Welcome to the upgraded MacSphere! We're putting the finishing touches on it; if you notice anything amiss, email macsphere@mcmaster.ca

CO-SHELTERING COMPANION, “SERVICE”, AND “SUPPORT” ANIMALS IN ONTARIO, CANADA'S INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE SHELTERS

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Abstract

This study sought answers to the question: How do companion animals (CAs) fit in intimate partner violence (IPV) shelters in Ontario, Canada? Through semi-structured interviews with provincial shelter staff, we learn that CAs are not priorities for most shelters and are consequently infrequently co-sheltered. However, all of the shelters in the study accommodate “service” animals (SAs), following the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The social position and role of nonhuman animals in the lives of both the IPV survivors and shelter workers are foregrounded in the results. We find that some clients and workers consider CAs family. Some workers lobby for and facilitate temporary or full inclusion of CAs in their shelter, and sometimes in their work, as co-caregivers. Some clients know of the SA-only conditions in these shelters, and consequently attempt to “pass off” their companion or emotional support animal (ESA) as SAs. The nonhuman animals’ lives and wellbeing in this study are precariously and variably determined by the humans they live with, and by those that help them. The human victims and helpers are found to be almost exclusively women, and the abusers, men. Clients in IPV shelters are essentially homeless, and examples of the persistent social problem of gender/sex-based violence, a consequence of the patriarchy. We find a meshing of gender/sex, class, species, and ability in these spaces, with multispecies families and ESAs most negatively affected by these social constructions. Upholding, for the most part, the SA-only requirement, the IPV shelters exemplify speciesist and ableist ideologies, where only certain disabilities warrant co-shelter away from violent environments. This study adds to what is known about nonhuman animal inclusion in IPV shelters, the views of workers and clients about their uses and social roles, and the impacts of these understandings. 

Description

Citation

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By