Dog attacked my child - heartbroken

Bullseye1

Terriers are the Napoleans of the dog world. How many times have you seen one run up in an aggressive manner to a much larger dog. They are fearless little buggers. But and it's only my personal opinion i would not leave a child alone with any dog, I know this is not the case with the OP, but I've read enough on here where posters post that he dog was in the child's room unsupervised and the child comes running in crying. Supervision is absolutely key when dogs and children interact.

kylith

Penname wrote: »

Well, an update. We have a behaviourist coming out to assess whether it's something we're doing wrong or if he genuinely isn't suitable to have in a child household. If its the former, then she'll show us and the kids what to do. To be brutally honest, I'd be happier if he was rehomed as the reason we got a dog was mainly for the kids but he deserves a chance. Apart from Friday night, he IS a fab dog and the kids adore him.

Don't give up on the dog. The fact that he didn't break the skin means that it was a warning to back off rather than an attack.

I grew up with a terrier, she was raised with us so she was well used to kids but she still snapped and raised lumps on us, and each and every time it was our own fault because we wouldn't let her go, or she didn't want to be picked up, or we were annoying her, or she was eating. She only once broke skin and that was when my brother tried to pick up her newborn pups. Even though she nipped me numerous times I loved that dog so much. You learn a lot, as a kid, by having someone around who will let you know when you're pushing it too far.

My point is that even though I said before that I wouldn't put a terrier with kids it's not because I think terriers are nasty, they're just a lot less likely to put up with nonesense than other dogs. And parents today are a lot less likely to tell their children that getting bitten is what happens when you annoy dogs.

Run_to_da_hills

I would bring the dog straight back to the pound. You only got it in May, they said it would be suitable with kids of which it isn't. It is not fit for the purpose and should be still under guarantee.

fret_wimp2

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would bring the dog straight back to the pound. You only got it in May, they said it would be suitable with kids of which it isn't. It is not fit for the purpose and should be still under guarantee.

what a horrible attitude. its a dog, a living creature with feelings and emotion. not a car or a pc that you hope is under warranty.

Run_to_da_hills

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

what a horrible attitude. its a dog, a living creature with feelings and emotion. not a car or a pc that you hope is under warranty.

Its an unpredictable mut that could have scarred this child for life.

abouttobebanned

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its an unpredictable mut that could have scarred this child for life.

uh oh...

borderlinemeath

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would bring the dog straight back to the pound. You only got it in May, they said it would be suitable with kids of which it isn't. It is not fit for the purpose and should be still under guarantee.

Read the OPs post again. She got the dog from a shelter that said he was suitable for a home with children.
Shelters are not the pound. The pound does not assess dogs, it does not say they are suitable for certain homes, some pounds don't neuter, vacc, worm, assess, - a good shelter that stands over it's assessment that the dog is suitable for a home with children will do this.

You're comparison to something bought in a shop is disgusting by the way.

lrushe

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

what a horrible attitude. its a dog, a living creature with feelings and emotion. not a car or a pc that you hope is under warranty.

Its an unpredictable mut that could have scarred this child for life.

Dogs or indeed animals in general are not unpredictable but humans as a species have evolved to rely so much on verbal communication that we have all but lost the ability to read the very suble signals that animals give out in abundance. Signals like averted gaze, ear twitches, stiffening of the body, lip licking, uneasy silence etc. It's not until dogs are forced to use more obvious signals like the teeth baring, barking or biting that people take notice and think the behaviour is 'out of the blue' when in reality if the months, weeks or days leading to an attack were videoed a trained eye could easily predict the outcome.

Whispered

Hellrazer wrote: »

Has one of these so called "contracts" ever been tested in a court house???
I cant find any evidence of it being legally binding.

I don't know myself why or why not they might be legally binding as I wouldn't be very informed regarding contract law but - yes most of the contracts would stand up in court according to my solicitor.

A rescue I work with had their contract tested 4 years ago in court and it also stood up, the dog had to be returned.

Cherry Blossom

Whispered wrote: »

I don't know myself why or why not they might be legally binding as I wouldn't be very informed regarding contract law but - yes most of the contracts would stand up in court according to my solicitor.

I would have imagined so as well, as long as it was properly drawn up, a contract is contract (a legally binding document) regardless of it's purpose, unless it contains specific clauses which are illegal. A lot of breeders also have proper contracts and plenty have taken dogs back when a 'no breeding from this dog' clause has been broken for example.

Shazanne

What has happened to the OP? It seems like the original topic is getting lost here.

Cherry Blossom

Shazanne wrote: »

What has happened to the OP? It seems like the original topic is getting lost here.

Everyone's passing the time, arguing the fine points while the OP awaits input from the trainer and decides what is best. I'm sure they don't feel like constantly repeating themselves in the meantime while this process is ongoing

Shazanne

Ok - point taken. I'm just wondering what's happening with the dog in the meantime. Thanks.

Cherry Blossom

Shazanne wrote: »

Ok - point taken. I'm just wondering what's happening with the dog in the meantime. Thanks.

Oh, there was no point! And I just made that up, but they might not have any update yet, and doing the sensible thing not getting involved in the debates.

doctor evil

Shazanne wrote: »

Do you not think that statement may be just a bit extreme? You are now painting this dog as being completely visous and I have seen nothing in the OP's description at any stage to suggest this. As someone pointed out above, if the dog had wanted to it could have bitten the child but it didn't. Yes, it did attack, be it defensively or otherwise, but I don't think it fair of you to suggest that it would attack every person it comes in contact with. Maybe its unwise to have the dog with small children, but dont blacken it completely.

I'm not blackening anything, it can take longer for an elderly person to heal from an injury. The injury doesn't have to be massive.

Discodog

Whispered wrote: »

I don't know myself why or why not they might be legally binding as I wouldn't be very informed regarding contract law but - yes most of the contracts would stand up in court according to my solicitor.

A rescue I work with had their contract tested 4 years ago in court and it also stood up, the dog had to be returned.

It would depend a great deal on the Judge. Civil law is very much more open to interpretation than criminal law. I made some enquiries a while ago. The Guards & Dog Warden were adamant that the owner was whoever held a license for the dog.

The terms of any Civil contract could be deemed to be unfair or unreasonable by a Judge. Also there is the grey area as to who owns the rescue dog in the first place. If it is a stray then the one year & a day rule comes into play. I did hear of a divorce dog custody case where the Judge ruled that the party that owned the dog was the one who had paid for it !

A breeder contract would be different as the dog is being sold & the terms become part of the contract of sale.

I think that, whatever the outcome, the OP deserves praise for ignoring some of the comment & properly considering the options. The only area of concern for me would be this:

Penname wrote: »

He has snapped at our younger child in the past but that was because she took his food bowl away while he was eating, so we nipped that in the bud by using the technique where you give him his food and take it away a couple of times.

Personally I would test any dog before adopting it if children are involved. When I found my latest addition I did a few simple tests to see what I had found. So I put a nice piece of meat in my caged hand. The poor lad was very hungry & tried to push my hand open but he never showed any aggression. My Vet did the same test when she met him as well.

Penname

Just an update:

We had the trainer out and we feel much more positive about the situation. She reckons he's more possessive and not naturally aggressive which is a good sign. Obviously she couldn 't guarantee he won't bite again, which of course, I know so we will continue to supervise when he's with the kids but she gave us some brilliant exercises to help condition him to tolerate possible future child handling scenarios eg. child grabbing his collar, cuddling him etc.

He has made huge progress already since she's been here but he has a three week probation period whereby he must change his attitude to his "possessions" and the way he sees the children (not as threats to his possessions but as the bringers of treats!). I am positive as we're already seeing changes in him for the better.

Thanks again for all of your advice.

westies4ever

^^^^^^^^

well done Op - nice to see owner responsibility and not going with the 'kneejerk' reaction - you're a credit.

kylith

So glad to hear that it's looking good for you.

DBB

I'm liking what you've told us of your trainer's approach to things, sounds like you got good advice.
I'll echo what others have said, well done to you for giving your dog another chance as on this occasion, it's worth doing when you've armed yourself with the right information!

Graces7

Felicitations, OP.

Reaction here is that the dog did not break skin and had it been a real attack?

Our collie did once break skin on someone's ankle, many years ago and before we had her. That got her labelled of course and many then were scared of her.

She was simply doing what an untrained collie will do; rounding the person up and lost control when the lady screamed. She had no real upbringing and to us the miracle is that she has no aggression in her.

When I posted that here, the same kind of reaction; pts that dog etc etc etc. from many.

Collie has never ever tried to bite us. Period. She will bark and even snarl at strangers who have not been introduced; that is her job. Once introduced, she is fine. She lives indoors happily.

So good work there...

fret_wimp2

As said already, but needs to be said many more times, good job PENNAME (OP)!!!

Its great to see someone take responsibility for a situation, and realize that just chucking out an animal like a broken piece of technology is not the answer.

The way you've handled the situation is an example to all pet owners. Kudos to you!

MidnightQueen

Ah i'm glad Penname. By your first post, you seemed really upset about getting rid of him. Where theres a will theres a way, always think positive.