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?

If you can find any case law to prove your opinion, feel free to share it.

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

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

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.

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.

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…

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.

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:

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

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.

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'm not responsible for the child. His parent is. I am responsible for my dog, who was under my control the whole time.

Maybe, if the child repeats this with a non-friendly dog, the mother might be able to take some comfort in it "not being her fault". I doubt it, though. I would think she'd wish she'd held his hand and, you know, actually parented him instead of palming him off on her other child.

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

So you don’t blame the parent at all? It’s fine to just let.a toddler run around unsupervised by the adult who is meant to be looking after them?

OP’s dog was under control. The fault is with whoever let the toddler be out of control.

@AlcoholicAntibiotic It’s been said repeatedly the mother was negligent for not supervising her child, no one is disputing that. The point the poster isn’t understanding (Accepting) is that she is responsible for her dog legally in the event that it acted upon its “Wary” and timid of children nature regardless of that the parent allowed the child to approach the dog. She believes the dog hasn’t shown any aggressive behaviours or any indication that it could become aggressive, but it has actually shown her that it has an aversion to children and displays behaviours such as leaning in towards her which suggests the dog is very uncomfortable around kids. A dog that feels uncomfortable and unsure is a dog that feels threatened. She can’t possibly say, which she has agreed with previously, that a dog, any dog and more so a dog who feels threatened would never act on those feelings out of instinct and attack. As pointed out already, it would be reasonable to take the dog into a large open field where the likelihood of a small toddler/ child appearing out of nowhere and then appearing inches from the dogs face or rather nose to nose with the dog is unlikely. When she’s out in public and outside a shop, it’s not unreasonable to anticipate a small child appearing from nowhere and as much as you believe it’s the adult supervising that child to keep it away from the dog and out of harms way, she is actually the one responsible for preventing any likely or unlikely event of attack from happening. Her dog has shown her that it is uncomfortable around children and yet she is so dead set on this belief that she doesn’t have to take preventative actions because the dog hasn’t shown any aggression. The focus here is preventative, the dog shouldn’t have to bare teeth, raise hackles or snarl for her to accept there is a problem and she needs to take accountability and muzzle it. That is being negligent to allow it to go that far when her dog has shown her already it isn’t keen/ doesn’t like/ is uncomfortable/ is wary of children. Coming back to the horses comparison, not all horses like children particularly because they appear suddenly and run around the back of their legs and this heightens the horses sense of danger and makes them feel threatened. Therefore it is the owners responsibility to make sure no child is able to be put in a situation where it could get kicked in the head. We used to take our horses around housing estates and generally out in public on the main roads driving them in the carts, one of them had never kicked or bitten anybody but he would become uncomfortable with children running around him so we never allowed any child to go near him regardless of who’s child it was or who was watching it. If we were stood in public and a toddler appeared from nowhere and was suddenly behind his back legs and he kicked that toddler in the head it would be my fault not the parents or adult supervising because I am the one who has put that child essentially in that situation by putting the horse in a public space and not being aware of my surroundings therefore I would be negligent and liable.

It’s really no bloody different. People especially in the countryside drive their horses in carts and then pull up outside pubs. It’s the owners responsibility to make sure that horse doesn’t kick anybody even if the horse has never shown an aversion to people or dogs, but in the circumstance where you know the horse doesn’t like or doesn’t feel comfortable around dogs or kids you take extra precautions. You don’t just pull up and then suddenly a child is stood behind the horse about to grab its back legs and then say “Stupid parent should have kept their kid under control”. What you say to yourself is, shit that was a close call I need to have eyes in the back of my head as this has shown me that even when I believe I am responsible and have everything under control the reality is I always don’t. Your dog has shown you it isnt comfortable around children and you have shown that you cannot prevent a likely situation from occurring which is a child suddenly being in your dogs face, so do something about it. For a so called expert you really don’t know much. Maybe put the books down and step away from your “degree knowledge” where most of the stuff you are taught is from people with the same mindset as you and get into the real world. You really remind me of those people who go to riding schools and then believe they can ride a horse or believe they’re a horse person because they’ve been to college and done equine studies 🙄

To put in simpler terms:
Dog has tried to attack whilst in public- Muzzle it
Dog has never tried to attack but has displayed behaviours of feeling threatened by children- Muzzle it to prevent the above
Dog has never tried to attack or shown any behaviours that it is uncomfortable or threatened by children- No need to muzzle

Dog lives with children in the family home and has never tried to attack the children but it has shown behaviours that it is extremely uncomfortable around children and feels threatened- Get rid of dog as it isn’t suitable for a home with children.
Your response- But he hasn’t actually shown his teeth or raised his hackles at my children so he’s not aggressive. He’s only shown me that he just doesn’t like my kids so therefore I won’t be protecting my kids from a likely attack from happening and I will be keeping the dog

Your dog may be fine with your children but it isn’t fine with other peoples children so just muzzle it when you’re out in public where you’ll be in close proximity to children who can and will just appear in front of your dog with no warning. Take accountability.

My car has the petrol light on so I can either:
•Ignore the warning sign my car has no fuel and keep driving regardless and wait for it to cut out, although it might not because it hasn’t done before and I’m certain it won’t
•Acknowledge the warning symbol and go refuel my car so the above doesn’t happen despite how confident I am that it won’t but regardless I’m going to do it anyway because I’ve seen the warning sign

The parent was wrong, but even children of vigilante parents may occasionally appear - if you’re worried the dog is dangerous you absolutely must muzzle it. It’s you that will be arrested and your dog that will be destroyed.

Read the thread. Regardless of the parent's behaviour, the overwhelming responsibility lies with OP for failing to prevent this happening.

I haven't misunderstood. I'm saying OP was paying to her dog exactly as you wanted her to.

From what I can tell, OP used "I wasn't paying attention" as a turn of phrase and she knew enough about her surroundings to know the dog should have been comfortable in that environment, what sort of foot-traffic there was, how much space there was around her etc.

What you're suggesting is that OP should have been hyper aware of her surroundings and should have anticipated something incredibly unlikely. It's like saying to someone "And why exactly did you not see the goose that approached you from behind whilst you were in the veg aisle of Tesco? Were you not paying attention?"

But do you know what, it's still irrelevant. The OP neither asked for nor welcomes your opinion on her dog ownership. She's asked for opinions on the parenting that led to an unsupervised toddler approaching an unfamiliar dog.

I have read the thread. I disagree with you. OP had her dog under control. The parent didn’t have their child under control. Thankfully OP’s dog wasn’t aggressive so no child was actually harmed.

I didn't want her to be paying attention to her dog, I've never said that, the law doesn't say that - you have misunderstood. I said she should have been paying attention to her surroundings, not just her dog. She wasn't - the liability is hers.

OP asked for opinions on someone else's parenting because she allowed the situation to occur and she'd like to blame someone else. The child should never have got close to the dog - she allowed that to happen. The liability is hers.

You don't need to agree with me, this isn't my opinion. It's the reality of the situation, there is no argument to be had.

OP is responsible for any interactions with her dog, by anyone and anywhere. That's the law. She wasn't in control of the situation as she allowed a toddler to be face to face with her dog - that's the fault. How 'well' her dog reacted to it is completely irrelevant.

@AlcoholicAntibiotic OP takes her dog who is wary of and threatened by children out in public and was faced with a situation where a child, toddler to be exact “appeared” from nowhere and in the face of her dog who then displayed behaviours of being uncomfortable and therefore threatened. OP is lucky no child was harmed this time. OP is failing to recognise and act on her dogs warning signs. OP is putting children and her dog in danger. OP believes it is the responsibility of any adult supervising a child to keep it away from her dog even though she has admitted her dog leans in towards her when approached by children which even by definition of any canine “expert” is a dog who feels fear, anxiety and threat. OP refuses to muzzle her dog who displays these behaviours and believes in good faith that her dog won’t actually act on these feelings because he is incapable of acting on natural instinct, therefore OP is somewhat delusional.

Duplicate deletion

What you're suggesting is that OP should have been hyper aware of her surroundings and should have anticipated something incredibly unlikely. It's like saying to someone "And why exactly did you not see the goose that approached you from behind whilst you were in the veg aisle of Tesco? Were you not paying attention?"

@CremeEggsForBreakfast
The likelihood of meeting a child outside a shop really cannot be compared with the likelihood of finding a goose strolling around Tesco! 😂

@Rotundra You’re wasting your time. These people will never learn. Everytime there’s a dog attack people are quick to defend the dog and say it must have been abused or the owner “failed to read the signs beforehand because no dog will act without warning” and yet we have people here defending the poster who is failing to act on her dogs warning signs because once again it’s all about the dog. The dogs rights to walk without a muzzle, the dogs right to be out in public, the dogs right to freedom, all the while they just can’t accept that this particular dog lost its rights to walk freely unmuzzled in public when it gave its owner warning signs that there is a problem in hand which left unaddressed there is a likelihood the dog will act and attack a child.