Visiting family with dog who scratched my kid’s face twice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, not two different answers. The dog scratched/bit a child. A dog hurt a child and the parents have a right to avoid the dog.

Disagree. An accidental scratch and an intentional bite are two very different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could stay at a hotel, but it kind of sounds like you're looking for an excuse to get out of visiting them altogether.

Actually not at all, I’m pretty heartbroken that they are prioritizing the dog over us. Can’t/ won’t stay in a hotel bc we own the house in question and don’t have even more money to spend on a hotel.

How are they prioritizing the dog? Have you suggested something that they rejected?

And you own the house your parents and adult sibling live in? I think there's a lot more going on here than meets the eye.

THIS. The dog bites your child not once but twice (yes the dog bit your kid — trust your kid ) and the dog owner who lives rent free in the house you own is not only ok with that but insists the dog comes first? Dogs are amazing at carrying out their owners unspoken wishes. There is no way I would put my child in that position. Your child is very young and you have two? Unspoken message by your sibling.

The bold is the part where OP says she owns the house where her parents/sibling live.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of OP owning the house, she’s clearly consented to the dog living in this house. Which is her parents’ and sister’s home. They may not own it but it is their home. It is unfair of OP to allow a dog (if she’s acting in a landlord capacity) and then say well, here’s a surprise expense and condition. It sounds like OP owns the house in name only. Which doesn’t give her the right, in my opinion, to micromanage this situation.

I agree that OP is well within her right to not go to the house or stay there as it sounds like her child can’t act properly around dogs (yet). OP’s child is the intervening condition here though. The dog didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t act aggressively. It’s the dog’s home turf (again, assuming OP basically owns the home in name only). As OP, I would not expect special accommodations at the house for her family as one of her family members was the reason for the dog scratch.

I am not a crazy dog person, I just recognize that OP’s child can’t understand how to act around dogs and I don’t expect the world to bow down and accommodate my child in every situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of OP owning the house, she’s clearly consented to the dog living in this house. Which is her parents’ and sister’s home. They may not own it but it is their home. It is unfair of OP to allow a dog (if she’s acting in a landlord capacity) and then say well, here’s a surprise expense and condition. It sounds like OP owns the house in name only. Which doesn’t give her the right, in my opinion, to micromanage this situation.

I agree that OP is well within her right to not go to the house or stay there as it sounds like her child can’t act properly around dogs (yet). OP’s child is the intervening condition here though. The dog didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t act aggressively. It’s the dog’s home turf (again, assuming OP basically owns the home in name only). As OP, I would not expect special accommodations at the house for her family as one of her family members was the reason for the dog scratch.

I am not a crazy dog person, I just recognize that OP’s child can’t understand how to act around dogs and I don’t expect the world to bow down and accommodate my child in every situation.

Wow. It’s the dogs turf all right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could ask him to board the dog during your visit. My sister courteously did this when I visited her with young children even though her dog is gentle. We didn’t ask her to do it, she just decided on her own. He’s a big dog and she didn’t want anyone to be scared or for him to knock anyone over. Maybe ask him to board him and offer to split the cost?

Sounds like OP’s kid was at fault from her follow up so I absolutely do not think her sister should pay a cent toward this.

No, sorry but no. A kid touching a dog is does not mean the dog was fine. The dog was not fine. Dogs should not hurt kids and they absolutely know if they are biting, scratching, breaking the skin or not. I am a dog owner and have been for many years, and trained all of them. The dog should have left the situation or gone and stood beside their owner if they were irritated with what was happening, they should have done a warning growl when the child approached. This is the result of a dog that is trained well enough to be around little kids and it is the owners responsibility to keep a dog away if they are not well trained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of OP owning the house, she’s clearly consented to the dog living in this house. Which is her parents’ and sister’s home. They may not own it but it is their home. It is unfair of OP to allow a dog (if she’s acting in a landlord capacity) and then say well, here’s a surprise expense and condition. It sounds like OP owns the house in name only. Which doesn’t give her the right, in my opinion, to micromanage this situation.

I agree that OP is well within her right to not go to the house or stay there as it sounds like her child can’t act properly around dogs (yet). OP’s child is the intervening condition here though. The dog didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t act aggressively. It’s the dog’s home turf (again, assuming OP basically owns the home in name only). As OP, I would not expect special accommodations at the house for her family as one of her family members was the reason for the dog scratch.

I am not a crazy dog person, I just recognize that OP’s child can’t understand how to act around dogs and I don’t expect the world to bow down and accommodate my child in every situation.

“in name only” is the ownership that matters. OP absolutely has the right to micromanage situation. that might not be a nice thing to do in every circumstance but here it would be 100% justified. her parents/sibling can move out if they don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, not two different answers. The dog scratched/bit a child. A dog hurt a child and the parents have a right to avoid the dog.

Disagree. An accidental scratch and an intentional bite are two very different things.

Extremely different things. Also makes a difference if this is a scratch like the kid and dog were wrestling and accidentally got scratched or if the kid really was pushing the dog's buttons and didn't recognize when it was time to cool down. Everyone gets scratched up sometimes when you're playing rough with a dog - I am 45 years old and it sometimes happens, but it's not a big deal - but if your kid and the dog actually aren't safe with each other that's something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could ask him to board the dog during your visit. My sister courteously did this when I visited her with young children even though her dog is gentle. We didn’t ask her to do it, she just decided on her own. He’s a big dog and she didn’t want anyone to be scared or for him to knock anyone over. Maybe ask him to board him and offer to split the cost?

Sounds like OP’s kid was at fault from her follow up so I absolutely do not think her sister should pay a cent toward this.

No, sorry but no. A kid touching a dog is does not mean the dog was fine. The dog was not fine. Dogs should not hurt kids and they absolutely know if they are biting, scratching, breaking the skin or not. I am a dog owner and have been for many years, and trained all of them. The dog should have left the situation or gone and stood beside their owner if they were irritated with what was happening, they should have done a warning growl when the child approached. This is the result of a dog that is trained well enough to be around little kids and it is the owners responsibility to keep a dog away if they are not well trained.

It is absurd to think that you can do whatever you want to a dog and get no reaction. It's incumbent on human beings to not push dogs past where they are comfortable. And little kids should never, ever, ever be left alone with dogs. It's just not safe.

I say this as someone who works in animal welfare. It is setting up the dog *and the kid* for failure if you leave little kids alone with dogs. They must be supervised *at all times* - especially now that you know there is a concerning history.

[Anonymous]

OP your parents and sister are putting the dog over your child/children unless in conjunction with any discussion of a visit they’ve begun discussing how to manage the dog (NOT the child!!) I’d be hurt-period. Whether you they or none of you own the home the right thing to do is to protect the child. I would not risk my child’s safety moreover I would need a bit of time to digest my parents’/sibling’s priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of OP owning the house, she’s clearly consented to the dog living in this house. Which is her parents’ and sister’s home. They may not own it but it is their home. It is unfair of OP to allow a dog (if she’s acting in a landlord capacity) and then say well, here’s a surprise expense and condition. It sounds like OP owns the house in name only. Which doesn’t give her the right, in my opinion, to micromanage this situation.

I agree that OP is well within her right to not go to the house or stay there as it sounds like her child can’t act properly around dogs (yet). OP’s child is the intervening condition here though. The dog didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t act aggressively. It’s the dog’s home turf (again, assuming OP basically owns the home in name only). As OP, I would not expect special accommodations at the house for her family as one of her family members was the reason for the dog scratch.

I am not a crazy dog person, I just recognize that OP’s child can’t understand how to act around dogs and I don’t expect the world to bow down and accommodate my child in every situation.

+100000 Basically OP (and all you crazies chiming in after her) are saying "Yes, it is confirmed that my child cannot or will not behave around dogs so YOU must confine your dog because I refuse to discipline/intervene/control my child." The entitlement is staggering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of OP owning the house, she’s clearly consented to the dog living in this house. Which is her parents’ and sister’s home. They may not own it but it is their home. It is unfair of OP to allow a dog (if she’s acting in a landlord capacity) and then say well, here’s a surprise expense and condition. It sounds like OP owns the house in name only. Which doesn’t give her the right, in my opinion, to micromanage this situation.

I agree that OP is well within her right to not go to the house or stay there as it sounds like her child can’t act properly around dogs (yet). OP’s child is the intervening condition here though. The dog didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t act aggressively. It’s the dog’s home turf (again, assuming OP basically owns the home in name only). As OP, I would not expect special accommodations at the house for her family as one of her family members was the reason for the dog scratch.

I am not a crazy dog person, I just recognize that OP’s child can’t understand how to act around dogs and I don’t expect the world to bow down and accommodate my child in every situation.

+100000 Basically OP (and all you crazies chiming in after her) are saying "Yes, it is confirmed that my child cannot or will not behave around dogs so YOU must confine your dog because I refuse to discipline/intervene/control my child." The entitlement is staggering.

Entitlement?? What are you smoking? She’s the owner of the house they live in! So yeah, she’s entitled to visit with her kids to see her parents without the risk of an animal attack.

Holy moly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of OP owning the house, she’s clearly consented to the dog living in this house. Which is her parents’ and sister’s home. They may not own it but it is their home. It is unfair of OP to allow a dog (if she’s acting in a landlord capacity) and then say well, here’s a surprise expense and condition. It sounds like OP owns the house in name only. Which doesn’t give her the right, in my opinion, to micromanage this situation.

I agree that OP is well within her right to not go to the house or stay there as it sounds like her child can’t act properly around dogs (yet). OP’s child is the intervening condition here though. The dog didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t act aggressively. It’s the dog’s home turf (again, assuming OP basically owns the home in name only). As OP, I would not expect special accommodations at the house for her family as one of her family members was the reason for the dog scratch.

I am not a crazy dog person, I just recognize that OP’s child can’t understand how to act around dogs and I don’t expect the world to bow down and accommodate my child in every situation.

+100000 Basically OP (and all you crazies chiming in after her) are saying "Yes, it is confirmed that my child cannot or will not behave around dogs so YOU must confine your dog because I refuse to discipline/intervene/control my child." The entitlement is staggering.

Entitlement?? What are you smoking? She’s the owner of the house they live in! So yeah, she’s entitled to visit with her kids to see her parents without the risk of an animal attack.

Holy moly.

+1

[Anonymous]

A three year old and a younger sibling should not be rolling around on the floor with a dog where they could be scratched or much more likely bitten. So OP gets to referee the dog and two children the whole time ? I wouldn’t visit. Some very crazy dog people on this thread. News flash : a child’s needs come before the dogs needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could ask him to board the dog during your visit. My sister courteously did this when I visited her with young children even though her dog is gentle. We didn’t ask her to do it, she just decided on her own. He’s a big dog and she didn’t want anyone to be scared or for him to knock anyone over. Maybe ask him to board him and offer to split the cost?

Sounds like OP’s kid was at fault from her follow up so I absolutely do not think her sister should pay a cent toward this.

No, sorry but no. A kid touching a dog is does not mean the dog was fine. The dog was not fine. Dogs should not hurt kids and they absolutely know if they are biting, scratching, breaking the skin or not. I am a dog owner and have been for many years, and trained all of them. The dog should have left the situation or gone and stood beside their owner if they were irritated with what was happening, they should have done a warning growl when the child approached. This is the result of a dog that is trained well enough to be around little kids and it is the owners responsibility to keep a dog away if they are not well trained.

It is absurd to think that you can do whatever you want to a dog and get no reaction. It's incumbent on human beings to not push dogs past where they are comfortable. And little kids should never, ever, ever be left alone with dogs. It's just not safe.

I say this as someone who works in animal welfare. It is setting up the dog *and the kid* for failure if you leave little kids alone with dogs. They must be supervised *at all times* - especially now that you know there is a concerning history.

I agree 100%. Toddlers and dogs should not be left unsupervised together EVER regardless of the temperament of the dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of OP owning the house, she’s clearly consented to the dog living in this house. Which is her parents’ and sister’s home. They may not own it but it is their home. It is unfair of OP to allow a dog (if she’s acting in a landlord capacity) and then say well, here’s a surprise expense and condition. It sounds like OP owns the house in name only. Which doesn’t give her the right, in my opinion, to micromanage this situation.

I agree that OP is well within her right to not go to the house or stay there as it sounds like her child can’t act properly around dogs (yet). OP’s child is the intervening condition here though. The dog didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t act aggressively. It’s the dog’s home turf (again, assuming OP basically owns the home in name only). As OP, I would not expect special accommodations at the house for her family as one of her family members was the reason for the dog scratch.

I am not a crazy dog person, I just recognize that OP’s child can’t understand how to act around dogs and I don’t expect the world to bow down and accommodate my child in every situation.

+100000 Basically OP (and all you crazies chiming in after her) are saying "Yes, it is confirmed that my child cannot or will not behave around dogs so YOU must confine your dog because I refuse to discipline/intervene/control my child." The entitlement is staggering.

Well it's not really fair to put the kid in a crate for hours at a time, but it's not unreasonable to do that to a dog. So, yeah, the human does come first.