AITA for refusing to crate my service dog so my roommate’s 30-year-old boyfriend can “feel comfortable”?
A 23-year-old with narcolepsy relies on a service dog that must be with her to alert before sleep attacks — when her 19-year-old roommate’s much older boyfriend demanded the dog be crated, tensions exploded and an expensive apology offer followed. Now she’s hesitating to accept it. AITA?
I have narcolepsy and a service dog who alerts me before sleep attacks; she’s been life-changing for two years. My roommate of six months told me her 30-year-old boyfriend was moving in and he said he was “uncomfortable with dogs” and wanted the dog crated when he was home. I explained the dog is a medical accommodation and must be with me, and that wasn’t negotiable. My roommate accused me of being inflexible and said I was choosing the dog over her happiness — I set a boundary: either the dog stays or I move out.
I can’t crate my service dog — she needs to be with me to prevent dangerous sleep attacks, and I won’t compromise my safety for someone who was initially dismissive.
At first the boyfriend said he was “uncomfortable with dogs” and asked that the dog be crated whenever he was home. I explained the dog is a trained service animal required to be with me to alert me before sleep attacks; crating her would put my safety at risk. He argued his comfort mattered since he’d be paying rent and even suggested limiting the dog to my bedroom, which wouldn’t work because she needs to move freely to find and alert me.
"He said he’s 'uncomfortable with dogs' and wants her crated whenever he’s home."
My roommate accused me of being inflexible and said I was choosing the dog over her relationship; I told her either the dog stays or I move out. After the fight, they arranged another talk: the boyfriend apologized, said therapy made him realize he was wrong, and offered to pay half my rent plus cover the dog’s food — roughly $600+ a month in my estimate — as compensation for his earlier behavior.
"He called it 'the least I can do for being an a**_hole about a disability accommodation.'"
I slept on the offer but ultimately told my roommate I wasn’t comfortable with him moving in; I can’t trust someone who initially dismissed my medical needs. My roommate accepted that decision, but now I’m overhearing them talking and it looks like he’s been staying over and may keep doing so — which raises the worry this will become de facto cohabitation without the formal agreement I rejected.
🏠 The Aftermath
After the confrontation, the boyfriend apologized, admitted ignorance after therapy, and offered to pay half the rent plus cover the dog’s food. The OP considered it but ultimately declined to allow him to move in due to trust and safety concerns.
Short term: roommate and OP took a picnic, reconciled emotionally, and agreed the boyfriend would not move in. However, the boyfriend has been staying over overnight at least once since, raising concern that frequent stays could recreate the problems the OP rejected.
Concrete consequences include maintained independence for the OP and protection of the service dog’s role, plus a looming boundary-management issue: the household must now monitor whether "sleepovers" become permanent and whether roommate and guest honor the agreement.
She prioritized safety over a tempting financial offer — and now has to guard that boundary against informal cohabitation.
Emotionally, the OP feels validated by the apology but wary of repeated complaints; her priority remains a safe space where her service dog can work without constraints or tension.
💭 Emotional Reflection
This situation sits at the intersection of disability rights, household boundaries, and relationship dynamics. The OP’s initial refusal to compromise on a medical accommodation was appropriate: service animals aren’t a convenience that can be rehomed to suit a guest’s comfort. Her hesitation to accept a generous financial offer is understandable — trust and respect for her needs matter more than short-term perks.
At the same time, the boyfriend’s apology and concrete offer to help financially show some accountability. The key question is whether his behavior will change long term or whether the pattern of discomfort and complaints will resume once convenience or rent becomes routine.
Reasonable people may disagree about accepting the deal versus moving out for peace of mind; both options are valid depending on how much risk the OP is willing to tolerate and how enforceable the household boundaries are.
How might Reddit weigh in?
Stand your ground — a service dog is a medical necessity, not a roommate amenity; don’t trade safety for rent money.
The apology and offer are big, but watch whether he respects boundaries; if he starts “staying over” all the time, you’ll be back where you started.
Consider a written agreement if you tentatively accept: specify guest limits, no-interference with the dog, and what happens if complaints resume.
Community responses would likely champion disability rights and caution against informal compromises, while some may encourage a pragmatic written deal if the OP is open to it — trust and enforceable boundaries are the deciding factors.
🌱 Final Thoughts
You did the right thing by protecting your safety and your service dog’s role. Financial offers can be tempting, but they don’t erase the original unwillingness to accommodate a medical need. Prioritize a living situation where your dog can do her job and you can feel safe.
If you consider any compromise, make it conditional and put it in writing: clear guest limits, no restrictions on the dog, and a clause that undoes the arrangement if complaints resume. That gives you protection without trusting words alone.
What do you think?
Would you accept the financial offer and set strict rules, or move out to avoid the risk of repeated complaints? Share your advice below 👇
0 Comments