I’m not really following why the child’s behaviour towards the dog is relevant here (or any child’s behaviour towards any dog), given that we’re talking about potential life altering injuries (or worse). See my comment above re plastic surgeon family member .
Children quite regularly do things like poke dogs up the nose with sticks, or yank on ears etc and hurt them - inadvertently or otherwise. You can’t reason with a toddler - they have no concept of the dog being a danger to them. When the dog gives the child a gentle swipe/scratch across the face to make the annoyance stop, and blinds them in one eye, do the parents say the child had it coming? Or if it bites for the stick that the child is holding, aiming only for the stick but accidentally taking off three fingers instead - what then? “Accidents happen - DD will know better next time”?
These are all real situations with real dogs where the guilt-ridden parents said things like “he’s just never done anything like this before.”
I’m not directing this at OP, who has enough to think through at the moment, but some of the other comments are alarming.
Isn’t the truth that most dog owners with children accept that there is a risk that their dog could seriously injure their child, but choose to accept that risk on the basis that they believe it is a remote risk that is outweighed by the joy the dog brings to the family?
If that’s the case, fine. My risk / reward balance tips another way, but perhaps none of us are in the wrong.
But focusing on the behaviour leading up to the near miss is a very odd and akin to victim blaming. If I had a teenage daughter who was killed in a fit of rage by the boyfriend I had welcomed into my home and treated as a member of the family, the first words out of my mouth wouldn’t be “well I don’t know now... was she winding him up before he killed her?”.