What do the recent rulings regarding psychiatric assistance dogs and the Wmo really say?

Over the past few days, many reactions appeared to three new rulings by the Central Council.

Appeal (CRvB) regarding psychiatric assistance dogs and the Wmo. It already emerged on social media

quickly causes unrest. Some reports even give the impression that psychiatric assistance dogs “not

be reimbursed more.

But that is not what these statements say.

Moreover: the Central Appeals Board actually confirms that municipalities in exceptional

situations may even make it mandatory to reimburse a psychiatric assistance dog.

However, the bar is set high.

What does the Central Appeals Board actually say?

The CRvB is in fact saying a number of important things at the same time.

1. An assistance dog is not automatically a Wmo provision

The fact that an assistance dog is helpful does not automatically mean that a municipality must

reimburse.

After all, the Wmo does not only look at:

Does this help?

But especially to:

Is this necessary to compensate for limitations in self-reliance and participation?

That is an important legal difference.

An assistance dog that:

• feels comfortable;

• provides support;

• or helps someone feel better,

  
  

legally, it is not automatically a necessary customized provision.

2. Other solutions must be seriously considered.

The Council clearly emphasizes that a psychiatric assistance dog should not be a first step.

Municipalities may consider:

• treatment;

• accompaniment;

• sheltered housing;

• outpatient support;

• existing facilities;

• and other forms of care.

  
  

Only when it becomes apparent that that support is insufficient or is no longer realistically available,

creates room for an assistance dog as a customized provision.

And to be honest, I find that logical in a way.

Why this stricter line is somewhat understandable

In society today, there is sometimes a tendency to resort to a psychiatric assistance dog very quickly.

looked, while an assistance dog:

• is not a simple solution;

• no “quick fix”;

• and also not a substitute for treatment.

  
  

An assistance dog demands a tremendous amount:

• of the dog;

• of the handler;

• and of the surroundings.

  
  

In addition, there are significant differences in quality, guidance, and assessment. As a result, it is

It is important that a critical look is taken at:

• need;

• task orientation;

• proportionality;

• and alternatives.

  
  

  A psychiatric assistance dog should actually be a last resort:

not the first step, but a solution when other appropriate support is insufficient

helps or is no longer possible.

An assistance dog also demands a lot from society.

An assistance dog is not only a tool for the user. It also demands a lot from the

society itself.

Consider:

• high costs;

• long-term support;

• public accessibility;

• exceptional positions;

• and societal acceptance.

  
  

In addition, a well-trained assistance dog often costs tens of thousands of euros and takes years.

prior training is required. Succession dogs, guidance, and maintenance also entail structural costs.

with it.

But it doesn't stop there.

After all, an assistance dog also demands a lot from:

• shops;

• schools;

• healthcare institutions;

• public transport;

• employers;

• and society as a whole.

  
  

An assistance dog means that society makes room for an exception within

the public space. This requires understanding, adaptability, and mutual trust.

That is precisely why I find it logical that a critical look is taken at:

• need;

• proportionality;

• alternatives;

• and demonstrable effect.

  
  

An assistance dog should not be a “quick fix” or a standard provision for mental health.

problem. That is why the impact — for the user, the dog, and society alike — is

simply too big.

Treatment support is not automatic

the same as a necessary assistance dog

At the same time, it is important to distinguish between:

• an assistance dog that supports treatment,

  and

• an assistance dog that is necessary for daily functioning and participation.

Some dogs, for example, help with:

• trauma treatment;

• emotion regulation;

• adherence to therapy;

• safety during treatment;

• or reducing tension during processes.

That can be enormously valuable.

But if a dog is primarily supportive of an ongoing treatment, then that means too.

that there is still:

• treatment perspective;

• active guidance;

• and therapeutic options are available.

  
  

And then the question rightly arises:

Is this then a case of a necessary individual assistance dog, or rather a therapeutic one?

support?

A therapy dog can sometimes be more suitable in such situations:

• usable within treatment;

• guided by professionals;

• and usable for multiple clients.

  
  

An assistance dog is, after all, a much heavier provision:

• individual;

• long-term;

• expensive;

• socially impactful;

• and intended for structural compensation of limitations in daily life.

  
  

That is precisely why it is logical to take a critical look at the difference between:

support during treatment,

and, an assistance dog as a last necessary compensation provision when other

options provide insufficient help or are no longer available.

But the door is NOT closing.

And this is perhaps the most important point that is often forgotten online.

The Council of State does not say:

Psychiatric assistance dogs must never be reimbursed.

In fact:

The Central Appeals Board states precisely that municipalities are obliged in exceptional situations

may be eligible to reimburse a psychiatric assistance dog.

That is quite a major legal change.

Previously, many municipalities viewed psychiatric assistance dogs primarily as:

• voluntary customized solution;

• leniency;

• or something that “actually does not fall under the Wmo”.

  
  

Some municipalities even rejected applications as a matter of course with the argument that psychiatric

assistance dogs would not be a Wmo provision.

The Central Appeals Board now makes it clear that that reasoning is too simplistic.

If someone:

• is severely limited;

• has no realistic alternatives left;

• and the assistance dog is demonstrably necessary for self-reliance and participation,

in that case, a municipality may be legally obliged to provide that service.

So that actually means two things at the same time:

• the assessment is becoming stricter;

• but for truly exceptional situations, the legal basis actually becomes stronger.

Do not underestimate exceptional situations

After all, there are also people for whom an assistance dog is not “extra support,” but the

minimum basis for stable functioning.

People:

• who have gone through intensive care trajectories for years;

• to have completed treatment;

• no longer have a suitable treatment place;

• experiencing severe limitations in autonomy and daily functioning;

• and relapse into crisis care or hospitalization-like situations without an assistance dog.

  
  

For them, an assistance dog can actually:

• prevent more intensive care;

• maintain independence;

• enabling parenthood;

• support participation;

• and increase safety.

  
  

Some people function without an assistance dog at a level where:

• continuous threat of crisis arises;

• remains intensive supervision necessary;

• autonomy is lost;

• or if admission-like situations are imminent.

  
  

And that is precisely where the difference lies:

“an assistance dog that is helpful”,

and

an assistance dog that is necessary to prevent severely impaired functioning.

The Central Appeals Board explicitly leaves room for precisely those exceptional situations.

Open.

Public support is important too.

I understand very well that this is not a popular opinion within parts of the assistance dog world.

Some people might find this strict or confrontational.

But at the same time, I think we must also dare to take an honest look at the bigger picture.

We cannot continue to grow indefinitely towards a situation where more and more people a

receiving an assistance dog without it being critically examined.

Because public support for assistance dogs is fragile.

That support will only persist if:

• is clear why an assistance dog is necessary;

• assistance dogs remain exceptional facilities;

• quality is monitored;

• and it remains evident that this involves serious compensation for severe limitations.

  
  

If uncontrolled growth occurs:

• blurs the distinction between support and necessity;

• distrust increases;

• more resistance arises in society;

• and ultimately, it is precisely the group that really needs a service dog that ends up in a difficult situation.

  
  

And that is precisely why I think that critical assessment is ultimately not only in the interest of

municipalities or society,

but also from the assistance dog users themselves.

Because proper indication ultimately protects:

• the support base;

• credibility;

• the quality;

• and the future of assistance dogs for people who get severely stuck without a service dog.

  
  

My personal view on this

Personally, therefore, I do not view these statements as solely negative.

I think it is good that psychiatric assistance dogs are being critically examined and that a

an assistance dog is not simply deployed as a standard solution for mental health issues.

But I also think it is important that it continues to be acknowledged that some people without a service dog

Completely stalling, despite years of treatment and intensive care.

Tailor-made solutions must remain possible, especially for that group.

Because sometimes an assistance dog is not a luxury, not a wish, and not “extra support”, but literally the

minimum basis to function stably, safely, and independently.

And that is ultimately exactly what the Central Appeals Board now seems to be saying:

not simply reimburse,

but do acknowledge where it is truly necessary.

Source: https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/organisatie/centrale-raad-van-beroep/nieuws/gemeente-in-uitzonderlijke-gevallen-verplicht-om-psychiatrische-hulphond-te-vergoeden