Xl bully- advice am I being unreasonable?!

[Jade1989x]

My daughters dad has just gone and got an xl bully puppy on 31st dec, we are split so my daughter goes to her dads every other weekend. I need peoples advice, in my opinion it is really irresponsible and stupid that he’s gone and got this dog with it now being classed as a dangerous dog and banned breed. I’m now put in a situation where I’m not happy for my daughter to be around this dog yet obviously I still want her to have contact with her dad. I’ve shared my concerns with her dad but don’t really feel like I’ve got anywhere with him just gives me shitty answers back.
As her mother I’m well within my rights to raise any concerns with him about the safety of my child.
if you was in my situation what would you do? This is so stressful and causing me anxiety, my daughter is 11 but she is an anxious girl and not very confident around animals. She understands my concerns but I feel like as her mom I need to stand by my concerns. I just don’t know where I stand with this or what direction to go in.
please be kind, as I know this is a sensitive subject but I need advice.

OP first of all I think given it's a puppy there is limited immediate ie today danger. An XL puppy could give a nasty bite but wouldn't kill.
So you have time to sort this out properly. And it does need sorting out.

You can't make your ex get rid of the puppy but you can make sure your daughter is safe and I suggest this is all put in writing so you can limit the name calling and also potential for misunderstanding.

I think a PP came up with some suggestions and you can show that you support contact in the following circumstances

• dog is registered etc as per law
• dog is muzzled indoors when child is there
• child is not left alone with dog

That sort of thing. You may want to get clarity from your daughter how she feels about it. Is she scared ? Is she feeding off your worry or genuinely worried herself.

I'd recommend getting some professional advice/support rather than trying to do it yourself so either a mediator or solicitor. This way then if he doesn't stick to agreement then it's clear that he loses contact

There are so many people saying “Any dog can turn on you, can bite if provoked.”

It’s like the road safety advert, where in an accident at 40mph 80% of children die, whereas at 30mph 80% of children live. This doesn’t mean that everyone who drives at these speeds is going to injure/kill a child. (Obvs)
It’s the same with these dogs; not all dogs will bite, but IF they do then there’s a much higher chance of mortality if it’s a Bully rather than a Labrador or Jack Russel (or another family-type pet).

I can tell you with first hand experience within family law that the court will absolutely 100% support the mum in keeping her child safe, even if the dog hadn’t attacked.

I took custody of my daughter and prevented her father from having any contact due to his home environment being unsafe. I had no absolute proof, court still sided with me. Her dad has to come to us to spend time with Dd as he could not protect her.

I don’t think you know as much as you think you know, and op should probably ignore your ‘advice’

This is a good post but the problem with people like the OP's ex is that they just do what they want. She could give him a list of rules and he'd probably tell her to stick them up her arse, not because it's wrong but because he doesn't like being dictated to. The ego on people like this is ridiculous, ignoring common sense and putting their kids in danger just because they don't want to feel like they're being told what to do. It's a very hard situation op and I feel for you, I would hate this.

And no social services wouldn’t assess when nothing has actually happened and the majority of these dogs do actually live as happy well adjusted family dogs.

@annevalentine This isn't correct. Safeguarding does not just cover situations where a child or adult has been harmed. It covers risk of harm also.

If the OP raises a safeguarding concern with children's social services the fact the dog has not attacked anyone yet is not relevant.

SS would need to assess the risk to her child.

What the outcome of that assessment would be can't be predicted given I would assume lots of factors would need to be considered
(such as where the dog could be contained when the DD visited). But I think it's fair to say that bringing such a dog into the home with a young child without some serious risk mitigation is not going to be considered appropriate.

You also seem to misunderstand the issue where families already own these dogs and equate that to the OP being unable to do anything about it.

Where parents have made (the stupid) choice to own such a dog they are in agreement about it. Neither is going to look to SS or the court.

In this case the OP is not in agreement and is perfectly entitled to raise a safeguarding concern - which is precisely what I would do in this situation.

The age of the child is also relevant. At the age of 11 she is able to articulate that she does not want to spend time with her father if he has this dog. Given the dog in question if this went to court I think you'd find this was a perfectly reasonable position to take.

The mother and child do not want to stop contact with the father. They want to stop contact with the dog.

Ergo it's the father undermining access and not the OP or her daughter.

Also I think these dogs are a bit stupid so the threshold of why would they just freak out and start biting is lower

The dog is still a puppy. It’s therefore unlikely to be dangerous right now / currently.
you still have time to decide how to deal with this.

I would go to a family law solicitor and carefully consider your options.

I meant it’s illegal to sell, not buy. It has left out buy.

They are not going to set the precedent of social services going into every home that owns an XL.

Your circumstances are irrelevant and not ones I can comment on as I don’t know them.

If the OP's EXH cannot provide written proof (we all know he won't don't we?)that he has a young child in his home on the paperwork surely this is enough to show and demonstrate the inevitable risk and his woeful lack of judgement?

There is no way a dog like this would be lawfully rehomed to a household with young children residing/having contact time there.

Social services will not risk assess this based on the information provided here.

Courts as I’ve already explained base decisions on law - the law is clear. There is no restriction on owning the dog in a family home. They have to rely on law. The only way to restrict access would be to evidence that this dog is dangerous beyond what’s in law, he’s a puppy. You can’t do that.

There are a series of comments now that are missing:

1. mum doesn’t want to stop access.
2. courts rule based on law. If he is adhering to the law there is no statute that would prevent access.

This. All day long. And his again.

They are not going to set the precedent of social services going into every home that owns an XL.

No such precedent is being set.

They would only assess where a safeguarding issue had been raised - which the OP is within her rights to do.

Until 31 December they were legally being rehome, on mass, into homes with children.

I work with social services all the time, this isn’t even close to meeting threshold.

100% this.

As long as he is adhering to the law there is nothing to prevent and OP would be in the wrong legally to stop access

But this is precisely my point. *Up until the 31st December". He took the dog in on 31s December, under an entirely new set of legal requirements?
Op is now entitled (& wise) to raise concerns and reframe contact arrangements with her child and EXH. Her EXH has made changes pertinent to her child's safety as has been perpetually reported in thee news. Let him take her to court Or accept his cognac arrangements will be changed.

He is hopefully prepared for the sausage dog to be the XL’s snack at some point in the future.

The law is not that they are no longer allowed to be in homes with children.

She cannot legally prevent him seeing his child. She would need to go to court to establish that. If she did this the court would hold that against him and ironically he would have grounds to contact social services. Although still wouldn’t meet threshold.

Is that the dog that was suspected to have been injected with steroids by the owners (unable to confirm this) and they didn't cooperate with the investigation into how it happened? And they lived in a tiny apartment?

Jesus, how old is he? 12?

Everyone repeats this story but never been actually sourced.

@AnneValentine

she has every right to prevent 'access' if it places her DD in danger.

He could take her to court, 'winning visitation' They won't make an 11 year old (and by the time it gets to court she's likely to be 12) stay overnight in a house with an XL bully.

@Jade1989x I might let her visit for a few weeks, if she wants to, it might be better for her to meet it than be told no & try to sneakily meet it. But I'd tell ex twat, that it's a few visits then she won't be staying anymore, he's welcome to take her out for the day, out for dinner in the week or whatever, but NEVER with the dog. It's just too risky & if he argues, tell him you're happy to send the police around for a chat!

very few people acquiring one on the 31st will be responsible owners.

Try Google, its pretty good for stuff like this.

https://webapps.stoke.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/RiskoffDogBitessApril_2018.pdf

OP this is helpful.

You need to look at section 4 and specifically the last bullet point re: SS referral where parents are exposing a child to or failing to protect a child from a dangerous dog.