to want to keep my dog?

[whizzyrocket]

Hey there,

This is quite a saga I'm afraid. I have a three year old poodle cross called Maisie, who is a cracking little dog: friendly, obedient and very sweet. My mother bought her first (against my advice) and then decided she wasn't a dog person so I inherited her. I have put in the time and money training her and getting her immunised etc. but my grandparents (in their 70s) have looked after her from time to time and have tried all sorts of emotional blackmail to get their hands on her.

I have thus far stood firm even though my mother has wanted to give her to them just to get them off her back because poodles have hair that grows inside their ears that needs to be plucked or their ears become horribly infected and painful. They would not be prepared to do this and I don't want to see my little dog unnecessarily unwell. They would also feed her far too much- their last dog was a little tank with a leg at each corner in the end.

My husband doesn't want or even like dogs, but is ok with me having this one because she is small and well-behaved. I am pregnant and so can't just get myself another dog as I wouldn't be able to train it as I would like to in the three months I have left. I live on an RAF base a few hours from all my close friends and family so really appreciate the dog's company.

The problem is this: I recently had to go abroad for a friend's wedding and left the dog with my grandparents thinking that they'd quite like to look after her for the week I was gone. I was right. While I was away they managed to convince themselves that I had given them Maisie, completely ignoring/choosing to forget that I had told them when my husband and I would be back to pick her up. My grandmother cried when I took her away. I felt dreadful.

A couple of days later my grandfather had a stroke. He has been discharged but apparently isn't himself. My mum says it's as if he had dementia (I don't drive or I'd have been to visit) and has suggested that having Maisie might be wonderful as some sort of therapy for him, especially as he loved her so much before. If he really isn't himself any more my grandma might also find Maisie a huge comfort.

If Maisie were really some cure-all I would give her to them in a heart-beat, but I doubt she'll do that much, and now my grandad, who was the more active of them, is unwell, I wonder whether they'll be able to cope with a young, bouncy dog.

Am I being selfish to want to keep her because I don't think I could get another dog for possibly the next five years?

Would you give away an animal that might help your relatives, even though you knew it would damage the animal's health?

Do you have any solutions? My husband and I have been talking about dog-shares and lending her to them, but wouldn't I just become even more the "evil-grand-daughter" every time I took away "their" precious dog, and couldn't that shock cause further illness? I'm feeling responsible enough about having taken her just before my grand-father's stroke without anything like this happening again. I know my aunt is blaming me for it.

I feel no matter what I do I'll be held accountable for anything that goes wrong so I'd really appreciate any advice.

"My mother bought her first (against my advice) and then decided she wasn't a dog person "

I really wouldn't listen to your mother's advice on any of this, given this particular bit of history. It doesn't sound like she understands that dogs are not toys or objects.

I wouldn't call the GPs 'abusive', that seems to be going way to far as they surely wouldn't deliberately harm the dog. But they do sound quite unsuitable owners, especially for a young active dog. I'm struggling to understand what their thinking is here, and why exactly they want her so badly, but it's obvious to me that the right decision is for Maisie to stay where she is!

Whatever, Evenlessnarky, stop being a doggie judgypants . Maybe you should come around our village and lecture all the oldies with dogs who, shall we say, have a somewhat lackadaisical approach to their pets, but still love them dearly [in fact, if I think of it, a lot of the younger people are that way as well]. I guess I live in a doggie abusive zone

Many loving dog owners don't put their dog 'first', why should they? Sometimes the OH's needs come first, sometimes kids, sometimes other family commitments and sometimes their own needs. And sometimes the dog comes first, if he.she is ill or needs special care. But the dogs are generally happy despite their benign neglect, and that is the key point. The OP has said that her dog likes living with the GP, so presumably it is happy and looked after there.

Just curious, if the situation was reversed, would you all react the same? If OP's daughter or GD had an accident and say lost partial use of her limbs. And she desperately wanted parents/GPs dog for company and emotional support. And the dog was comfortable staying with the daughter. Would you all say, "OP put your own needs/your dogs comfort before your child's needs in this difficult phase?"

"I will just say that I am at the responses. They are all about what is 'best' for the dog - what about what is best for the GP's emotional needs at this very difficult time?"

Un-fucking-believable.

Yes flatbread, some of us WOULD put the dog's welfare first.

It disgusts me that this concept is alien to so many people.

The OP said, "poodles have hair that grows inside their ears that needs to be plucked or their ears become horribly infected and painful. They would not be prepared to do this"

So well done to all of you who are advocating criminal acts of cruelty.

Maybe you should come around our village and lecture all the oldies with dogs who, shall we say, have a somewhat lackadaisical approach to their pets, but still love them dearly

Having spent the better part of 2 years trying to get my idiot MIL to get her dog painkillers I'll pass thanks. She adores the dog. She let it suffer because she was afraid the vet might say it should be put down. She finally went to the vet and the dog now takes 1 tablet a day and is much more active and spends less time in it's bed. Do you think love is a cure for arthritic pain?

But the dogs are generally happy despite their benign neglect, and that is the key point

Dogs are happy living with owners who don't tend to their medical needs. They don't know any better.

Just curious, if the situation was reversed, would you all react the same

It's nothing to do with age. It's to do with the idea that someone should hand over a pet as a miracle cure all to someone in ill health with no idea of their capabilities. In a home where the healthy adult won't look after the dog's basic health needs. Have you any experience of the pain and discomfort that a dog with infected ears goes through? The way that even a gentle dog can bare it's teeth or snap if you accidentally catch it's ear because it is so tender? The repeated visits to the vets and bills for antibiotics and drops? And you have no idea how the grandparents are coping or the extent of the stroke damage. A stroke can leave people doubly incontinent and unable to get out of a chair without assistance. Not to mention the impact it would have upon the grandparents if the dog was handed over and then had to be removed because they weren't coping.

I had a stroke when I was 21, I had a dog and I got told it was for the best to get rid of the dog as I wouldnt be able to walk him as much as I should have, he was a poodle cross, he used to go out for at least 2 hours of walks a day, I didnt get rid of the dog but I had friends that walked him daily for me, I recovered thankfully, but your dog will need walking a lot, a poor diet could cause her skin problems, It is doubtful that you gran would even want to leave her husband for walks, it wouldnt be a miracle cure for your grandad and even if it was if the dog isn getting the best care then she should stay with you, dont let family blackmail you, she is your dog, your mum gave up on her so cant decide for you. Someone else said about visits from therapy dog or if a carer goes in maybe one that has a dog would bring it with them.
You have to think they are old and if they are not in great health now what about if the dog lives another 10 years? would she be passed back to you as they cant cope? it isnt fair on Maisie being pushed from pillar to post.

Nothing to do with the age of the gps.

A dog is not some sort of automatic therapy for someone who has had a stroke. A pet can be a great comfort for someone recovering from illness but they can equally be a burden and a worry. Your mother is treating the dog as some sort of commodity that can be passed from family member to family member depending on who needs/wants her most.

She is your dog, your home is your home.

A dog is a huge responsibility and your mum seems to have no conception of this as she simply got rid of her when she couldnt be bothered anymore.

Its all very odd. My OH once thought he could give my cat to his mum. He was a twat back then. Luckily he has grown up a bit.

Evenlessnarky and DBF, I think we can just agree to disagree here, without getting into a righteous wrath, ok?

If you read my previous post, you will see that I recommended that if the OP gives the dog to GP, she should do it on the condition that they get a dog walker and groomer. My dog gets grooming once a month and the groomer picks the dog up. She also gets a visit to the vet once in three months,which is not that onerous. So let's not make a mountain out of a molehill regarding doggie care.

And the reason I mentioned my GF's stoke, is to point out that the GPs are not being unreasonable (nor is the OP). The life of a stroke patient can be stable for many years, and that the dog will probably be a huge emotional support!

Look, we all want our pets to have happy lives and we also want the best for our other family members. It is really a balancing act. My shock is really at the dismissive tone of many of the posters regarding the OP's GPs needs. Especially as the OP said that the dog is happy in their home.

I would sell the shirt off my back for the people I love, and if I ever really need my LO, I hope they would do the same for me

I am sure it has been said, the dog is a part of the family and not pass the parcel. She's your dog not a possession. Take the relations to the rescue centres so they can chose their own dog to love.

Someone has got to "get into a righteous wrath". The poor fucking dog can't!

That wasn't wrath [passive-aggressive smiley]

"I would sell the shirt off my back for the people I love..."

Me too - but I wouldn't give up my dog for anything or anyone in this world, no more than I'd give away my child. It is absolutely not comparable to giving away material possessions (which I wouldn't hesitate to do for a loved one in need) and a completely unreasonable thing to ask.

You're talking crap Flatbread.
The dog belongs to the OP, it's a much loved pet, not something that you pass from pillar to post for stroke therapy.
I'd never give my dog away just because someone in my family wanted him (however much they loved him).

LadyBeagleEyes - do you have a Beagle too by any chance?

He's actually a beagle cross (collie) but you can only see the beagle in him, in colouring and personality.
He's so beautiful, hence the name. No dog has eyes as beautiful as a beagle, it's like someone painted black eyeliner round them.
Having read round the doghouse threads I realise that they are one of the most difficult dogs to train and he's a challenge, but I wouldn't change him for the world.
And he's the smartest dog I've ever known.

From your name I guess you have more than one, and kids too.
So how does that go?

LadyBeagle,

You may not be willing to share your dog, but that does not mean that people who do, are somehow treating their dogs as possessions.

In fact, a number of mothers hand over their kids to be brought up for part of their lives by grandparents. It happens in the Philippines, India, African-American communities in America, Russia etc. Does that mean they think of their children as 'things to be passed pillar to post'?

Human children also don't live in one household for the duration of their lives - they live with parents, other relatives, sometimes boarding school, university, working lives etc. The OPs dog is 3 years, so in human terms 21-27 years old. It is old enough to be 'working' for its living, and in this case, it could provide doggie type of special care to GM and GD.

The reason I asked about the age reversal thing is because it seems as a society and on MNet especially, people are all understanding about teenager needs, pregnant women, young and middle age women needs and hormonal changes. But somehow, when people hit 65-70, we seem to stop thinking about their hormonal changes and emotional needs.

Lots of older women can have very strong maternal instincts and no real outlet for them in modern nuclear society. In the OPs case, I would take a guess that the GM wants to mother, and has formed a strong bond with the dog. It probably keeps her young and feeling needed and loved. And now, when her partner has had a stroke, she probably needs the dog's love even more to help her get through this period. And, awful as this sounds, she may outlive GD by many years and the dog could be her 'baby' and source of great comfort

That is why the pet visiting thing seems a bit strange to me. If a woman really wants kids, and she cannot have them, would you say 'oh, we can get a child over to you three times a week for an hour. There, your needs are met and be happy now and don't bug us'. So if GM really wants to mother Maisie, how will a few hours a week visit by a random dog satisfy that need?

This is not to say that OP is being unreasonable in not wanting to share her dog, but just to point out that GPs have a valid need too and they are just not being selfish.

Now, given that no-one on this thread seems to think like me, I am willing to accept that I am wacky and shut up My DH and I come from quite 'liberal' families and our understanding of family and boundaries might be different from many people. In the time before IVF was invented, my DH's GM [married with kids] agreed to have a baby for her best friend, who couldn't have children. So best friend's husband and GM 'got on with it' and duly produced a child. The child lives with best friend and husband. Both families get along very well and all kids are happy, no drama. This is in Scandinavia.

Sorry for the long post. I do really feel for the GP and OP, and that in my experience there are loads of different types of sharing that go on in families. And the dog is certainly not being treated as a possession if OP shares with GP.

I am confused now. Are you suggesting the OP hands over her baby to the GPs?

No, only the dog.

But dogs are not children.

Your family sound lovely though.

LadyBeagleEyes - I have 2 beagles, both aged 3 and 2 boys aged 12 & 10. We got both the beagles from Beagle Welfareat ages 2 1/2 & 1 1/2, the dog has been harder work as he had no training and was still in the chewing stage. We got the bitch last November and she had been trained. It can be hard work at times but the boys are old enough to help and they walk them too. Somehow we manage :)

I agree, they are a beautiful dog, but hard work. My DH had never had a dog, I waited 15 years to get one and our 'dog' beagle is such a daddy's boy now, DH has even admitted he can't understand why we never had one before!!

I get involved with Beagle Welfare events and hate the thought of any animals, but especially Beagles being mis-treated or harmed in any way.

Anyway, I had better do some work now and get me 'Beagle' head off :)

dogs are definitely not children, and people don't really have an emotional need for a dog. I find it a bit odd to suggest that the GM might need something to mother, since she is a mother, and has grandchildren as well, which should hopefully fulfill her emotional needs. Dogs are not for mothering, or there to make people feel better (although they often do ), but primarily they are animals in their own right, and, whether you like it or not, have rights in Law to protect their needs. In this example I'm really not sure that the GPs could provide sufficient care and, in fact, the dog itself may end up proving more of a stress for them.

My mum was very infirm and had had a stroke too, among other things. She absolutely adored my dog, in fact I had to bring photos of him (not of me!) to the hospital to raise a smile when she was really poorly. She loved it when we came visiting, and overindulged him hugely, which I tolerated as it was only for that day, and he made her so happy. She could never have taken care of him, though, and she realised this herself. One day he jumped up, just a little (she was giving him food!), and because her skin was so fragile, when his nail caught her leg it tore the skin, and it took months and months to heal

Just because the GPs want the dog, it doesn't mean that it would work out well, for any of them, and that's why I think the dog is best where it is, and the GPs family look to meeting their emotional needs rather than passing that duty onto a dog!

I'm really confused now - OP do you want to keep your dog yes or no? If GPs want a dog, they can get one - that's their business. I think this goes deeper - do you want to get a better more adult relationship with your family where they support you and you all respect each other?

I still don't get it. It's as if this Maisie is the only dog in the world. Why can't the GPs just get a different dog?

I think this is really about the pecking order in the OP's family: it's not so much about wanting a dog, as about taking the OP's dog as a way of reminding her that she's not (sorry) top dog.

If this couple are capable of looking after a dog properly, they will be able to adopt one from a rescue.

If they couldn't pass a rescue check (personally, I think they'd fail it), then why should they have your dog, who has already been dumped once (by your mother), and who is happily settled with you?

stand up for yourself op.

she is your dog. they looked after her while you were away.

i look after my mum's dog while she is away. doesn't make the dog mine.