With all due respect I am sure they knew of the rule. They stress it to the limit when getting a government funded house BUT I think the rules were the last thing from the mother's mind. I mean really if you think about it and you have a young son who is dying from cancer or anything else for that matter and you are offered something to make his last little while on earth more satisfying and more happy wouldn't you do it. Wouldn't you say screw the rules my boy is more important cause really who are they hurting. I know several people in government funded housing with dogs and the only ones that ever got any trouble were those with LARGE dogs. If it is a little cutie lap dog then they overlook it. But when it is a dog that is large then they complain and treaten eviction.

Years ago when we were down and out. (my parents had just split and my mother was working for peanuts) We lived in low income housing. We had a cat at the time and my brother had an iguana and a large snake as well as a coouple of spiders. We were told my the housing commission you are not suppose to have animals BUT if we don't see it then it isn't there. They told us their biggest issue was with large dogs as you can't exactly hide them from sight. So tell me where is the justification there? As long as your animal can be easily 'hidden' then you can have it otherwise you can't.

I think the housing commission needs to step back and find it's humanity again (if it ever had any). Sometimes you have to bend the rules a little and I think in this case it is disgusting that they will not do so for the sake of a dying child.