Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To object to my MIL rehoming a Rottweiler?

63 replies

Momdeguerre · 04/07/2009 23:47

So, DS is 11 months. DH and I work full time, weird shifts as both bobbies but we manage most of our chidcare between us. Rarely we have to ask for help from our very supportive family.

We looked at nursery care but MIL in particular was vociferous that she did not want 'strangers' looking after her grandchild. So, as a result, occasionally she does childcare for us.

This week they decided to re-home a 3 year old Rottweiler from a rescue centre. Dog has been badly abised in the past and was identified as being unsuitable for being re-homed with children. MIL and FIL are fit but slight 67 and 69 yr olds. They had a dog a few years ago which was lovely but indulged and badly controlled to the point that it attacked a cyclist one day as they were unable to restrain it.

I don't object to them re-homing a dog, totally their decision but I am no longer happy for DS to be cared for by them at their house while they have the dog. They swear it will always be kept in the kitchen but, from previous experience with their last dog, they show neither the ability or intention of managing to do this.

MIL and SIL both called me today to say I ABU. I disagree.

What do you think? Let me have it. . .

OP posts:
QuintessentialShadow · 05/07/2009 08:31

In the same way as the OP cant decide where this dog is, the ops inlaws cant decide where the ops child is.

The inlaws are not deciding on childcare for their grandchild. The parents are. And you cant pander to grandparents wishes when there is a dog that could pose a threat to the child. You dont put grandparents need above your childs need.

And somehow, I get the feeling that if they have chosen to rehome a dog that is not deemed suitable around children, they are not really THAT keen to look after the grandchild, iyswim.

StealthPolarBear · 05/07/2009 08:34

No I agree but the OP said she wanted a use a nursery and they didn't like the thought, saying she didn't want strangers looking after DGC.
Of course this may have changed when they realised how tiring it is

QuintessentialShadow · 05/07/2009 08:35

That is what I was thinking too!

HarryB · 05/07/2009 08:41

YA - definitely - NBU. So your IL's don't want trained "strangers" to care for their GC but will have him in the same house as a previously abused rescue dog that has been specifically classed as unsuitable for re-homing with children . In light of these facts, WTF are they thinking. I would take that angle if they get shitty.

I'd call some nurseries pronto too.

insertwittynicknameHERE · 05/07/2009 08:45

YANBU at all.

We have 2 dogs and one of them is a dog which DH and I rehomed years before we were even married let alone were thinking about DC lol. She is lovely though and just stays out of the way. We have one of those tall stair gates over the kitchen door and the back door stays open for both of the dogs to wander as they want. They are still never, ever left alone with DD (19mo) and never will be.

They are dogs plain and simple and can snap at any point no matter now nice they are. DH and I will not risk DD any injuries because we think the dogs are okay. They are old now so will only take so much anyway, I wouldn't subject DD to it and I wouldn't subject them to DD

Put your DS in a nursery you will never be able to be comfortable leaving him with your inlaws if you are not there.

What does your DH say??

junglist1 · 05/07/2009 09:07

I've got 2 staffie dogs, but we had them from puppies, I'm experienced with strong minded breeds but dogs that have been abused might be better off with a younger experienced owner without children around, Rottie or not. Their experiences might make them nervous, you can't predict how they'll react if accidently trodden on, for example. I don't agree with stereotyping any breed but some breeds do need firmer training, as they're more likely to push boundaries.

Longtalljosie · 05/07/2009 09:14

It sounds like your in-laws are rather used to getting their own way. They were told this wasn't a dog suitable to share a home with children.

Had they thought this through they would have realised there was a serious risk this would mean they would lose the opportunity to look after your DS. They obviously decided they weren't worried by the risk, and didn't consider that your opinion might be different. That's a risk they ran themselves, you didn't ask them to run it. They could have rescued a much smaller dog.

There is no way I would let my child be looked after by someone with an emotionally-damaged rottweiller. Stick to your guns, point out it was their decision, and also point out you're only taking the advice from the place that rehomed the dog - that it's not suitable to mix with children. And that is that.

suwoo · 05/07/2009 09:19

It might be difficult for the OP to get a nursery or childminder though if they both work weird shifts in the police force. Not many work like that do they where they take DC on different days at differeent times?

And IMO, in answer to your question. YANBU.

2rebecca · 05/07/2009 09:21

UANBU, they sound rubbish dog owners anyway. Small children and badly trained dogs are a dangerous mix, putting a small child with 2 rottweillers is just silly, cooping 2 dogs up in a kitchen all day is silly.
Leave them to their dogs and find a childminder or nursery. It they were that bothered about looking after your son they'd have discussed getting the dogs with you and husband before buying them.
Small children being should be wary of dogs, that's is a sensible instinct to have.

catless · 05/07/2009 09:32

Have they actually got the dog yet? If not, how can they be making any sort of assurances about how it will behave or their control of it?

They must have known you would react this way - perhaps it was a tactical move on their part?

Quattrocento · 05/07/2009 09:50

YANBU - don't let a child anywhere near an unsuitable dog - particularly that sort of dog.

Dawnybabe · 05/07/2009 09:56

Even the pedigree dogs bred by responsible owners are big strong dogs with an instinct to hold and not let go. This dog has history and is not suitable with children. Your PIL's are bonkers. And so is the rescue home that let two old slight people take such a massive, strong, risky dog. There is no way on gods earth I would let my baby anywhere near this dog. Obviously the PIL's can do what they like but this is a totally unsuitable situation. It's just not worth the risk. And quite honestly if they had any experience with dogs they wouldn't have got it. It will need a lot of training and time and effort just to undo whatever abuse it's suffered in the past. It might be a lovely dog, but then again, it might not. I'm sorry to rant but it pisses me off. And before anybody moans, I am the secretary of an obedience school and you wouldn't believe the amount of people that roll up with a completely unsuitable dog for their lifestyle and wonder why life is suddenly so difficult!

Morloth · 05/07/2009 10:00

YANBU, she can have whatever sort of dog she likes and you can decide what is a safe and suitable environment for you DS.

Actions have consequences and the consequence of her getting a big dog is that she doesn't get to child mind for you anymore. I hope you have other options!

Hold out on this one, you will not be able to focus at work when you are worrying about your baby.

WhereTheWildThingsWere · 05/07/2009 10:11

YABU to say they shouldn't have the dog, that is their choice.

YANBU to say you won't leave you dc at their house, or even take him there, unless the dog is locked in the garden, kitchen not good enough imo. If the dog has been classed as 'unsuitable with children' then that's what I would consider it to be, and they just shouldn't meet, accidents can happen in a flash and it is not worth the risk.

Mil will either have to come to your house, or ds will have to go elsewhere.

HerBeatitudeLittleBella · 05/07/2009 10:11

Christ these unreasonable dog-owners can fuck off.

As if you're going to risk the safety of your 11 month old.

What wankers. YA so NBU, they are mentalists. I wouldn't let her look after my DC at my home actually, in case she decided to take her home to have a lovely lunch with Rottie....

Grandhighpoohba · 05/07/2009 10:18

YANBU, your PIL's clearly dont see the risk that their dog presents to your dc. I dont see how you cant trust them to keep the dog away from your dc since they seem to think its safe. Sounds like the "dog will be in the kitchen" line is just to pacify you - You said earlier that they said that your dc will end up scared of dogs if you dont let him round - implies that they will let the dog near dc, no?

Bottom line is, if they dont understand the risk, they can't protect dc from it.

differentID · 05/07/2009 10:34

Most definitely not being unreasonable.

Goblinchild · 05/07/2009 10:40

YANBU
Remember Archie-Lee?
The dog that killed him was owned by his grandparents had no history of aggression and was kept in the yard.
No need to feel any guilt either, your parents-in-law have made a choice.
A poor one IMO.

StealthPolarBear · 05/07/2009 10:56

Interesting that there is a post from someone who has had staffordshire bull terriers here agreeing YANBU - there's not even the usual divide over people who own dogs most consider 'dangerous' (sorry junglist, not insultng your dogs as I do think having them from puppies and being experienced dog owners is very different) and and people who don't. Maybe it's worth contacting the rescue place yourself and asking, and then sharing the response with your PILs. In the tiny chance they say it's fine, which I can't imagine they will, you don't have to tell your PILs you've done it. Not to help you make your decision, as I hope it's made, just to back you up with a source they will hopefully feel is authoritative.

AttilaTheMeerkat · 05/07/2009 11:18

MIL would say you are being unreasonable!. Sod both her and her stupid SIL who's in cahoots with this woman.

You should never though have backed down on MILs mad request re "strangers" looking after her grandchild. By doing so you gave her some leverage. I would also agree with a previous assertion made that they are used to getting their own way.

This dog will be going to a home in which there are no children but methinks they failed to mention that they look after your 11 month old on occasion.

Your ILs could not train and control their previous dog properly so what makes them think they'll do any better this time around with a previously abused rescue rottweiler!. Their previous dog became uncontrollable because they indulged it to believe it was top within that household. Bet you they never went to dog obediance classes - and won't do so this time either. Their new dog will have the run of the house in no time at all and will be top dog. It will see your DS as a threat on his territory and will thus likely attack him if not them. These people are clearly unsuitable to have any sort of dog at all to look after. Would not trust them to look after a goldfish actually.

Would be finding alternative childcare for DS as a matter of course. Your child's overall welfare and safety is far more important than their perceived hurt feelings.

AttilaTheMeerkat · 05/07/2009 11:19

BTW what does your H think?. He must have an opinion.

Qally · 05/07/2009 12:05

I'd think you were being unreasonable if you DID let your baby be cared for in a house where the owners of a dog didn't control it properly. The fact it's a Rottweiler with a difficult past and the rescue centre specifically advised against kids in the house with this specific dog makes that the case in spades. I adore dogs, have one myself, but no, YANBU at all. You're just being a decent parent.

posiedullardparker · 05/07/2009 12:08

I agree YANBU at all, not in the slightest!

CarGirl · 05/07/2009 12:10

I adore dogs including rotties but under the circumstance of them, their previous ownership responsibilities and the current dog with relevant background.

YANBU!!!!! I think your PIL are mad

Original poster
Momdeguerre · 05/07/2009 17:22

Thanks all. To answer some of the qs - DH is supportive and constructive. He also agrees that we are not happy with DS being there with the dog.

ILs are very nice - SIL is happy for her two small boys to be wil MIL which is why she feels I ABU. Their assessment of the dog is based on having met it. Dog is very calm - in my opinion withdrawn and refuses to make eye contact.

The home stated very clearly that the dog had been victim of abuse and requires ongoing physio as a result of extensive injury. They took the dog in two weeks ago. FIL has always loved the breed which is why they chose the dog - they acknowledge that shelter stated unsuitable for around children but felt that this was not an issue as their DGC do not live with them.

I have wondered if they were finding childcare too much but we are actually a very close family and I am certain they would have said. We try very hard to undertake every bit of childcare we can ourselves so, while they see him often, they don't often have to look after him.

I have told MIL and SIL that I am concerned about the dog. They think I am overreacting - specifically because of my line of work in which I see regular an d sometimes fatal dog attacks. They suggest that I am attempting to restrict their access to DS which really upsets me as, despite the fact that we both work full time, we still try very hard to make sure they see DS frequently and ask them to dinner etc often.

OP posts: