The therapy dog that bit a Lehighton Area Elementary Center student was named Ruger and was owned by a district paraprofessional, board members confirmed Monday night.

Superintendent Jason Moser told the board he will not recommend restarting the program the way it ran before. Under his recommendation, therapy dogs could return only with handlers who are volunteers, not district employees working other duties at the same time.

“The blurred lines between any type of role as an employee and that as a dog handler at the same time are too blurry for me to recommend going forth in a status quo operation,” Moser said.

No votes were taken Monday night.

The district had two therapy dogs. Ruger was owned by Rachel Atwood, a paraprofessional assigned to the kindergarten-through-second-grade side of the Elementary Center.

The second dog, Angelo, a chocolate Labrador retriever, belongs to Christina Haupt and her husband Brad, both teachers in the district.

District officials said only Angelo remains certified.

The program has been paused since the bite. Moser laid out what a restart would look like.

“If we are going to move forward with a therapy dog program, the times in which the therapy dog is coming into the school, they are handled by somebody who is not an employee,” he said. “They’re coming in as a volunteer, and they are not responsible for any other duties during that time.”

That approach, he said, would also give the district control over when and where dogs appear in buildings.

“It is targeted scheduling,” Moser said. “It is requested for a specific time, a specific venue, which also helps the students who don’t want to be there or whose parents don’t want their child around a therapy dog.”

Board member David Bradley argued the incident traces directly to how the program was structured.

“The way the program was running, it was not in accordance with the Alliance of Therapy Dogs’ best practices,” Bradley said. “And the risk that you take by going away from the best practices resulted in a very young girl being bit in the face.”

He pressed Christina Haupt on whether one person can be responsible for both a dog and a classroom. She said she can.

“When I’m instructing, my dog is on place. My dog is not moving,” Haupt said. “I don’t need to divide my attention.”

Bradley disagreed.

“Who’s responsible for the child and who’s responsible for the dog, and are they the same person?” he said. “To me, that’s a problem. They should have independent responsibilities.”

Liability

Director Denise Hartley put a question directly to solicitor Tim Gilsbach about where liability falls.

“We have an employee being paid to be a paraprofessional with our students, and then is handling a dog at the same time,” Hartley said. “That paraprofessional’s dog bites somebody. Is that person a paraprofessional for the school district, or is that person a dog handler?”

Gilsbach said he could not answer without more facts.

“I would need more detail to figure out factually what happened,” he said. “I would need more information for a definitive way to answer that.”

Hartley said the Alliance of Therapy Dogs intends the work to be volunteer, not paid, and questioned other practices.

“Animals are not potatoes,” Hartley said. “They’re not to be passed around to handlers like potato chips. They have emotions, and they are able to determine who is handling them.”

Haupt defended the certification process at length. Handlers train and are then evaluated by a certified observer across three locations, including two medical settings.

“The observer would not give you your certification unless you could show that you were able to do all of the necessary commands with ease and without error,” Haupt said.

She also confirmed details about insurance, and said she carries her own.

“Alliance of Therapy Dogs is a volunteer program. That is why my insurance through ATD does not cover anything that happens on site,” Haupt said. “My husband and I have our own insurance to cover any incidents, as Policy 151 states is necessary for the primary handler to have.”

Haupt disputed the characterization that handlers are pulled from instruction, noting Angelo’s listed handlers include a principal and a social worker, and that the dog is sometimes handled during a prep period or a lunch break.

Bradley moved for a formal hearing with sworn testimony to establish a record of what happened, including the dog’s certification paperwork, medical history, any past incidents and the handler’s schedule the day of the bite.

Moser said a hearing would look backward when the board needs to look forward.

“We have many of the answers. We don’t have all the pieces,” he said. “But the reality is we’re looking at the future and we have to be methodical about what we’re putting in place.”

Board President Alex Matika said he believes most members want the program to survive in some form.

“I would advocate for continuing with the program — not saying restarting yet,” Matika said. “But revisiting the policy, making sure that we tighten up any loose ends that could be identified.”

Jeremy Glaush said the board missed things when it first approved the program.

“When this program first came around, we were excited for it. We were excited for the children,” Glaush said. “So we may have overlooked a few things. Reporting is key.”

Amanda Honchell, attending her first board meeting, told the board her second-grade daughter has a sensory issue and a fear of dogs — and that the therapy dog program is what has been helping her overcome it.

“I signed the release form as her parent, and I said yes, please let my child benefit from a therapy dog,” Honchell said. “She is terrified of dogs and loud barking because she has a sensory problem.”

Her daughter was in the classroom the day of the bite, she said. The girl came home worried about what would happen next.

“You know what she said to me when she came home?” Honchell said. “Mommy, they’re gonna take the dogs away.”

Honchell said she asked her daughter in the car before the meeting why the program was worth defending, and repeated the answer to the board.

“I don’t put words in her mouth. I never will,” she said. “She said, ‘Mommy, the dogs make me happy. Mommy, I like to read to the dogs, and mommy, the dogs understand when no one else does.’”

A year ago, Honchell said, her daughter would not go near a dog. Now she asks strangers whether she can pet theirs.

“I ask you to think of kids who maybe don’t have a disability that you can all see,” Honchell said. “Please don’t let this program go away.”