Mum's dog bit my LO

tesuhoha

FBaby wrote: »

The dog bit (or really snapped and bruised) the child after 1/2 hour of the child being in the home. A slight different picture to a dog that runs to a child to attack them as soon as they see them!

Well there was the case recently of the little girl who had a dog as a pet and it was around her for a long time. However, that dog killed her. I think she was 4 years old. So whether it was half an hour or straight away I don't think makes much difference.

fufu_banterwaite

Your mum's dog bit your leg off?

tesuhoha

heartbreak_star wrote: »

This is awful. Of course the dog should be walked but there have been sensible suggestions of basket muzzles.

HBS x

I cannot understand why it is tolerated for a dog to bite children several times within the home but if it were outside and bit a child it would probably be put down.

When I was 5 I was chased and bitten by a German Shepherd. I ran in front of a lorry to get away from it and I think if our gate hadn't been left open it would have killed me. I had bites on the back of my legs and the owner immediately had it destroyed.

I felt guilty at the time because the dog was kept in a front garden where it was teased daily by children on their way to school. I was not one of those children but when it got out it was me it went after. Looking back I suppose the owner did the right thing.

tesuhoha

fufu_banterwaite wrote: »

Your mum's dog bit your leg off?

http://news.sky.com/story/1340136/bulldogs-tear-off-owners-arm-in-attack

tesuhoha

I remember watching a Judge Judy programme recently about a mother of young children who kept pitbulls. Judge Judy tried to talk some sense into her and said that she was taking a risk. She said that if something happened to her children the woman would never ever recover from it. She would never be the same. Was it worth taking the risk. Get rid of them Judge Judy said. The woman did not want to take her advice.

This is what this sounds like, the relatives willing to take their children there but if one of the kids got its nose bitten off or worse then they would never ever forgive themselves including the mother. Having that dog in the house is like a timebomb. Is it worth the risk? I would say not.

catkins

tesuhoha wrote: »

Well people are saying that the dog should be walked but if it was then it could easily turn on a child in the street.

Really a dog like that should be destroyed before it gets a chance to have a go at another child.

We don't know if the dog is walked for a start. It could be walked wearing a muzzle or it could be walked very early in the morning or late at night when there is hardly anyone around.


The dog may just not be happy with children in it's home and not bothered by children outside of home. Also I doubt the mother lets the dog wander on such a long lead it can jump at and savage a child outside.

tesuhoha wrote: »

Well there was the case recently of the little girl who had a dog as a pet and it was around her for a long time. However, that dog killed her. I think she was 4 years old. So whether it was half an hour or straight away I don't think makes much difference.

We don't know if the little girl did something that the dog was no happy about though do we? Of course it's awful but if a dog is really vicious it is quite likely to attack immediately. Otherwise it could be that the child has startled or hurt the dog.

tesuhoha wrote: »

I remember watching a Judge Judy programme recently about a mother of young children who kept pitbulls. Judge Judy tried to talk some sense into her and said that she was taking a risk. She said that if something happened to her children the woman would never ever recover from it. She would never be the same. Was it worth taking the risk. Get rid of them Judge Judy said. The woman did not want to take her advice.

This is what this sounds like, the relatives willing to take their children there but if one of the kids got its nose bitten off or worse then they would never ever forgive themselves including the mother. Having that dog in the house is like a timebomb. Is it worth the risk? I would say not.

If the dog is locked safely away - a secure room or a crate then it can't get to a child can it? Timebomb! Why not blow it totally out of proportion

blossomsuz

It is your mums home OP therefore her decision whether to keep the dog or not, I think if you report the dog you run the risk of her probably never forgiving your (I know I wouldn't).


The dog has a known history of not liking small children so why risk both the dog and the child. Don't take your children to the property simple. If she needs care due to illness then trained people should be attending not a mother with two small children in tow.


The dog can and should be walked, as mentioned by a previous poster possibly start muzzle training.


Have you possibly offered help to your mum with the dog instead of just trying to get her to "get rid". She obviously loves the dog and pressure from you and your husband will be making her feel terrible but as a dog owner you have a responsibility for that little life.


May sound harsh but mums house mums rules.

sulphate

catkins wrote: »

If the dog is locked safely away - a secure room or a crate then it can't get to a child can it? Timebomb! Why not blow it totally out of proportion

The example that tesuhoha mentioned is of a mother with young children. It's hardly fair to keep the dog locked in a crate the majority of the time. I agree it's feasible for occasional visitors.

I don't agree with the undertones in some posts I've read on here that a child must have provoked the a dog in order for it to attack. I suppose this baby provoked the dog too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-26878061

Pollycat

sulphate wrote: »

I don't agree with the undertones in some posts I've read on here that a child must have provoked the a dog in order for it to attack. I suppose this baby provoked the dog too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-26878061

We simply don't know if the first child (OP's niece) did something - either deliberately or by accident (such as stepping on his tail by accident) - to cause the first bite or if it was a completely unprovoked attack by the dog.
If the child did do something to the dog (deliberately or accidentally), maybe the second bite was because the dog remembered her.

Maybe the dog then projected that onto all children and that is why it bit the OP's son.

Of course that baby didn't provoke that dog.

But just because you've found an article where a small baby was tragically killed by a dog doesn't mean that all attacks on children by dogs are unprovoked.
Speculating on how this happened without knowing the history and without the OP coming back to clarify is going nowhere.

BarryBlue

I don't really see that there is an issue here. The OP has to do what's best to protect her child. Clearly it is right that she does not take the child into the house where the dog is. The child is likely to be terrified anyway. If the OP's mother will not get the dog destroyed, which is what should happen, then she cannot expect her grandchild to be brought to her house.

As a parent myself, that would be my stand on the issue and I would not budge. Your children come way before any animals in your priorities and anyone who cannot understand that is probably not a parent. The choice is with the dog owner, unless of course the dog is reported and action taken independently to deal with the dog.