Simple Summary: Including therapy dogs in adolescent mental health is increasingly popular; however, there is poor guidance to assist providers in developing high-quality interventions. This study recruited global experts in the field to agree on a set of minimum standards for health, safety, and welfare. A panel of 40 experts agreed that 32 items out of a possible 49 were important or essential to the minimum standards, including risk assessments, veterinary screening and preventative healthcare for dogs, and training in infection control and first aid for providers. Welfare measures included training providers to assess, document, and respond to dog (and human) wellbeing. Strict measures, including fecal testing, prohibiting raw food diets, and one-hour work schedules, were not included in the minimum standards, despite their common use in hospital/acute settings. Recommendations for providers are made. As interest in animal-assisted therapy (AAT) and canine-assisted psychotherapy (CAP) grows, there are increasing calls for the management of related health, safety, and welfare concerns for canines, providers, and clients. Existing health and safety guidelines lack empirical support and are, at times, contradictory. Welfare is increasingly prioritized; however, tools to monitor and manage welfare are underutilized and under-reported. The aim of this study was to provide expert consensus on the minimum health, safety, and welfare standards required to develop and deliver a CAP group program to adolescents experiencing common mental health disorders. Diverse AAT experts were recruited globally. Using Delphi methodology, over two rounds, 40 panelists reached a consensus agreement to include 32 items from a possible 49 into the minimum standards. Health and safety measures included risk assessment, veterinary screening, preventative medicine, training in infection control, and first aid. Welfare measures included training in welfare assessment, documentation of welfare, and flexible, individualized responses to promote wellbeing. Intestinal screening for parasites and the prohibition of raw food were not supported. Flexible and individualized assessment and management of canine welfare were supported over fixed and time-limited work schedules. Clinical practice implications are discussed, and recommendations are made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]