When ‘collaboration’ is no longer collaboration – assistance dogs, contracts, and equality.

This article isn't about one school, one organization, or one incident. It's about a pattern in the assistance dog sector: a contract culture that increasingly revolves around control, risk aversion, and power—and less and less around equal collaboration.

This isn't an attack on assistance dog schools. This is a call for maturity, reflection, and change.

We are not files. Not objects of risk. Not subordinates. We are adults, customers, owners, and partners.

ADI and ADEU are not law

ADI (Assistance Dogs International) and ADEU (the European umbrella organization) are quality frameworks. They are not legislators. They do not create laws or determine civil law.

They do have a use, especially internationally:

- Better acceptance by airlines

- Less discussion at borders

- More recognition abroad

However: ADI/ADEU are not legal authorities. They don't dictate how your property is managed.

What ADI and ADEU mean in practice (and what many people don't realize)

What many people don't realize is this: the ADI guidelines are the same worldwide.

This means that the same ADI frameworks apply in the Netherlands, the United States, Africa, Asia, Japan, China, Australia, South America and everywhere in between.

Something similar applies to ADEU: the ADEU frameworks apply throughout Europe. Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Northern Europe, and Western Europe all formally work with the same framework.

The circumstances in these countries differ enormously: climate, infrastructure, access to care, culture surrounding dogs and what is considered 'normal' in training and housing.

And yet all these countries fall under the same ADI or ADEU framework.

This shows what ADI and ADEU are at their core: global and European quality frameworks and industry agreements.

They are about how organizations organize their processes, how quality is monitored and when an organization can associate its name with a team.

They do not concern what food a dog should be fed, which veterinarian is required, how one's daily life should be organised or who is the legal owner of the dog.

When organizations say, "This is required by ADI" or "This is required by ADEU," in practice, it's almost always their own interpretation. What all falls under the same framework in Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands cannot possibly be as detailed and binding as some contracts suggest.

The key point of all this is: ADI and ADEU are quality frameworks, not legislation and not a legal straitjacket.

Ownership changes everything

There are two fundamentally different situations:

1. The dog is owned by an organization or insurer

2. The dog is the property of the user

In situation 1 it is logical that the organization sets conditions.

In situation 2, the law is simple: the dog is yours.

The organization may:

- coach

- advise

- decide whether they want to associate their name with the team

But they may not:

- pretending to be co-owners

- decide about your life

- decide on your medical choices or nutrition

Their only real means of power is: “we stop guiding / we withdraw our recognition”.

The practice: it hardly matters where you sit

Whether an organization:

- big or small is

- ADI/ADEU is, is a candidate, or is not affiliated

- is expensive or cheaper

The contracts often seem remarkably similar:

- a lot of control

- extensive legal coverage

- little control for the user

- many duties, few rights

The pattern remains the same.

Not a customer, but a subordinate

You pay for a service, but are often not treated as a customer.

In a normal relationship:

- you pay

- the other supplies

- you evaluate together

Here:

- the organization assesses

- the organization decides

- you must comply above all

The tone is not: “we work together”.

The tone is: “We decide whether you can stay.”

Everything is set up for zero risk for the organization

Even if:

- guidance is inadequate

- agreements are not kept

- the process fails in terms of content

Even then, the risk almost always lies with the user.

These are not collaboration agreements.

These are risk-shifting contracts.

An anonymized example case

Someone with their own dog pays for everything themselves.

First comes a contract.

Then forms.

Then additional conditions.

Then even more conditions.

More and more control.

Less and less say.

Until the moment comes:

“You no longer measure up.”

Then follows:

- sign to be allowed to continue

- or sign to leave properly

That is no longer cooperation.

That is power with legal backing.

Non-disclosure agreements and restraining orders

Sometimes it goes even further:

- confidentiality agreements

- confidentiality

- contact bans

- silence as a condition for money or completion

If an organization works properly, it doesn't need that.

This is not due to ADI or ADEU

ADI/ADEU questions:

- quality assurance

- professional standards

They don't ask:

- legal dominance

- structural subordination of users

This is an organizational model. A choice. Not a necessity.

Big, small, expensive, cheap: the pattern remains

You always see two flavors:

1. Conflict of interest

2. Legally seal everything

And often: a combination.

Sometimes you're lucky that someone is willing to do custom work.

But that feels like happiness – not normal.

The simple test

If you do your job well, why do you have to make it so legally restrictive?

What collaboration should be

Collaboration means:

- to trust

- equality

- clear agreements

- sharing responsibility

Not:

- control

- fear

- legal strangleholds

The call to the sector

This is not an attack.

This is a call.

To schools.

To organizations.

To policy makers.

To municipalities.

To quality marks.

Go check this out.

Go talk about this.

Dare to question this system.

We are grown people.

We are equal.

We are not subordinates.

Collaboration means: together.

The core sentence

If an organization can only function - that was not my question - by legally sealing everything off, then it apparently does not trust its own work.

Finally

This is a plea for:

- equality

- mature proportions

- real cooperation

Because assistance dog users are:

- no files

- no risk objects

- no subordinates

But customers, owners and partners.