For Attorneys & Legal Partners

The Pica Placement Theory is a proposed Fair Housing Act framework: when a housing provider has actual knowledge of a tenant’s compulsive ingestion disorder (including Pica) and actual knowledge of pre-existing environmental ingestion hazards, a duty to disclose or remediate before rental may arise. The interaction of disability and hazard is what makes the placement potentially discriminatory under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) — not the pest condition alone.

Disclaimer: This page is for professional education only. It is not legal advice. The theory has not been ruled on by a federal court. Families who believe facts like these may apply to them should consult qualified counsel, not rely on this website.

Household context (public summary): Five children; two on the autism spectrum. Pica — the compulsive ingestion disability emphasized in this theory — is tied to one child. Ages, support levels, and move-specific dates are not published on this open page. Verify all facts against the operative complaint and docket after requesting materials.

What we are looking for

Co-counsel or direct representation in the pending federal matter.
Referrals from attorneys or organizations with FHA or disability-rights experience.
Pro bono or reduced-fee consideration from firms or clinics with capacity for impact litigation.

Please self-select for federal civil rights or housing practice; the case is document-intensive and novel.

Fee shifting

Under 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2), a prevailing party in an FHA action may recover reasonable attorney’s fees. That statutory fee-shifting framework is part of how civil rights cases are economically viable. Nothing on this page guarantees any outcome.

Materials available to review (on request)

Case materials are not posted publicly. On a professional request, we can make available at a high level:

The amended complaint and other public court filings (and pointers to the docket).
An evidence summary and chronology organized for counsel review.
Status information on related agency processes (below).

Email info@picaplacement.org to request access to the password-protected framework document and to discuss materials.

Parallel agency processes (not findings)

HUD fair housing complaints and state pest-regulatory inquiries sometimes run alongside civil litigation. Specific agency file numbers are not listed on this public page; they are shared with professional contacts reviewing the record. An open complaint or inquiry is not a determination of liability or discrimination.

HUD (FHA) — administrative process parallel to court; not an adjudication of the federal court claims.
State pest-regulatory channels (e.g., Arizona) — regulatory context; not a substitute for civil liability analysis.

No published federal precedent

There is no published federal decision applying this specific FHA disability analysis to Pica placement in known infested housing. That gap is part of what makes the question worth briefing — and why care with the record and citations matters.

Core statistics (cite consistently)

From Fields et al., 2021, Pediatrics (NIH SEED): 23.2% of children with ASD had Pica vs. 3.5% of population controls; 28.1% among children with ASD and co-occurring intellectual disability. Use these figures with the primary citation in filings and public materials.

Statutory hook: 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) — discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges in rental because of disability (including associated persons).

One-page summary (Print / Save as PDF) Full framework (password) info@picaplacement.org

There is no separate .pdf file. The one-pager is this HTML page, formatted for Print → Save as PDF in your browser. The first button opens it and triggers the print dialog; use “Microsoft Print to PDF,” “Save as PDF,” or similar as the destination.

U.S. District Court, District of Arizona (FHA matter) · full caption / CM/ECF on request