Mum's dog bit my LO

sulphate

Pollycat wrote: »

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.

Of course not ALL attacks are unprovoked, but several are, and you could find other articles that state the same.

Whether the OP's niece provoked the dog or not the issue as it stands is that the dog shows aggression towards children and the owner isn't dealing with it which IMO is not acceptable.

TopQuark

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.

All dogs are a potential risk, come to mention it, so are all cats, rabbits and most other companion animals except perhaps dwarf hamsters (although even they can draw blood, not to mention the mental distress caused to the precious little victim of such a trauma). So also, are all wild animals that kids may come into contact with.

The solution is therefore to destroy all animals in the country in order to avoid the possibility of any real or perceived harm, either physical, mental or psychological, to children - who let's not forgot are the centre of absolutely everyone's universe, whether or not they themselves have any.

Or, you could get real and accept that people are responsible for their own actions, animals and small children are usually not (especially in the case of animals) and therefore everyone needs to take appropriate precautions according to the situation. That includes supervising said animals and small children to ensure they don't cause harm to one another.

TopQuark

BarryBlue wrote: »

Your children come way before any animals in your priorities

Exactly. YOUR children, YOUR priorities.

Your children don't even register on MY list of priorities and thus my animals come way before them.

janeywoo1978

If it can't be around people or children without biting , it should be destroyed. What if it was your LO's face or a baby?????? Your mum is selfish!!!!!

supersaver2

In all honesty I'm surprised there aren't more dog attack on children judging by the unruly behaviour from children towards dogs in my neighbour alone. Last night the ice cream van came to our cul de sac just as me and my daughter were heading out to walk the dog so we made a quick detour. Whilst I were paying a young girl of around 8 kept wafting her pom poms in my dogs face (she must have been to cheer leading practice). Mum was with her and was watching this. I had to tell the girl to stop because my dog didn't look very comfortable. Having had dogs for many years, I could count on 1 hand the number of times a child has actually asked if they can stroke or if they are friendly. My dog is very friendly and lethargic now due to his age but they don't know this.

Can just imagine the Daily Mail headline if anything had happened at the ice cream van last night naturally accompanied with a picture of a snarling dog. There are always 2 sides to every story.

I know it's not relevant to the OP buif you have children please teach them to respect dogs and not just to approach without asking first.

TopQuark

supersaver2 wrote: »

I know it's not relevant to the OP buif you have children please teach them to respect dogs and not just to approach without asking first.

Nahhhhhhh why should parents bovver wiv that? They can just scream blue murder when their kid gets scratched/bitten/barked at and demand the dog be put down (ref; Janeywoo), bos y'know, all children are sacred angels and anyone who might suggest otherwise is a selfish, child-hating miser worthy of contempt. Heaven forbid they might actually have a point!

Nicki

I agree sulphate. Dogs are pack animals. What kind of crazy messages do they get about their place in their pack if they just need to give off a few "signals" and the child in the family has to back down and become submissive to avoid being attacked! And how does this help temper the dogs natural instincts long term?

The brutal fact is that if a dog cannot be trained not to attack humans be they children or adults, the correct thing to do is to put the animal to sleep. It may not be the animals fault if it has been ill treated in the past but nonetheless it cannot and should not be allowed to continue to terrorise humans until it dies a natural death.

Pollycat

sulphate wrote: »

Of course not ALL attacks are unprovoked, but several are, and you could find other articles that state the same.

Whether the OP's niece provoked the dog or not the issue as it stands is that the dog shows aggression towards children and the owner isn't dealing with it which IMO is not acceptable.

Whoa there.

My Mum & Dad had a dog who was incredibly soft and had the most gentle temperament you could imagine. We used to dress her up in blouses and hats.

The only time she ever showed the tiniest bit of aggression was one Christmas when there were lots of kids running round and one of them stepped on her tail (which is why I used that example in my earlier post).

The dog snapped at the child and did break the skin.
Immediately - without anyone saying anything - she fled under the table and lay down whimpering.
She absolutely knew that what she had done was wrong.

Yes, that dog did show aggression towards children.
What would you have done with it?

sulphate

supersaver2 wrote: »

In all honesty I'm surprised there aren't more dog attack on children judging by the unruly behaviour from children towards dogs in my neighbour alone. Last night the ice cream van came to our cul de sac just as me and my daughter were heading out to walk the dog so we made a quick detour. Whilst I were paying a young girl of around 8 kept wafting her pom poms in my dogs face (she must have been to cheer leading practice). Mum was with her and was watching this. I had to tell the girl to stop because my dog didn't look very comfortable. Having had dogs for many years, I could count on 1 hand the number of times a child has actually asked if they can stroke or if they are friendly. My dog is very friendly and lethargic now due to his age but they don't know this.

Can just imagine the Daily Mail headline if anything had happened at the ice cream van last night naturally accompanied with a picture of a snarling dog. There are always 2 sides to every story.

I know it's not relevant to the OP buif you have children please teach them to respect dogs and not just to approach without asking first.

I think it's irresponsible and idiotic of any parent to let their kid wave pompoms in unfamiliar dog's face.

I also think a dog that attacks a child just because of this has a very short fuse.

In your case, you were on the ball so a situation was avoided. Parents and dog owners have a responsibility towards their little darlings, whether they are children or canine. They should both be on the ball (not just one party) when children and animals are involved, presumably because a dog owner can't watch their dog every second just like a parent can't watch their child every second.

I have bolded the part in your post that I most agree with.

FBaby

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.

The point was that OP had plenty of time to take the dog away to another room. She knew that the dog wasn't good with children but didn't take it upon herself to keep it away from her child. Yet she seemed to take no responsibility for this failing, somehow, it is her mum's (which I gathered was in bed too) fault and the dog should be the one paying for it.