Blog

A Flying “Cat”astrophe

From Christy da Rosa, MSW, LICSW, Professor of Practice, Trauma Informed Oregon

My cousin has an unfortunate history with flying, so recently when my cousin moved to another state, he planned every detail with care – especially for his cat, who was flying with him. He repeatedly (and anxiously) checked the state’s requirements for transporting pets, and gathered immunization records, the cat’s latest check-up notes, and all the paperwork to prove his cat was healthy and ready to travel. Everything went smoothly until his connecting flight.

At the airline counter, staff told him he needed a Certificate of Health for his cat to board. He was uncertain what this was, so he showed them all the documents he had – vaccination history, the veterinarian’s notes, proof of recent health exams, etc. But the airline agent insisted it had to be a document literally titled “Certificate of Health.”

Trying to problem-solve, my cousin asked what information this certificate needed to include. The staff didn’t know. They couldn’t say whether his stack of records contained the required information. They just knew it had to have that specific title.

So, he sat in that airport for the next 24 hours, calling his vet across time zones, trying to get the right form. His vet wasn’t aware of what the Certificate of Health required either and quickly made a Word Document titled “Certificate of Health” and wrote in it that the cat was in good health. He then had to find a printer at the airport as the airline staff refused to accept the certificate on his phone. Naturally, he missed his next connecting flight. And the poor cat, after enduring the long and confusing ordeal, spent the first week in their new home hiding under the bed.

While I could talk about flying anxiety for a long time, this discussion is not about traveling woes but about what happens when systems forget relationships. I assume the airline employees weren’t trying to be troublesome. They were following a policy as they understood it and possibly didn’t want to get in trouble if they didn’t. But the rule itself, and the way it was applied, didn’t leave space for context, empathy, or flexibility. In my work at TIO and my own encounters in organizations, I have experienced this rigidity often. I may connect with a kind, compassionate employee who brings relationship into their work. In those encounters I feel seen. I feel human. But if I engage with another employee in that organization, I could have a completely different experience if that organization’s policies don’t reflect those same trauma informed principles. Even in an organization where the majority of staff are invested in trauma informed work, the moment staff turnover happens or a new leader arrives, that relational culture can vanish. What remains is what is written.

Trauma Informed Care Begins with Relationships

At its heart, trauma informed care is about relationships. Research shows that relationships can buffer, mitigate, and even heal the impact of stress and trauma. The principles of TIC (i.e., safety, trustworthiness, collaboration, empowerment, and cultural responsiveness) are the foundation of how people relate to one another.

Trauma, in many ways, is not necessarily an individual experience but a relational wound, something that disrupts trust, safety, and connection with the self, others, and the world. Healing, then, also has to be relational and can be embedded in organizations seeking to resist re-traumatization in their policies.

What Does It Mean to Center Relationships in Policy?

Policies that center relationships begin with a simple shift: instead of asking, How do we enforce this? ask, How do we uphold our values and relationships while meeting this need?

That doesn’t mean eliminating structure. It means ensuring that the structure serves connection rather than control. When policies are grounded in relationships, they recognize people within an organization exist within that organization but also their environment, histories, and emotions.

Here are some guiding questions to help organizations reflect on whether their policies truly align with trauma informed, relationship-centered care.

1. Who does this policy serve?

Every policy reflects a set of priorities. Many are written primarily to protect staff or the organization, which is important, but trauma informed policies consider the wellbeing of everyone involved.

For example, I once worked for a behavioral health clinic that had some clients with a history of aggression. This history raised reasonable concerns for some staff and they requested a policy to ensure their wellbeing. The policy became:

A person with a history of aggression must have two staff members present during all appointments.

The intention of the policy was staff safety: a legitimate and trauma informed goal. But how might that policy impact a client? For some clients with a history of institutional trauma, having two staff in (our very small) clinical rooms along with them caused some to feel intimidated or re-traumatized. The policy also did not consider the circumstances that led to a person’s “history of aggression” including self-defense, psychosis, trauma responses, or other circumstances. In this way, the policy risked reinforcing mental health stigma and distrust before the staff and client could even meet.

2. Is there a way to adjust the policy so all parties benefit?

Trauma informed care recognizes that safety and empowerment can coexist. A policy that benefits one group at the expense of another (for example, staff safety at the cost of client dignity) can inadvertently recreate harm. Relationship-centered policies look for mutual benefit wherever possible. They invite choice, creative solutions, and trust the judgment of employees and those served in that organization. When both staff and clients are humanized, the policy becomes a living embodiment of trauma informed practice.

Consider the behavioral health clinic example I mentioned. Centering relationships with a trauma informed lens in this scenario might explore how to foster a sense of safety for both parties involved by leaning into regulation opportunities, relationships, and choice, such as:

• Offering the client a choice of two different rooms, with one room much larger than the other
• Connecting with the client in the lobby first instead of assuming another staff member is needed
• Suggesting walking meetings for movement
• Offering the presence of a peer support specialist or someone the client trusts to accompany them

3. Is the intention of the policy clear?

In my cousin’s story, the airline staff followed a policy without understanding its purpose. They didn’t know why the Certificate of Health mattered, only that it was required. Similarly, when organizational staff don’t understand the intent behind a rule (or fear reprimanding if they don’t follow it), they tend to follow it rigidly. Trauma informed practice calls for the opposite: understanding the “why” so staff can respond with their wisdom, their relationship with one another, and the circumstances of the situation. Relationship-centered, trauma informed policies are rooted in connection. They ask: Does this rule create more opportunities for people to feel safe, respected, and connected – or does it reinforce power imbalances and fear?

Policies can include clear language about purpose, such as what value they are meant to uphold (safety, trust, equity, dignity). When staff understand that intention, they can adapt in real time to meet people’s needs without abandoning the policy’s intention.

For example, a rigid attendance policy might penalize clients for missing sessions due to crisis or transportation issues. A relationship-centered version of the policy might instead prioritize communication and collaboration by asking what barriers exist and how the organization can help address them.

4. Are people invited into the policy process?

Trauma informed care values voice and choice, and that applies to all aspects of an organization. Policies created without input from the people they affect often prioritize one perspective over the other. Involving staff, clients, and community members in policy reviews fosters transparency and trust.

Final Thoughts

Returning to my cousin’s experience, imagine if the airline staff had said, “Let’s look together at what this Certificate of Health usually includes. If your vet’s notes cover those points, we can accept that.” That small act of collaboration could have prevented hours of distress for both my cousin and his cat. It wouldn’t have required breaking a rule, only ensuring that an animal was in good enough health to board a plane.

Policies that center relationships look like:

• Staff have permission to be human and make judgment calls rooted in empathy.
• Clients feel safe, seen, and respected, even when boundaries are enforced.
• The organization sustains a culture of trust and flexibility, even through change.

When policies center relationships, they become pathways for safety, trust, collaboration, and healing. They allow people to bring their full selves without fear of punishment or misunderstanding. If trauma fractures relationships, then trauma informed policies must foster them.

Back to Blog