To be really concerned about my in-laws dog biting my DD?

[MrsTargaeryan]

Good morning,
AIBU to be really angry in retrospect (it's really festering!) at the situation that arose this last weekend? It went like this: my DP and I, with our DD (2yo), went to stay for a night with his parents. They have a young dog, a few months old. It nips at everyone, which isn't great, but I can put up with that since it's only a puppy really. What really upset me was, the morning after we stayed over, I got up and went downstairs really early with my DD. No other adults were up, but of course the dog was. When I made my DD some toast to eat, she dropped it and the dog got it. I tried to get it back from the dog, but it just kept running off so I left it. I started washing up. Then I heard snarling and crying, turned around and the dog had obviously had a go at my DD when she had tried to get her toast back - she was crying and shrinking away from the dog, as you would expect after a fright like that, and there were clear bite marks on her arms that had drawn a small amount of blood.
AIBU to be so upset? I told my MIL about it when she got up, and she was sorry, but what I'm worried about is that this is going to be a long term problem - the dog seems to think it's above my DD in the pecking order and I don't really know how to rectify that. We visit maybe 3 times a year so I have no input in how the dog is trained. This is the first time I've seen the dog, and I get the strong impression that it's a sort of child-substitute. Has anyone else had a problem like this? Any ideas on how to handle it? Phew, sorry, that was a long winded post!

It's good that your dd doesn't sound too distressed op. Lesson learned by all I think.

Don't worry about your thread title, MrsT. It's not really misleading, and you explained in your op what the situation was.

I'm not a dog owner, either, and can imagine the same thing happening to us, as I'm simply not used to them. Hope your dd is OK.

Owners are 100% not at blame. Don't even try that. I hate this 'pass the buck' attitude. They were at the in-laws, not a random b&b with a dog roaming around. They chose to go there, knowing there was a puppy, so they supervise their child.

I'm afraid you are wrong PaulAnka - it doesn't matter whether you own a B&B or you have family to visit - your dog and it's behaviour is your responsibility both morally and legally. Owners can be prosecuted if they do nothing to stop their dogs attacking someone on their own property and if found guilty could face an unlimited fine and/or up to two years in jail.

If you’re not used to puppies, that must have been really alarming for you.

As you’ve asked for advice about what to do when the puppy has taken something you want back, with very young dogs you basically start out with a game of swap. When the puppy has something in its mouth that you want back, you hold something he wants to eat more next to his mouth and tell him to leave. He drops the object you want and you give him the higher value food and fuss him as if he’s just discovered nuclear fusion.

Once he’s got the hang of it and associates the word ‘leave’ with dropping what in his mouth, you move back a bit, just a few feet so he can still see the treat.

Then you move on to only giving him the treat most of the time, then only some of the time.

Depending on the breed, this could take an hour or it could take weeks but once he’s learned he will always respond to your ‘leave’ command, which will be really handy when he gets interested in shoes.

Crabbitface it's a pup for goodness sake. The op knew there was a puppy in the house. She made a mistake and acknowledged it. Not once did she blame her in-laws. I doubt she wants anyone else to.

Would echo what silentlyscream says too. If you want something it's safer to offer a swap at least initially. Our dog will give up anything for a morsel of ham or cheese or sausage (he got wise and upped the stakes from a piece of his kibble though)
Glad dd is ok.

PaulAnka My post was in response to the many suggesting the OP was soley responsible. She wasn't. She is responsible for her child, her in-laws for their dog. I was merely stating that in their position I would have gotten up to keep an eye on my untrained puppy, because I couldn't cope with the guilt if something more serious happened and my grandchild was harmed AND my baby dog was destroyed.

But given the daughter's age, she should have been supervised at all times (and was apart from op turning her back, not blaming her), why should the in-laws have to be with them every waking minute because op chose to visit, knowing they had just got a puppy. Why should they have to completely rearrange their lives to accommodate op and her daughter?

Eh..when I have visitors I do rearrange my life to accommodate them. And also because they have a puppy and it's their legal responsibility to ensure it behaves safely.

OP took the child into the dogs company and then failed to supervise her kid with the dog. The dog was perfectly fine and secured by the owner until op entered and brought her dd.
.Entirely her fault, but it must have been frightening.

IoraRua

According to the OP the dog "nips at everyone" - this is to be expected with puppies but it is not as you said "perfectly fine and secured". Knowing this, it should be expected that the owner supervises the dog. I am assuming that the In-Laws invited the OP and her family to stay and they did not just turn up - and so they should have made arrangements for the morning. Either to get up and supervise or keep the puppy in their room or a separate room. Luckily, no one was seriously hurt and the little one appears to have gotten over the incident to the extent that she was playing with the puppy later.

How many pages did it take for someone to mention

1. pack theory?
2. scarred for life?
3. PTS?

I've been out all day and just got back, so haven't read the thread yet, but they've all been mentioned haven't they?

OP, it's a pup, doing what puppies do. Encourage MIL to teach a good leave and give command. Kiko Pup on YouTube does video demonstrations of how to do this and supervise in future.

Dogs and children should never be left alone together for both of their sakes. I really wouldn't worry too much about this.

Perfectly fine and secured means dog was in the room, secure, not a danger when OP walked in. So yeah, I'm pretty happy with what I said and the arrangements the inlaws made.

If you don't want the pup and kid interacting (and they shouldn't unless there's supervision), OP should have moved the dog to a different room. I disagree that it is inlaws fault.

OP, it's quite possible the pup tried to snatch the toast back and caught your DD by mistake. Puppies are fuckers for snatching, and often clumsy with it. If he/she still has puppy teeth they're like needles, so it wouldn't have taken much pressure to draw blood. Unfortunately it does take time for pups to learn good manners, and what the humans in their lives find acceptable. 4/5 months is still quite young, but it's also best to have decent bite inhibition, leave and drop commands sorted ASAP- along with 'here' and 'wait/stop' they're the most important commands for keeping dogs and people safe IMO.

Might be worth a gentle nudge to the inlaws to ask for some advice from their trainer if they're struggling to curb the pups mouthing and nipping in general?

With regards the pup's first reaction when you tried to take the toast yourself (and I think it's very thoughtful of you to worry that the toast would be bad for it) it's a play beheviour. The very best game in the world for a pup is to have something that other dogs or people want, and make them chase you around and around and around for it. It can be toast, a sock, your bra (especially if there are visitors) or even a sodding bit of paper. Doesn't matter. The minute you want it back it's a highly valued prize and nothing will do but looping around the furniture to bloody Benny Hill music. The easiest thing to do if you don't fancy a frustrating work out, is to grab something else and make out like it's the most amazing thing you've ever seen ever in the history of ever. It helps if the amazing object is edible and smells really good.

Try not to stress or fester too much. You turned your back for a minute. You're not likely to do it again. If it wasn't the puppy it could have been a boiling pan, kettle, fire or stove etc., etc., Accidents happen.

IoraRua
I didn't say it was their fault - I said it is their responsibility to keep visitors free from harm from their dog. But ultimately it doesn't matter what you or I think - the law states that it is their responsibility.

So should they wake early to guard the kitchen door, then follow dil everywhere?

Ridiculous.

I would be upset too but dogs are very possessive of food and your DD tried to take it! You have to teacj youe DD to not antagonise the dog, never go near him when he has food... And never to take his food!

Think you are being deliberately obtuse. How difficult would it have been to keep the dog in her room or in a non-public room and let the OP know not to go in that room because she wouldn't want the pup to get out and cause mischief. It seems to fairly common knowledge amongst PPs that puppies can have issues regarding food and guarding it so perhaps keeping the dog in the kitchen, knowing that the OP would need access to make breakfast, get milk etc was not particularly sensible. It's really not ridiculous to be considerate when you have a dog and visitors in the same space.

For! Can't believe this thread.

If this isn't enough to put people off posting an aibu, I don't know what will.

Thanks for the empathy op and kerala(?) . Both times were horrible. Thankfully my daughter only bears a tiny scar at the corner of Her eye . My son on the other hand was in theatre on new years eve. The poor surgeon must have been cursing us.

They took a skin graft from his thigh to seal the hole in his leg. He was on crutches for weeks and off school for a term.

The dog was destroyed. Thank god it hadn't attacked a baby/ toddler.

Crabbitface the ILs did keep the dog away from the visitors, the visitors chose to go into the area where the pup was without asking/warning the owners..

The OP has taken onboard people!s comments. It was lucky that there wasn't a more serious incident. It will mean that everyone has to be more on their toes while toddler and puppy grow up and learn how to behave around each other. But once they have they will most likely adore each other and have lots of fun.

Glad that it wasn't too serious OP.

Not deliberately obtuse. Genuinely wondering what exactly you would recommend? Because clearly the mother supervising her daughter isn't good enough in your eyes.

Both, pup and toddler, behaved entirely as one would expect them to behave with entirely predicable outcome IMO.

I'm glad your DD is ok.
What you experienced is why I could not contemplate having your DCs and a dog at the same time (and we adopted a rescue greyhound this year when DS4 was 5yo - so far, so good).

You need to keep the two separated - supervision is NOT enough: dogs AND toddlers are too fast for a benignly watching adult to intervene if one decides to snap or the other to pull ears for instance.
Well socialised puppies will learn good bite-inhibition and will display lots of (sometimes subtle) signs of stress or distress well before they bite or snap.

I would suggest you look up some stuff about 'dog aggression', 'bite inhibition' and 'children and dogs' - there is some really good YouTube stuff on how to introduce children to dogs, how children should ask the dogs permission to approach, what to do if a dog gets too much in their face etc etc. While your DD is a toddler though, it is up to you to keep her safe. And up to your in-laws to reinforce good behaviour and make a real effort to socialise him.

Genuinely wondering what exactly you would recommend

I've already suggested that they could have kept the puppy in a less-used room or their own bedroom over night and until they get up, whereupon they supervise their dog.

Because clearly the mother supervising her daughter isn't good enough in your eyes.

Like I said earlier - It doesn't really matter what is "good enough in my eyes" - I'm stating a fact. If the puppy injured the child more seriously in THE EYES OF THE LAW, the sleeping ILs would be held responsible.

That's all completely irrelevant. You are talking about a dangerous attack. The op is talking about a puppy nipping a kid. In this instance, where there was no actual incident, the inlaws did nothing wrong.

It's really not irrelevant just because it didn't happen this time. No one can predict what a puppy will do and it is not unheard of for puppies to kill babies - if the puppy was close enough to draw blood it was a dangerous situation.

Your logic is deeply flawed - from what you are saying it is ok to do something neglectful, thoughtless or potentially dangerous as long as no one is hurt?? It is only when someone is hurt or killed that the action itself is wrong?