements and they live happily ever after with their hoard of 'support' animals... 

until tenants-turned-owners' 'loveable' pit bull mix killed a tenant's child and court ruled both community property owners were liable.. but they had no equity nor assets so thrown in prison for life - without emotional support animals nor pet visitation rights - and never invoked their conjugal visitation rights - the end!