To not understand what this parent was thinking?

None of this escapes the fact that this was your fault.

I'm not sure why you are so fixated on this imaginary, unlikely scenario happening.

I'm not talking about whether a bite occured. This is all about the very real situation that DID happen - a small child got nose to nose with your dog because you were not paying attention. You think the mother is responsible for this happening but that isn't true - you are. You have admitted you weren't aware the child a approached, there is no arguing it so why are you? Still??

I know a child with a learning disability who loves dogs and can't be taught not to run up to them, arms flapping making a happy squealing noise. Of course it's up to their parents to supervise them when out and about and try to hold them back (and they do), but I just wanted to point out that not all children can actually be taught the rules around dogs.

If you know your dog doesn't like children or people in hoodies or loud noises or anything else, as a dog owner it's your responsibility to put things in place to keep other people safe.

Everyone knows the parent did an incredibly poor job here. Nobody has defended her.

You’re having a tough time here because no-one wants to accept bad parenting. As the owner of a cute fluffy dog, I find parents’ behaviour shocking in the way they send over toddlers and young kids to pet the dog, often unknown or unseen to me. I can be buying something at a market with the dog on a short lead and look down to see a 2 year old attempting to pick up the dog.
It’s not right to do this at all. Dogs are animals and can’t be expected to be portable:

Yes. Our old Rottweiler used to walk alongside my pushchair like a protector. She would carry a bag of crisps back from the shop in tact before demolishing them at home. We used to joke that the only way she would stop a burglar was by lying in front of the door. I hope that gives you clarity on most Rottweiler’s temperament.

I know my dog does not bite, so all this discussion around what would have happened if he did bite is pointless. He didn't bite. He hasn't ever bitten. I have no reason to believe he ever would…I know my dog is not aggressive.

You see, what you’ve just said above is contradicted by what you said in an earlier post.

No dog is bomb-proof, nor should they be expected to be. They are sentient creatures who experience pain and fear as much as any other sentient being. Mine has never shown any aggression, but that doesn't mean he never, ever would under the wrong circumstances. Any dog can…

How can any of us really know what any other living creature is capable of, including our nearest and dearest humans, let alone a dog. You have a very obstinate and absolute sense of the world.

The mother who allowed her two small children to approach him without supervision and without my permission did not know that.

If the second child approached it's because YOU allowed it, that is the point people are trying to make here, when faced with a child at face height the dog should have been blocked then removed. Not standing there grabbing and lecturing the first child while allowing the second child to come up to your dog as well.

You weren't aware of your surroundings (children should be expected outside of a shop), and your decision around the chain of events seems to be based on the fact that he has never bitten anyone before and you 'don't think' he ever would, so it was fine to remain where you were until the children were 'removed'.. when it should have been YOU moving away with your dog to prevent the situation from potentially escalating.

It doesn't matter who is to 'blame' as nothing bad actually happened. The mum wasn't paying attention to her child and you weren't paying attention to your surroundings, but you took a huge risk by not being pro-active enough about the situation once you realised what was happening.

Your refusal to accept the reality of this situation is now almost a parody. Actually, almost none of these things will be 'taken into consideration', certainly not to remove the burden of fault on you in a significant manner. You may be able to argue some of these points as potential contributory negligence on the parents side - but that's all it will be, contributory - you will still be held substantially liable.

'No prior history' is not a defense, at all - the law is very strict (or blunt, to use your word) on that. You do not get credit for a previous clean sheet, none.

A-road vs park is not relevant either - both are public spaces and your responsibility for remaining in control of your surroundings remains the same. Unless you are on private property it is considered entirely reasonable a child could be present, and you have a continuous duty of care. There is no distinction between public spaces and no zone that you are permitted to be 'less aware'.

The crux of this matter isn't really about your dog's training or behaviour, so it's completely pointless that you keep coming back to it like a shield that will protect you. You were in the wrong here, you were not paying attention and you failed to prevent a foreseeable, wholly avoidable situation involving your dog.

Nobody would consider the victim here - ie a child - to be capable of 'placing themselves in harm's way'. That's just not going to happen.

You are trying to apply how you feel the situation should be to actually a pretty strict liability framework. You don't feel the responsibility lies with you, but unfortunately it does.

...Should this ever change, I will adapt the way I manage him in response.

You should be adapting your behaviour in response to this situation, not just the dog's

It is not idiotic to say that parents should take responsibility for their children’s safety..
This dog was on a lead under the control of a responsible adult. Isn’t that what you want? And yet it is somehow still the dog owner’s fault that this happened.
Had the dog been off lead and out of control I would agree with you, but that was not the case here.

Provocation may mitigate the punishment, but does not remove the responsibility of the owner. And in this case, a child's actions would be unlikely to be considered as true provocation because it was an entirely foreseeable event (both in the fact that a child cannot understand their actions and because OP's admission she wasn't paying attention effectively negates a provocation defence because she should have warded off the child or moved her dog well in advance).

Regardless, in this case no one was injured or frightened so dangerously out of control doesn't apply particularly, and I haven't said it did. That doesn't change the fact that what did happened was OP's responsibility. It would be yours, or mine, or any other owner were we to find ourselves in the same situation

Has this thread been a reminder that non-supervision of your kids could end badly? Sure, but that's hardly a ground-breaking sentiment. You can't control other people and as a dog owner you cannot outsource your responsibility to be vigilant to the child or to the parents, even if they weren't supervising. The owner's liability in this situation is much, much more significant than the parent's lack of attention - your job is far greater than ensuring your dogs 'don't bite'. So many people aren't aware of this.

Provocation would be considered in court. And, in my scenario and ops, neither of our dogs would be reasonably considered to be “dangerously out of control”. Neither behaved in a way that could make a “person reasonably fear for their safety”. So, I say again, control your children. It’s my job to make sure my dogs don’t bite. It’s other people’s job to control their offspring.

Very fortunately for the child, my dogs don’t bite, but I’ve no doubt if they did, the parents would have found a way to blame me

The law would have blamed you too; the parents wouldn't have needed to find a way. Not seeing the child, even from behind, is not a valid excuse.

Listen: I don't make the rules. And I cannot change them, so it's really not much use trying to convince me. I realise that they sound sort of counterintuitive and people think they should be different but they aren't. None of this opining and supposing and outrage and will alter them. A quick Google or any kind of legal counsel will tell you that.

I suspect OP has actually googled this herself by now. I doubt we'll see her again.

The hysteria around dogs is continuing to increase. Understandable, because every day there are news reports of someone else being killed by a dog. Awful, obviously. And totally needless. Dogs, irrespective of size, should always be under control.
And, ops dog was. Of all the people who’ve been killed or seriously injured by dog, how many were on lead? I can’t think of any.
That child could have just as easily run into the road as run up to ops dog. Who would be at fault then?
And @Rotundra i had one occasion where a small child picked up my (small on lead) dog from behind, whilst on a walk, whilst the idiot parents watched. Unfortunately I do not have eyes in the back of my head so I simply could not have prevented that. Very fortunately for the child, my dogs don’t bite, but I’ve no doubt if they did, the parents would have found a way to blame me. Control your bloody children.

But maybe I have a dog that will bite if approached though and is no way as well trained as OP’s dog, so I think she has taken all of the relevant precautions.

It doesn't matter what you 'think', your opinion has no sway against the actual rules. Which I don't make, by the way. It doesn't matter how 'well-trained' the dog is - OP was, and remains, at fault for what happened.

You can’t say there’s no reasonable apprehension on my part, but there was on OP’s part.

I didn't say that. I pointed out your dog is muzzled and OP's isn't simply to show that your precautions are not similar, not to suggest that you would be less culpable in the same situation. Comparing them is irrelevant - especially when it comes to responsibility. I'm not 'having it both ways' - there is only one way - the liability STILL remains with the owner, no matter if the dog is muzzled or not.

There’s been no indication that OP’s dog is more likely to bite than say an assistance dog

There doesn't need to be. It is no defence in law to say you didn't think it was likely, that you had no concerns or that your dog has never so much as looked at anyone the wrong way before. It simply doesn't matter. Again, I don't make the rules.

Regardless, none of this changes the fact that OP has admitted she wasn't paying attention to her surroundings and therefore any resulting incident with her dog is her responsibility. As it would be with you, muzzled or not.

Which is a completely opposite situation. An off leash dog being allowed to approach children, the owner absolutely deserves opprobrium. The owners in the situation you describe are clearly wrong.

If a child is approaching a dog, it is the parent who is responsible for keeping them away by, at the very least, speaking to them so if the owner’s back is turned, they know the child is incoming.

But maybe I have a dog that will bite if approached though and is no way as well trained as OP’s dog, so I think she has taken all of the relevant precautions.

You can’t have it both ways - from the posts in relatively sure OP perceives the risk her dog poses as exactly the same as I perceive my muzzled dog - it might bite but it’s unlikely. No reasonable apprehension, albeit for different reasons (muzzle vs training and temperament).

You can’t say there’s no reasonable apprehension on my part, but there was on OP’s part. There’s been no indication that OP’s dog is more likely to bite than say an assistance dog would be, other than people (almost literally) crying wolf on this post.

Needs muzzling

The double standards in this post is absolutely hilarious. I have lost count of how many times dogs have came up to myself and my children when trying to have a quiet day out, especially when food in involved. The attitude of the dog owner usually is, oh he is just being friendly and saying hello. We are all supposed to just put up with that are we? How about keeping dogs away from children which is a far more appropriate thing to say, than the complete idiotic comment that you have made!

@CremeEggsForBreakfast She wasn't paying attention to her surroundings. That is the WHOLE point. Paying attention solely to the dog is why the situation occured - she should have been paying attention to what was around her. You have misunderstood.

Have you actually read the OP thoroughly from beginning to end?

OP says she was concentrating on the dog and therefore wasn't paying attention to people. She knelt down in front of the dog to serve it some water then stood up and the toddler moved around from behind her. She couldn't have been paying any more attention to her pet than she already was.

She was paying so much attention she noticed the dog turning into her to avoid the child. That is the definition of responsible dog ownership, isn't it?

She repeatedly states that this is the dog's response to being approached by a child so OP knows the dog well. The dog did not pose a risk to the child but the child (who could potentially have posed a risk to the dog) should never have been there.

Even if OP wasn't kneeling down with her back to passers-by, toddlers are small, often silent, and have light footsteps. They're experts at getting where they shouldn't be. Maybe OP can learn from this experience but I really don't see how she could have been paying more attention to her dog.

And I don't see where you answered my question of "what makes you think she can't manage her dog?"