Saw a dog attack my grandchild!

[PaulB]

Right everyone who's responded - and those who haven't are welcome for an input - there's been a very unwelcome development in this horrible situation.

The dog is now living back at home as though nothing happened! This in a house that has my sister's 8 month-old grandson stay there every Wednesday!

Their assumption is that as they previously had a Scotty dog (died at a tragically young age) who was no problem, this one won't be either! But we've witnessed its viciousness. We saw it launch a serious attack leaving a defenceless 13 month old baby requiring a GA in an operating theatre and they have it living back in their house like there's been an easily forgettable 'incident'. My wife's in bits about this as she's vowed never to set foot in that house ever again but her main concern is with the 8 month-old baby who'll be walking soon and as we've seen, will be considered a threat to the animal.

It's a dog whose instinct cannot be eradicated. It's not a naughty young boy who'll respond to punishment or chastisement. We both feel it's a total insult to us and a further insult to our poor grandson who'll carry the mental and physical scars of this attack for ever.

What would you do in this situation?

 

[ColinJ]

Insist that the dog is muzzled during your grandson's visits?

The problem with that is that it sounds like the 'unnecessary' muzzle might be quietly forgotten about when you are not around.

I can foresee big family arguments developing over this ...

 

[PaulB]

Insist that the dog is muzzled during your grandson's visits?

The problem with that is that it sounds like the 'unnecessary' muzzle might be quietly forgotten about when you are not around.

I can foresee big family arguments developing over this ...

That's the problem, Colin. You've met my brother-in-law at the centre of all this when he came for a ride with us one time. He's had this conversation with our Liam, the baby's father, and I have to say Liam is being very amenable about it all. But he only saw the damage after it was inflicted. He didn't see the savage attack as it occurred. We did so know what this dog is capable of. And big arguments are brewing. My father has insisted that if this occurs, we should find a way to permanently get rid of the dog but to take him back in their home like nothing's happened is just below the belt. We could accept it being re-homed, just about but think it would be preferable to destroy it.

 

[pubrunner]

But he only saw the damage after it was inflicted.

Yes, but Liam should surely be aware, that the damage was limited, only due to the very prompt action on your part.

This isn't an issue in which a dog might attack a child, it is one in which it already has made an attack.

I see only two outcomes; the first should be avoided, but it is one in which they keep the dog - this is not acceptable, because family members will understandably be 'on tenterhooks', because they'll have to keep a permanent watch on the dog. This would create a situation of tension & unease and it is not acceptable for many obvious reasons - risk to the child, family disputes etc., etc..

The second and most desirable outcome, is one in which the hazard (the dog) is removed for good from that environment - either destroyed, or found a new home elsewhere. I'd ask Liam this question - does he know that it is much harder, to re-home a dog which is known to have attacked a child ? And in view of this, why would he be happy to accept such a dog within his own home ?

Having a dog in the family, is usually a positive experience; but if we have to worry (for the wrong reasons) about our dog, then I think that having any joy in owning that pet is lost. What they appear to be doing, is putting the dog, before the all-important need to safeguard the child.

 

[TVC]

This may seem like coming at it from the wrong end, but have you spoken to the RSPCA? They may have views from the dog's welfare point of view as well as safety. I may be wrong, but can't harm to ask.

Awful situation.

 

[PaulB]

Yes, but Liam should surely be aware, that the damage was limited, only due to the very prompt action on your part.

This isn't an issue in which a dog might attack a child, it is one in which it already has made an attack.

I see only two outcomes; the first should be avoided, but it is one in which they keep the dog - this is not acceptable, because family members will understandably be 'on tenterhooks', because they'll have to keep a permanent watch on the dog. This would create a a situation of tension & unease and it is not acceptable for many obvious reasons - risk to the child, family disputes etc., etc..

The second and most desirable outcome, is one in which the hazard (the dog) is removed for good from that environment - either destroyed, or found a new home elsewhere. I'd ask Liam this question - does he know that it is much harder, to re-home a dog which is known to have attacked a child ? And in view of this, why would he be happy to accept such a dog within his own home ?

Having a dog in the family, is usually a positive experience; but if we have to worry (for the wrong reasons) about our dog, then I think that having any joy in owning that pet is lost. What they appear to be doing, is putting the dog, before the all-important need to safeguard the child.

Thanks for that mate. Just to point out, Liam is my son and the father of the child concerned, the dog doesn't belong to him, it's my brother-in-law's and sister's dog which we were looking after while they were on holiday in Tenerife over Christmas but they're back now, and so is the dog. We were babysitting Eddy for that day only and it was terrible the previously placid dog took it on himself to do what he did.

You're absolutely correct, they are putting the dog and their forgiveness of it before the safeguard of any children it may come in to contact with.

And I don't think it's been pointed out to any interested party just what we witnessed; my son because we wanted to spare him as much of the horror as possible and my brother-in-law because i've not had any opportunity yet to spell out exactly how it occurred. I have heard that he wants to put some blame on my part because in his house, 'they share the love out'! Apparently, one stays with the baby (but then they'd have to since he can't walk or crawl yet) while the other stays with the dog. Therefore, it's because I don't have a dog and so must be unable to look after one that this happened! I'm partly responsible apparently as it wouldn't have occurred on his shift!

 

[pubrunner]

Insist that the dog is muzzled during your grandson's visits?

Even muzzled, the dog could still show aggressive tendencies and upset the little boy.

If they decide to keep the dog, I would suggest (insist, if possible) that it is kept in a dog cage/crate - with a secure (Toddler-proof) lock. In my experience, having a dog cage in the house is not cruel or unfair on the dog - when familiar with them, dogs almost always settle down in their cage and sleep. We cover ours with a blanket on the top and sides and when she wants a kip, our dog wanders in of her own volition.

 

[pubrunner]

Therefore, it's because I don't have a dog and so must be unable to look after one that this happened !

This ^^^ 'argument' is nothing more than a very convenient excuse - which displays an unwillingness to face reality.

Dog rescues are full. They are not falling over themselves to take a "nervous aggression with children" dog, which has a biting history. At the very least, they should put up a stairgate and buy a crate. The dog has form; ideally, he needs to be re-homed in a child-free environment, or put to sleep.

I'm partly responsible apparently as it wouldn't have occurred on his shift !

This ^^^ is just 'blame deflection'; whether in the company of the owner or someone else, the owner is ultimately responsible for the actions of the dog.

 

[Bazzer]

Thanks for that mate. Just to point out, Liam is my son and the father of the child concerned, the dog doesn't belong to him, it's my brother-in-law's and sister's dog which we were looking after while they were on holiday in Tenerife over Christmas but they're back now, and so is the dog. We were babysitting Eddy for that day only and it was terrible the previously placid dog took it on himself to do what he did.

You're absolutely correct, they are putting the dog and their forgiveness of it before the safeguard of any children it may come in to contact with.

And I don't think it's been pointed out to any interested party just what we witnessed; my son because we wanted to spare him as much of the horror as possible and my brother-in-law because i've not had any opportunity yet to spell out exactly how it occurred. I have heard that he wants to put some blame on my part because in his house, 'they share the love out'! Apparently, one stays with the baby (but then they'd have to since he can't walk or crawl yet) while the other stays with the dog. Therefore, it's because I don't have a dog and so must be unable to look after one that this happened! I'm partly responsible apparently as it wouldn't have occurred on his shift!

Difficult to tell in text, but hopefully you do not accept that you are partly responsible.

My parents used to have their own dogs (Old English sheepdogs) and for many years owned boarding kennels. I have seen first hand, both with our own dogs and those of others, how dogs can change in a different environment. For example, three of the four of our own were boarded elsewhere for a weekend, when we all had to be away and could only have one dog with us. The kennels refused to have them back, (which IME is pretty extreme - I can only think of one dog this happened to with my pareents' kennels and that was because of extensive damage), describing them as unmanageable. Yet when they saw me, after jumping all over me in greeting, they were absolutely placid.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

The only thing I am fairly sure of is that dogs behave better if they know their place, which in a household of humans is supposed to be at the bottom of the hierarchy. Most problems seem to arise when humans don't make it clear to the dog that it is a mere nothing compared to them

This is the biggest issue I also find, a dog needs to know it's place, male dogs are often harder to instil this in than females as their natural instinct is to take over the pack as they mature. There are not too many bad dogs, but there are a LOT of bad owners, but back to the original dog, it WILL do it again given the chance & by the sounds of it feeble excuses will also be given by your BiL & sister.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Apparently, one stays with the baby (but then they'd have to since he can't walk or crawl yet) while the other stays with the dog.

This to means to me that they already know they have an issue with the dog & are in denial, it is a dangerous situation, I am surprised their son/daughter would continue to allow them to see their grandchildren whilst it is in the house.

 

[guitarpete247]

A few years ago when, now 8, granddaughter was a small baby, we went to Wells-Next,the-Sea. We had been on the beach having a family picnic and granddaughter had been having nappy changed on picnic blanket. Her father had just got her dressed and picked her up as we were about to leave when a dog came bounding across the blanket scattering the remains of the picnic. GF's son went spare and shouted at the dogs owner who seemed oblivious of the injury the dog could have inadvertently inflicted if Liam hadn't picked Freya up 10 seconds later than he had. The owner just yelled back "Share the beach".
This was in October so we assumed 'dog's on lead laws' were suspended and he had the right to let his dog run around and intimidate or cause injury without let or hindrance.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

to our poor grandson who'll carry the mental and physical scars of this attack for ever.

Sorry but to be fair your grandson will probably not remember it, although if the people around him keep reminding him they will implant that fear, my advice would be to find somebody who has well behaved dogs, who have been socialised properly & play with him. My 10 year old Heinz would happily play ball with him, bringing the ball back to him & laying it at his feet for him to throw it again.

 

[PaulB]

Difficult to tell in text, but hopefully you do not accept that you are partly responsible.

My parents used to have their own dogs (Old English sheepdogs) and for many years owned boarding kennels. I have seen first hand, both with our own dogs and those of others, how dogs can change in a different environment. For example, three of the four of our own were boarded elsewhere for a weekend, when we all had to be away and could only have one dog with us. The kennels refused to have them back, (which IME is pretty extreme - I can only think of one dog this happened to with my pareents' kennels and that was because of extensive damage), describing them as unmanageable. Yet when they saw me, after jumping all over me in greeting, they were absolutely placid.

The police had to get involved and they were at pains to point out there was absolutely no blame on our part whatsoever once they'd seen the damage and heard from us what had occurred.

 

[Pale Rider]

The police had to get involved and they were at pains to point out there was absolutely no blame on our part whatsoever once they'd seen the damage and heard from us what had occurred.

If I recall, you said the police declined to charge anyone, which is just as well given that you were in charge of the dog at the time.

It seems to me the owner of the dog is not prepared to act on your valid concerns, and will only do something if compelled to do so.

Might be worth having a word with the copper you dealt with.

The future of the dog isn't a police matter now, but the officer might be inclined to wander round and have an informal word with the owner.

Clearly, that will be you off the owner's Christmas card list, but I'm guessing you accept the inevitability of that.