Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

To think parents should teach their children how to behave round dogs

999 replies

Xihha · 19/07/2013 21:27

There have been a few posts lately about people needing to control their dogs more (and I agree, if you cant control our dog and clean up after it then you shouldn't have a dog imo), but is it unreasonable to expect parents to teach children to be a bit more careful round dogs?

Whilst walking my dog (on his lead) a child who looked about 10 ran up and stuck his head in my dogs face to make a fuss of him whilst i was picking up doggys poo, without checking if it was ok, there have been other times kids have just walked up and started pulling doggy around, this sort of thing happens a lot, especially in the summer when there are more kids out playing and the parents rarely say anything about it.

It's not really an issue with my great soppy lump of a dog because he loves kids and will put up with anything for a bit of fuss but shouldn't these kids know that you should check with the owners before approaching strange dogs and that even a nice dog can get pissed of if you start pulling it around?

OP posts:
Donnadoon · 27/07/2013 09:45

Cooped up in an urban area? HA HA HA HA You have no idea where I live
HA HA HA HA

merrymouse · 27/07/2013 09:48

You can find you assumed wrongly that a four year old who has been told about strangers runs straight up to one when she appears in the park with her dog.

But if they have wandered so far away that you can't very quickly chase after the 4 year old to supervise them or call out to the dog owner and make it clear that you know what is happening and you are on your way (even though, you visibly are dealing with another emergency, which a reasonable person will understand) or you are out of earshot or they don't come back when called, your childcare problems are bigger than dogs.

Expecting a random stranger to deal with your absconding child without making an effort to control the situation yourself is as thoughtless as a dog owner saying "he's just playing".

merrymouse · 27/07/2013 09:52

Where I live any child who hasn't been taught how to behave around animals is far more likely to be trampled or kicked by a cow/donkey/horse than be harmed by the spaniels and labs that are the preferred breed around here.

ICBINEG · 27/07/2013 09:52

saintly I as pointed out earlier...I have not only met dogs but been bitten by them as a child.

hth

ICBINEG · 27/07/2013 09:52

cows are evil...

saintlyjimjams · 27/07/2013 09:52

Parents of NT children (I have 2 NT kids btw i don't need a lesson in parenting an NT child) go by their gut instincts while those of us with disabled children rely on a doctor or SW to advise?????????? When you parent a disabled child you make decisions in exactly the same way as for an NT child - they're not a different species. The decisions made are based on understanding not diagnosis. Do you have ANY idea how offensive your comments are? And how out of touch with reality if you think a doctor could advise on daily life with a severely disabled child or that we all can easily access SW.

My point was you supervise to the level required by your child at that stage of their life. If you think that expecting children to respond to 'please don't touch the doggy' or be supervised if they can't is expecting everyone to jump to attention you are in la la land.

But nope it's not the dogs it's your comments about disabled kids that are going to stop me posting on this thread. You have absolutely no idea what you've even said do you? :gives up:

merrymouse · 27/07/2013 09:58

LOL at the idea that somewhere, on a far distant planet there might be a doctor or SW who would be able to advise on such matters...

Donnadoon · 27/07/2013 09:58

saintly try not to be offended, this person has some very warped views and Im also going to try and stop feeding it now.

tabulahrasa · 27/07/2013 10:02

Mathanxiety - the point about supervision is that after that split second where a child does something unexpected, the person supervising them does something. They say something to the child or move to retrieve them. If a non verbal child was out of sight of an adult and they weren't aware of what they were doing Iong enough to make it to a dog and start interacting with it I'd consider them negligent...not because they've approached the dog but because they clearly just aren't supervising them at all.

Also, you seem a little bit ignorant about animals, rabbits have really delicate spines and get scared when lifted, they can and will bite hard enough to leave scars when picked up.

It is also well within expected cat behaviour to object to being lifted and either bite or scratch because they have been.

That's why all advice on owning either states that they should be supervised with young children do that they're being handled correctly.

Dogs have a socialisation window - if they are not exposed to different experiences and different people before they're 16 weeks old it's very likely that they will have behavioural problems - if a puppy doesn't go out and see children the chances are it will never be safe around them as an adult.

mathanxiety · 27/07/2013 10:06

OK Saintly, how about you don't bother replying to my posts from now on as you are trying to make this into some SN vs NT thing for reasons of your own?

Needless to say, you are welcome to respond if you read what I say and not what you imagine I say.

'WHEREAS YOU MAY HAVE the help of a doctor of SW or SN teacher to advise about your DS and WHAT YOU MAY EXPECT OF HIM, parents of NT children go by their gut instincts, learn from their mistakes and expect their children to learn from theirs.
HTH.'

Did you see what I did there?

Read.The.Words.

And you can take your umbrage and shove it wherever you wish.

merrymouse · 27/07/2013 10:16

I'm reading the words and I don't understand them.

Parents of children with SN don't get told by their doctor or SW (if they even have a social worker) what they can expect of their child any more than parents of NT children do. In fact, probably less, because by definition a child who is not neurotypical is developing outside the parameters of what would usually be expected.

tabulahrasa · 27/07/2013 10:22

Well you can say may have all you want - it doesn't change the fact that she'll get no doctor, social worker or teacher advising her, because it doesn't happen, Or the fact that most parents of children with SN are also parents of NT children.

It's not an SN vs NT thing because children includes those with and without SNs and parents don't have any extra training or advice on parenting just because one of their children has an SN.

Saintly mentioned it because it was a relevant comparison.

mathanxiety · 27/07/2013 10:25

Yes of course they do Tabularasa. They drop whatever they are doing and they do their best to intervene, given their own physical condition and their perception of the danger their child seems to be in, if they see what is going on. If they don't see it, nobody has a right to judge them for it, especially those people whose animal is the cause of the child wandering over to investigate.

I have a suspicion that if a dodgy looking older man were to walk a dog into a park full of children, parents would be onto their children like flies on honey. My guess is that most of the posters here who are approached by children are women and that therefore the parents do not perceive much danger to their children. Like it or not, people tend to worry about their children's safety more than the welfare of dogs and they base their decision to intervene quickly or slowly on perception of danger to their children from dogs and from the owners, not danger to dogs from their children.

Wrt your point about non verbal children and distance a child has travelled unnoticed -- have you ever been at home and suddenly noticed a silence and realised you didn't know what your child was up to or how long they had been up to it?

I had both rabbits and cats as pets as a child. I was taught how to lift them safely. I am not ignorant of either animal. (I have also lifted children who objected to being lifted at that particular moment.) I don't know what sort of rabbits you have experience of but mine never bit and nor did the rabbits of neighbours whom my DCs took care of when they were away on holiday recently.

I wonder about the ethics of bringing a puppy out and using unsuspecting children as training props. However, assuming you have satisfied your own scruples and feel there is nothing wrong about those needle like teeth sinking into a leg or hand or other body part of a child who has wandered up to pat something it believes to be furry and adorable with no possible sharp edges, surely you should be grateful that children are approaching your puppy and doing their worst before he gets too old to learn from it?

mathanxiety · 27/07/2013 10:30

Oh for the love of puppies...

'You MAY have' does not mean 'You have' or even 'You probably have'..
Nor does it imply that you have.
What it means is there is a possibility that you have.
Not a probability, just a chance.

I will restrict my language to really short words and very simple sentences and verbal forms from now on.

D0oinMeCleanin · 27/07/2013 10:39

'Horses that are being ridden generally do not gallop about in playgrounds' Believe it or not they do around here.

Bloody irresponsible horse owners are worse than the dog owners, there's a brindle track, use it you nutter!

Of course if my child was trampled in the park by one of the youngsters allowed to ride her pony wholly unsupervised where ever she wanted, it would be the adult in charge of the unsupervised rider's fault, so I could just not bother teaching my children how to stay safe around the horses and ponies, but regardless of whose fault it is, if I just ignored the ponies, I'd likely end up with a trampled child and injured horse and rider, so I choose to parent my children instead and teach them horse safety and continuously and loudly complain to the park management about the horses being off the brindle track again. Never changes anything though

mathanxiety · 27/07/2013 10:41

Well you can say may have all you want - it doesn't change the fact that she'll get no doctor, social worker or teacher advising her, because it doesn't happen, Or the fact that most parents of children with SN are also parents of NT children.

I choose my words carefully just so that people will not take me up the wrong way. I will say MAY HAVE all I want, in hopes that somewhere, someone will understand what is in fact plain English. They are short words. It seems to me that you understood what I wrote, Tabularasa, so hope is not completely lost.

It's not an SN vs NT thing because children includes those with and without SNs and parents don't have any extra training or advice on parenting just because one of their children has an SN.

Yes, 'children' means 'all children', but it is very clear from the annoyance of dog owners on this thread, including Saintly, that the children they are annoyed with are NT children. It would be preposterous to be annoyed at the behaviour of a child if you thought that child had some SN, now wouldn't it?

tabulahrasa · 27/07/2013 10:41

"'You MAY have' does not mean 'You have' or even 'You probably have'..
Nor does it imply that you have.
What it means is there is a possibility that you have.
Not a probability, just a chance."

But there isn't a realistic possibility that there will be anyone advising them, it's actually much more likely that a doctor or teacher can advise a parent of an NT child on behaviour and what can be expected than that the parent of a child with an SN will be getting that advice and the diagnosis of an SN does not automatically involve a social worker and if there is one involved they will not be a specialist in that condition.

mathanxiety · 27/07/2013 10:56

I said 'generally', Donnadoon.
Again, I qualified my assertion about horses and parks just to be very clear that I understand there may be exceptions to the rule.

If you are feeling frustration at having to watch out unnecessarily for animals encroaching on the rights of human park users in the case of horses trotting around as if they owned the place, then you can surely empathise with people who feel the same way about the extra vigilance required when dogs are brought to the park.

I say 'unnecessarily' not because you don't have to watch out when a child could be seriously injured by a horse, but because rights are being infringed here, the rights of humans that animals do not have. These are rights the animal owners should respect.

People have the right to enjoy the park peacefully without having to worry about their children being attracted away from them by animals or predators in the bushes, or bitten by animals, and they shouldn't have to worry about stepping in poo either but that is a different debate. Dog owners should respect the rights of other people just as horse riders should respect the rights of park users. Dog and horse owners are allowed the privilege of using the park as they have animals with them.

People use good sense in dealing with what they see as a threat to their children. It's a shame that isn't appreciated by those who introduce the potential threat.

tabulahrasa · 27/07/2013 11:00

"Yes of course they do Tabularasa. They drop whatever they are doing and they do their best to intervene, given their own physical condition and their perception of the danger their child seems to be in, if they see what is going on."

So why have you spent pages arguing that supervising children is unreasonable? Hmm

It's been repeatedly said that dog owners aren't expecting some extra level of supervision because their dogs are dangerous, just the normal amount that parents use to stop children being a nuisance to other people who are going about their business in the same public space.

It's not about finding children approaching so unbearable that I should avoid them...it is a very minor irritant and my annoyance is directed at the adult who is either not supervising the child or doesn't care enough about their child's behaviour to stop them being rude.

"If they don't see it, nobody has a right to judge them for it, especially those people whose animal is the cause of the child wandering over to investigate." Of course they do, if the parent of a non-verbal child can't see them and has no idea what their child is doing while out in a public space for a period of time long to approach and manhandle a dog I'm going to judge them - not because of the dog, but because that is a fairly significant length of time, they could be anywhere doing anything by that point. that's not the same at all as not quite knowing what your child is up to in your house.

mathanxiety · 27/07/2013 11:00

Not all parents are in the same boat when it comes to support for children with SNs. Some manage to find it and some don't. What is true for Saintly may not be true for someone else. There is a hodge podge of support available and some people are somehow able to tap into effective support and some are not. There is an element of luck involved.

mathanxiety · 27/07/2013 11:03

Realistic or not, MAY HAVE means exactly what you think it means, Tabularasa.

There is no way you can realistically infer from what I posted that I implied anything about the sort of chance there was of anyone connecting with any support for a child with SNs, whether there was a good chance, a fair chance, a poor chance, or a miniscule chance.

tabulahrasa · 27/07/2013 11:06

"What is true for Saintly may not be true for someone else."

No, but parents compare experiences and are aware of the differences in provision and some of us work in that field - believe me, what is true for her is true for many many parents, not a minority.

mathanxiety · 27/07/2013 11:23

"Yes of course they do Tabularasa. They drop whatever they are doing and they do their best to intervene, given their own physical condition and their perception of the danger their child seems to be in, if they see what is going on." So why have you spent pages arguing that supervising children is unreasonable?

There is no contradiction there Tabularasa.
Parents supervise according to the level of danger they perceive to their child, not to the dog, and dog owners have no right to expect them to supervise one ounce more than what they feel they owe by way of supervision or protection to their own child.

As far as rudeness goes, many feel if you are going to bring an attractive dog into a park you are asking for whatever attention comes your way. If you don't want the attention, don't bring the equivalent of a Victoria's Secret swimsuit model out to the place where its natural fanbase congregates.

It's been repeatedly said that dog owners aren't expecting some extra level of supervision because their dogs are dangerous, just the normal amount that parents use to stop children being a nuisance to other people who are going about their business in the same public space.

And that is where dog owners are failing utterly and completely to understand the problem here. Parents are attuned to danger to their own children. If you and your dog (together, the pair of you) do not look threatening to their child then they will relax a bit. As I suggested, a dodgy looking older man in a park with his dog is much more likely to raise the hackles of parents than a woman out with her pet.

If you, the dog owner, are happy to bring an attractive pet whom you consider well behaved out among children, then parents can't be blamed for thinking you must be happy enough to have children express admiration for your dog in their own way or that their children are safe enough to allow them to approach.

You are bringing it out to a place where small people who love dogs gather. They are going to beg for a dog all the way home -- you do not seem to realise how much children want dogs.

This combination of parental perception of danger or lack thereof plus children's attraction to nice looking dogs plus your insistence on going out when children are out and to places where they go to means you bring much of your discombobulation upon yourself by your choice of place and time for a walk.

It's not about finding children approaching so unbearable that I should avoid them...it is a very minor irritant and my annoyance is directed at the adult who is either not supervising the child or doesn't care enough about their child's behaviour to stop them being rude.

Children are rude. Get over it. If they weren't poking your dog they would be poking other children or taking their toys, which they also find fascinating. Or they would be trying to catch squirrels or pigeons. If you brought children to the playground sandpit my children used when they were small you would learn from your first experience to leave the fancy spades and buckets at home and use recycled, cut up plastic junk - detergent scoops and containers and milk containers - as digging equipment. This is because the one thing you can count on with children is immaturity.

mathanxiety · 27/07/2013 11:28

Tabularasa, I have never implied that lack of access to support for children with SNs is true only for a minority.

I used the phrase MAY HAVE deliberately, and it did not indicate in any way, shape or form the level or amount, quality or quantity of support available to anyone.

mathanxiety · 27/07/2013 11:29

So kindly stop reading what was never there.

Swipe left for the next trending thread