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.

Dog’s Trust are absolutely not rehoming ANY XL Bullies to anyone with children and RSPCA aren’t either.

Maybe someone with a small self appointed “rescue “ group will rehome to anyone-
but the reputable ones aren’t.

Can you not have visitation updated. Ie stipulations regarding the dog being around the child.

I’m sorry but this is just factually incorrect, depending on how you are going to define “children”.

RSPCA Exeter had an XL Bully for rehoming advertised as “dogs okay, children 12+, no cats”- so families could absolute apply for this dog and were encouraged to by that advert.

My local RSPCA also had an XL Bully 9 months old for rehoming, advertised as “dogs okay, children 10+, cats not tested”.

Of course lots of those in shelters would not have been suitable to be rehomed with children, but that’s actually not specific to XL Bully’s that is the case with a lot of rescue dogs simply because the rescue centre does not really know their past/any trauma and for obvious reasons they do not temperament test dogs on children before rehoming x

They didn’t rehome any. They took the destroy approach. Which I actually support but it’s incorrect to say they differentiated based on children in the home.

@Jade1989x

Here OP another useful link for you that demonstrates that SS does in fact take dangerous dogs seriously from a child safeguarding perspective, irrespective of what one specific poster is trying to deny.

https://doncasterscb.proceduresonline.com/pdangerouss_dogs.html

As another poster has already commented, keep copies of communications with your ex and stress the following:

• you are not trying to stop contact. You are trying to ensure safe contact. Give alternate options for meeting your child.
• specifically ask what plans he has to keep her safe. Not answering this will not be a good look if it goes to court.
• don't let him rile you. Stay factual.

I'm glad you've contacted CA and would definitely see a solicitor. I'd also make an enquiry to children's social services.

Don't worry about parental alienation (again posted by a certain poster) if you stop contact as long as you can demonstrate through communication that you have actively sought to maintain contact through different options and requested information from him (that has not been forthcoming) about safety/training etc.

It is also important to note that NONE of those charities support the ban or the current dangerous dogs act.

I did not say they don’t take it seriously. I said this doesn’t mean the threshold. Not the same thing. At all.

There is no provision in law that you can withhold contact as long as you document requirements. There is provision in law to get a court order if you want restricted access.

fortunately the OP is taking a sensible approach and not the nonsense advice of people like yourself.

Of course they don’t.

The RSPCA’s entire ethos is to, “by all lawful means, prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering of animals”.

They could never, would never, and will never support a blanket ban on a breed the requirements of which mean that hundreds if not thousands of healthy, young dogs, lots of which have done no wrong, will be euthanised. They did everything in their power to ensure that all of the happy, healthy dogs they had in their possession were rehomed appropriately in time, that saved the lives of these dogs.

That isn’t the reason they don’t support the current ban. They also ceased to rehome as soon as the ban was announced, they haven’t continued to rehome until the cut off.

Also not true.

RSPCA Isle of White were still trying to find a home for an XL on 23rd December.

RSPCA Birmingham were still trying to find a home for one on 12th December.

RSPCA Leeds & Wakefield still trying to rehome on 16th December.

Just a few examples :)

Please go and do some research before blindly commenting complete lies and misinformation.

Here is a direct quote from the RSPCA website, so the rehoming until deadline is not a secret- “Until 31 December, we and other rehoming organisations continued rehoming XL Bully types. It is now illegal for us to rehome to members of the public.. This is a difficult time for our staff who have been caring for dogs who are likely to be affected.”

Thank you again for the advice I’m writing it all down as there’s such a lot to take in and think about on how I handle this situation going forward. Any other dog I’d be over the moon for my daughter it just baffles me to why anyone would take on this dog in the current situation and why they would want this dog around children 🤯

Link please.

I just looked up what a PP mentioned about the little girl killed by her dog and came across an article called 'Killing Kimbo' who is a dog Nico was related to. It's a shocking read.

No way would I let any child of mine near one of these dogs.

A really quick google search would have found this for you, but as you’d clearly rather spend your time inventing facts than checking them: https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/changingthelaw/bsl/xlbullies#:~:text=As%20of%2031st%20December%202023,ensuring%20they%20are%20humanely%20euthanised.

The exact quote in my previous reply is under the section: “What’s going to happen to all of the dogs in our care” ☺️☺️

Thank you for sharing but honestly it’s not something I cared enough to look up because it’s irrelevant. The fact remains it’s entirely legal to own the dog and have children.

Here is a direct quote from YOU: “They also ceased to rehome as soon as the ban was announced, they haven’t continued to rehome until the cut off.”

That is literally a complete and utter lie, as evidenced by that direct link to the RSPCA. If it’s irrelevant and you don’t care, it is a little bit strange that you’d make up lies about a situation without even bothering to check it.

Your opinions really lose any value when you demonstrate very clearly that you can’t be arsed to even fact check the complete lies you are posting online :)

Battersea wasn’t, indeed many weren’t. I was not lying, it was a mistake thinking that rspca were the same. A lie and a mistake are not the same thing.

The discussion was in the context of someone saying reputable charities were only rehoming to homes without children, which is not correct. I have seen no examples of this and it’s not in line with legislation.

Honestly, in the context of the thread, some of the stuff that’s been said what one charity did in the lead up to the ban wasn’t worth checking as far as I’m concerned as it has no actual impact on anything.

I am a dog person, have owned large, medium and small dogs. No way would I make her be around this dog. Let him take you to court and she can explain why she is not comfortable - at her age, they should be listening to her.

That’s also not true by the way (again a quick google search): “Until the end of December, Battersea have said they are continuing to rehome American Bully XL-type dogs following a full assessment and suitability check by their experts.” ☺️☺️

Perfect - thanks for clarifying, as said above it was a mistake and not one I cared enough to look into as it’s legislation that I rely upon. There is no requirement re children.

That’s two “mistakes”, both of which you stated with confidence, neither of which you bothered to fact check.

With all of the information being posted it is important that if you’re going to post something as a fact, you make sure it is in fact- factual :)

Again - I didn’t bother to check because I don’t care what individual charities are doing. I literally do not care.

The legislation and what is lawful is my concern and what matters on this thread.

It’s interesting that you’re revisiting this over and over whilst letting all the other incorrect statements slide. Or maybe it’s not at all.

These are animal charities; they're acting in what they perceive as the best interests of the dogs - not children. The OP is concerned about her child's welfare, not the dog. So whether the RSPCA supports the ban or not isn't 'important to note'. What is important is that legally these are considered dangerous dogs and a banned breed. So the OP is justified in raising concerns about her daughter regularly visiting a home where one of them lives.

I have never said she wasn’t justified in raising those concerns. I would have the same concerns.