Mum's dog bit my LO

sulphate

Pollycat wrote: »

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?

I don't see how this situation is comparable. Your parents' dog went for a child once, and clearly felt remorse after this. The OP's mother's dog has bitten a child three times, and it had a reputation for "not being great around children" before it was adopted. You clearly state that your parents' dog going for a child was a one off event - this isn't.

FBaby

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.

As it's been mentioned, totally different situation when we are talking about the child's residence and the residence of a family member they see once in a whilst and where their presence can be prevented.

I really don't understand why this thread is going on for so long when the solution is so straight forward. OP can go and visit her mum when her husband is home and can look after her boy until her mother is better and then she can tell her mum that if she wants to see her grandson, she will have to come and visit at OP's home, that is if she really think her son cannot be kept safe by ensuring the dog is locked in another room.

krlyr

Nicki wrote: »

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.

Dogs are not pack animals - the assumption was made based on some wrongly interpreted studies on wolves in an unnatural environment.
Dogs are not giving off signals to get 'one over' on people - they are often appeasement signals. It's like human body language - if you're scared, you may lean away from whatever is scaring you. You may cross your arms when you're feeling uncomfortable with someone, you may keep looking around the room when you're feeling nervous, etc. - your body language reflects your feelings, and usually is there to give a physical 'warning' to other people of how you're feeling.

This is the same with dogs - they may lick their lips, look away, yawn, shake, sniff the ground, etc. all as signals of being uncomfortable. If those signals are not noticed, it can progress to stiff body language, a tight mouth, and then on to a warning growl, an air snap, and obviously a more serious warning of a nip or a bite without breaking the skin.

Listening to those warnings teaches the dog that they work. If the earlier warning signs are noticed, the dog does not need to progress further. You're not "caving in" to a dog, you're recognising that it feels scared or uncomfortable, and removing the cause of that (or removing the dog from the situation) before the dog goes over threshold towards biting.

Your statement is not "brutal fact", it is "brutal opinion". You are entitled to it, but it doesn't make it true.

Person_one

j.e.j. wrote: »

Yeah it's bitten the little girl twice apparently. And the OP's boy once.
I hope they've had a tetanus jab.

The OP's son won't need one, no break in the skin means the wound isn't considered at risk of tetanus.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Tetanus/Pages/Treatment.aspx

Pollycat

sulphate wrote: »

I don't see how this situation is comparable. Your parents' dog went for a child once, and clearly felt remorse after this. The OP's mother's dog has bitten a child three times, and it had a reputation for "not being great around children" before it was adopted. You clearly state that your parents' dog going for a child was a one off event - this isn't.

Yes, it went for a child once - and knew it had done wrong.
As I said in my earlier post - which you quoted - we don't know the background to those 3 bites.

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.

and I think that's an important factor.

I'm not just going to call for this dog to be put down - until we hear further from the OP.

Person_one

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.

Well, my parents took a huge risk sending me to swimming lessons from the age of 3 and then letting me swim pretty much unsupervised as an older child. I suspect far more children drown every year than are killed by dogs. They let me go horse riding too, that's massively risky, my brother played football and was a keen mountain biker who had tons of crashes and a fair few major injuries from them.

That's the thing about childhood, and life in general really, lots of things that bring benefits (such as growing up with a much loved family dog, or going swimming, or mountain biking, or being around horses) also carry a bit of risk.

Nicki

It is mad in my opinion how people value their dogs over their children. It is ok for a dog to bite a child who accidentally steps on his tail for example. Would it be equally ok for me as a human to smack your child hard round the face (without breaking their skin) if they accidentally stepped on my toe then?

Children ought not to be in fear of dogs full stop. Dogs who growl or snark at children behaving perfectly normally should not be tolerated, nor should animals who snap or bite at children who have done nothing to the animal. Deliberately tormenting an animal is a different scenario, but as someone else has said a dog who snaps because a child has stumbled or even accidentally stood on a paw or tail has an unacceptably short fuse and if they cannot be trained out of this reaction should not be kept as a family pet.

Person_one

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.

The word 'provoke' is really unhelpful actually. Nobody is suggesting that children who get bitten by dogs are deliberately antagonising or provoking the dogs.

What is true though, is that there is always a reason why a dog bites a human. It can be hard for us to understand what that reason was sometimes though, and its harder to avoid the situation if you don't have the knack of reading a dogs behaviour and understanding how they communicate.

Young children, completely without meaning to, can scare and worry dogs because they move erratically, they make strange excitable noises and they are prone to grabbing, pulling, touching, in a way that isn't exactly calm and gentle! Children need to be taught from a really young age how to behave around dogs and what are the dos and don'ts, and they need to be supervised really really closely until they are old enough to be fully responsible and in control of how they act around the dog.

Person_one

Nicki wrote: »

It is mad in my opinion how people value their dogs over their children. It is ok for a dog to bite a child who accidentally steps on his tail for example. Would it be equally ok for me as a human to smack your child hard round the face (without breaking their skin) if they accidentally stepped on my toe then?

Give yourself more credit, your brain works on a different level to a dogs. We can think things through, they only have instinct.

Sugarcandy

Agree with other posters, don't take your child to the house, go on your own or make sure it is locked up somewhere else. Some dogs just don't like children they become very nervous and snappy, and equally children do very unpredictable things. I have a grandson who is 2, I also have a dog, I would never have them loose together as I have no idea how my dog would react, and I have no intention of finding out. My dog has no experience with young children and it isn't fair to expect him to deal with one.