To not understand what this parent was thinking?

[Frequency]

While out with my rottweiler x this afternoon, I noticed he was panting more than I was comfortable with, so I abandoned our walk and took a detour to the nearest shop to buy him a bottle of water.

I crouched down at the edge of a very wide path to give him a drink. I wasn't paying attention to what was around me because I was watching the dog, and no one had any reason to be near us anyway. The pavement is about 8 feet wide on that street, if not wider. We were right at the edge, by the shop window.

The second I stood up, there was a toddler, eye-to-eye with my dog. He must have run up behind me while I was kneeling. He was literally nose to nose with the dog, reaching his hands out to grab/stroke the dog's face.

My dog is friendly but a little wary of small children, so I tend to keep him away from them.

Luckily, DD was with me and had spotted the kid and managed to hold his hands before he grabbed the dog's face and loudly told him, "Sorry, he's scared of kids, and he's just trying to have a drink, can you leave him alone, please?" She had to say it loudly because his mum and her friend had continued walking and were now a good 10 feet away from us. At this point, the mother then shouted at her other small child (around 7 or 8) to "get the baby," so the dog now had 2 kids to contend with while the mother kept walking away, ranting about how the young girl was supposed to be "watching the baby."

DD has anxiety and was really shaken by it, and can't stop thinking about how much worse it could have been if our dog were not friendly, or if the kid had managed to grab the dog's face and spooked/hurt him.

I still just cannot fathom what the mother was thinking, allowing her toddler to run up to a strange dog who was obviously eating/drinking, get nose to nose with him to try to grab him, and then send a second child over after she's made aware he is not a friendly dog?

Surely it is common sense to know that nose-to-nose with a strange, large breed dog, who is eating/drinking, is not a safe place to be, no matter how friendly the dog is?

OP I'm not sure I'd continue to feed some of these posters if I were you. They either can't or don't want to see sense.

I’d like to think that if someone had a dog that they knew could bite a young child they would have that dog muzzled or only take them to areas where the likelihood of encountering young kids would be minimal to none.

It is certainly easier to ignore uncomfortable facts that place you in the wrong, so I see why you're advising this, it's human nature.

It's especially difficult when you thought you were right, but have been shown quite publicly that's not the case. So OP does have my sympathies there.

The law isn't that stupid, that you could shove your fingers into the mouth of a dog and might get bit while it is wearing a muzzle, is not a "reasonable" apprehension it will injure someone.

Reasonable is a known and applicable concept in law.

That a child, that can be gone in an instant and doing child things as a very normal event in life, being around and close to the dog doing that normal thing is a concern and can cause aggression is a reasonable apprehension. Anyone she let's know the truth about the dog, would be concerned about it harming someone, regardless of of it does when out and about.

You must have read a different thread to me, as the level of apprehension I’ve seen the OP have is similar to that I have about my muzzled dog biting someone who touches their mouth - it’s remote, but possible and I take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen and assume the broader public will also take sensible precautions.

The OP has not talked about having any reasonable apprehension that would meet the bar set out in law, she only talks about her anxious daughter being worried, and the definition of reasonable apprehension wouldn’t be set at the level of someone who has mental health issues related to being overly apprehensive.

Correction.
The parent wasn't paying attention and allowed their child to get nose to nose with a dog. It doesn't matter if the dog is wary or the best behaved, most placid dog in the world. A responsible parent does not let their child get in the face of ANY dog, of known temperament or not.
OP was watching her dog. It clearly didn't react or behave poorly or OP would have seen it as she was focused on the dog.
The parent should have been watching her child instead of outsourcing that to a slightly older one and OP.

Nobody was paying adequate attention it seems.

The parent should not have allowed the child to approach the dog. Obviously.

OP should not have allowed her dog to become potentially distressed by allowing an unsupervised child to approach so close. She and her daughter could have blocked the child’s approach a bit earlier and/or led the dog away before the child was in his face.

The difference being the child isn't capable of instantly ripping the dogs neck apart, killing the dog in a minute or two.

Same reason why everyone should be aware of roads, but those with the car are much more responsible given the soggy bag of water and bacteria isn't likely to kill the person in the tons of metal travelling at speed.

OP was not paying attention to her surroundings. That's fact, otherwise the child would have gotten nowhere near.

I know she wants to blame the parent, I know you do too - and no one has said there's not blame there. But there is ALSO blame for OP, and trying to make out that she has zero responsibility here is willful fabrication.

the level of apprehension I’ve seen the OP have is similar to that I have about my muzzled dog biting someone who touches their mouth

Except your dog is muzzled and as such you have taken more precautions than OP. So... not similar at all.

The OP has not talked about having any reasonable apprehension that would meet the bar set out in law

The bar in law is set extremely low in these cases - and almost always sides against the owner, with whom it strictly places responsibility. She has admitted she wasn't paying attention, and she has admitted her dog is wary of children and as such she takes precautions around them. That is enough to acknowledge she is aware of a temperament issue, and that is enough for reasonable apprehension.

While the toddler's lack of supervision is a factor, UK law consistently holds that the ultimate responsibility for a dog's actions lies with the keeper who failed to prevent the interaction.

OP is trying to deflect her responsibility for what happened which unfortunately, the law says she cannot wave away.

Total twaddle!

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?"

@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.

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!

Needs muzzling

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The law is not as blunt as you think it is; many factors are taken into consideration when apportioning blame, including the dog's prior history of aggression and previous incidents of mismanagement (none), whether the interaction was invited by the dog's owner, or whether the victim chose to place themselves in the dog's way and the location e.g whether it would be reasonable to expect to find the victim in the location. I don't think there is a reasonable expectation of finding a small, undersupervised child by the side of a busy A road, hence why I was not watching for loose dogs or children. Had we been in a park, I would have been.

Regardless, this is irrelevant to my OP. My dog did not bite nor was he dangerously out of control; he has never given me any cause for concern around aggression, and I do not have any concerns about my ability to control him, physically and verbally, when needed. Should this ever change, I will adapt the way I manage him in response.

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