Mum's dog bit my LO

fizz

thorsoak wrote: »

Har,har, har. Very funny. What a useful and productive post. I admire your wit. Not.

Not a dog owner I hope!

Solsol

Lots of people skimming here I have never suggested putting the dog to death so not sure where that has come from I think it should be rehomed in a family without small children
Also, my mum told me she was keeping the dog locked away during visits because it wasn't used to being around small children
Yes there does appear to be a breakdown in communications within my family but there are probably underlying issues there that need addressing

I didn't know the dog had attacked other children before otherwise I obviously would have locked it away

I don't think I'm acting like a silly teenager by refusing to take my son there now - I have been lied to about how dangerous this dog is and this is the result of that. My mum is clearly scared that the dog will be taken away from her which is why she didn't tell me what had happened previously - in my eyes this makes her quite selfish as she has knowingly put my son at risk

This is all I have to say on the subject now I asked for some advice and have been left feeling like a bad mother for daring to let my son near a dog which i was led to believe was not dangerous when in fact it was

And as for the person who posted that my "kid" must have done something to provoke it "in their opinion"? Not sure how you can have that opinion having not witnessed the event but I saw the whole thing and my CHILD did nothing whatsoever to provoke it he wasn't even walking towards it the dog just went for him.

I'm already being made to feel bad by my own family I don't need it from strangers too

Thank you to everyone else who has been supportive

thorsoak

fizz wrote: »

Not a dog owner I hope!

I sincerely hope not!

thorsoak

Solsol wrote: »

Lots of people skimming here I have never suggested putting the dog to death so not sure where that has come from I think it should be rehomed in a family without small children
Also, my mum told me she was keeping the dog locked away during visits because it wasn't used to being around small children
Yes there does appear to be a breakdown in communications within my family but there are probably underlying issues there that need addressing

I didn't know the dog had attacked other children before otherwise I obviously would have locked it away

I don't think I'm acting like a silly teenager by refusing to take my son there now - I have been lied to about how dangerous this dog is and this is the result of that. My mum is clearly scared that the dog will be taken away from her which is why she didn't tell me what had happened previously - in my eyes this makes her quite selfish as she has knowingly put my son at risk

This is all I have to say on the subject now I asked for some advice and have been left feeling like a bad mother for daring to let my son near a dog which i was led to believe was not dangerous when in fact it was

And as for the person who posted that my "kid" must have done something to provoke it "in their opinion"? Not sure how you can have that opinion having not witnessed the even but I saw the whole thing and my CHILD did nothing whatsoever to provoke it he wasn't even walking towards it the dog just went for him.

I'm already being made to feel bad by my own family I don't need it from strangers too

Thank you to everyone else who has been supportive

Like your mum, we had no small children living in our home, but we did have visiting grandchildren. That was why we put the proviso on any re-homing scenario that our two could not be rehomed anywhere that might have visiting children.

What happens if your mum rehomes her dog to a person who has no grandchildren at the time she adopts the dog and then has a child? Another rehome? Do you see where there is going?

I most certainly don't want you to feel bad - the health and safety of your own children is paramount and must come before everything else. I do hope that your mum can see this, even if your siblings can't.

Rev

fizz wrote: »

@ Rev don't know where the quote has gone but OP clearly states that the dog had already 'attacked' other children.

No. I saw that too. She did say though that she wasn't aware of these attacks before the dog bit her LO. And sadly you can't protect against a threat when you don't know there is one. It wasn't until after the dog bit the child that OP's family told her it had happens before. Not knowing the dog was aggressive with kids meant she had no reason to think to get the dog in the other room and away from her child.


Whilst I don't think her mum is remiss getting a dog, grand kids or not. I do think she's very out of order not telling the OP that the dog was aggressive and had shown aggression to children before. There's absolutely no excuse for not telling her.


As I said. I own two dogs. Had this been one of mine or I had reason to think my dog would react to kids (and not just kids). Anyone who a had kids would be informed and my dog would be removed from the situation before they arrived if they were planning a visit. Its 100% not fair on all involved to not prevent the situation arising.

sulphate

Rev wrote: »

Did you take into consideration wether your extended family liked or disliked kids before you get pregnant? Of course you didn't because it's your life. And you quite rightly make choices based on what you want. Just as your mother has done with the dog. She wanted the dog, you said yourself before she was ill she would meet you elsewhere. So why should she take into consideration children that rarely visit when deciding to get the dog or not? You don't live with your mother. They're not her children. So she shouldn't be expected to make descisons around those children.

Hardly the same thing since I'm sure the OP's family members don't bite young children unprovoked!

If OP's mother wanted her children and grandchildren to visit regularly then yes I think it's pretty daft to get a dog that has a history of aggression towards children. Her choice, but now OP has been put in a position where she has to leave her child with a sitter every time she wants to visit her sick mother - to help her out - but her mother doesn't seem interested in resolving this situation. Sounds like the OP is the one putting in all the effort.

Rev

Solsol wrote: »

Lots of people skimming here I have never suggested putting the dog to death so not sure where that has come from I think it should be rehomed in a family without small children
Also, my mum told me she was keeping the dog locked away during visits because it wasn't used to being around small children
Yes there does appear to be a breakdown in communications within my family but there are probably underlying issues there that need addressing

I didn't know the dog had attacked other children before otherwise I obviously would have locked it away

I don't think I'm acting like a silly teenager by refusing to take my son there now - I have been lied to about how dangerous this dog is and this is the result of that. My mum is clearly scared that the dog will be taken away from her which is why she didn't tell me what had happened previously - in my eyes this makes her quite selfish as she has knowingly put my son at risk

This is all I have to say on the subject now I asked for some advice and have been left feeling like a bad mother for daring to let my son near a dog which i was led to believe was not dangerous when in fact it was

And as for the person who posted that my "kid" must have done something to provoke it "in their opinion"? Not sure how you can have that opinion having not witnessed the event but I saw the whole thing and my CHILD did nothing whatsoever to provoke it he wasn't even walking towards it the dog just went for him.

I'm already being made to feel bad by my own family I don't need it from strangers too

Thank you to everyone else who has been supportive

I'm the biggest dog lover. I freely admit to preferring dogs to kids. Hence me not having kids. But you are absolutely right here. 100%. Don't let anyone convince you other wise.


You're putting your child's safety first. You didn't know the dog was aggressive. So why would you have thought to remove the dog. Nobody in your family had the civility to tell you the dog was aggressive. That's not your fault.


So ignore those saying it's your fault. You are absolutely doing the right thing.

Person_one

Solsol wrote: »

Lots of people skimming here I have never suggested putting the dog to death so not sure where that has come from I think it should be rehomed in a family without small children

Sadly, expecting her to rehome it pretty much amounts to the same thing. This is an older dog, that's been through several homes and if its handed in to rescue with the information that it has bitten two children, its highly likely that the result will be the dog is destroyed sooner or later. There aren't enough homes out there even for dogs with perfect histories and no aggression issues, around 6000 dogs are destroyed every year in this country.

As for 'provocation', well, its very unlikely that a dog would attack for no reason at all, that's just not how they function. What's far more often the case is that the humans around can't see or understand the reason because they aren't experts in dog behaviour (understandably!) and if they haven't grown up with dogs and love dogs they probably aren't used to reading the signals.

None of that means the child is to blame, but it doesn't mean the dog is to blame either. A dog has very powerful jaws and sharp teeth, it won't have your left your sons skin intact by accident, it will have controlled the depth and strength of the bite with the intention of warning/addressing what it perceived to be a threat without causing injury.

If we're allocating blame, then I'm afraid its your mum who's to blame here, as the adult who had all the pertinent information but didn't act responsibly based on that information.

Anyway, I'm glad your son is unharmed, and I hope you can come to an agreement with your mother where everybody is happy. Good luck.

Rev

sulphate wrote: »

Hardly the same thing since I'm sure the OP's family members don't bite young children unprovoked!

If OP's mother wanted her children and grandchildren to visit regularly then yes I think it's pretty daft to get a dog that has a history of aggression towards children. Her choice, but now OP has been put in a position where she has to leave her child with a sitter every time she wants to visit her sick mother - to help her out - but her mother doesn't seem interested in resolving this situation. Sounds like the OP is the one putting in all the effort.

It's exactly the same think. People base descisons on what they want out of life. The OP's mother wanted the dog. She got the dog. It's her life. She can do as she pleased with it. The child in question isn't hers. And the OP has said several times that her mother usually meets them somewhere else. Not her house. And that this has only arisen because her mother can't leave the house due to illness. So why in the world would someone base the descison on getting a dog or not on wether grandchildren she usually seems outside the house may visit on occasion. They don't live with her. Her children are grown and moved out and as such she can have whatever animals she likes in her home because it's just that. Her home. And I'm sure she didn't plan on being ill and having to be looked after when she got he dog.


My family and friends have kids. When I thought about getting a dog. Them visiting didn't enter my head because it's irrelevant. They're not my kids. Yes I live them and love them to visit but them doing so or not will never play a part in descisons I make about my own life. Because it's just that. My life.


Where the OP's mother is remiss is not telling OP about the dog. She should have made sure 100% that the OP knew the dog was child aggressive. And had measures in place to keep the children safe. A crate for the dog in another room. A room with a lock high up so the kids can't reach. This is a situation that could have been avoided 100% had the OP's mother simply told the OP of the dogs temperament.


And please don't think I'm saying that I'm just blaming the mother and thinking its a-okay that the dog bit a child . Absolutely not so. But knowing the dogs temperament the OP's mother could have very simply made sure this never happened.

sulphate

thorsoak wrote: »

Like your mum, we had no small children living in our home, but we did have visiting grandchildren. That was why we put the proviso on any re-homing scenario that our two could not be rehomed anywhere that might have visiting children.

What happens if your mum rehomes her dog to a person who has no grandchildren at the time she adopts the dog and then has a child? Another rehome? Do you see where there is going?

I most certainly don't want you to feel bad - the health and safety of your own children is paramount and must come before everything else. I do hope that your mum can see this, even if your siblings can't.

One would rather hope that someone would have the foresight to not adopt a dog known to be aggressive to children if they thought children might come into their lives within the dog's lifespan. For example, someone who definitely doesn't want children.