IMO, as a parent and as a dog owner, I find the fault to lie totally with the child’s parents.
I don’t let my 7 year old roam the neighborhood on his own and he’s not even “special needs”. It’s just stupid. Kids that age don’t think like adults, the don’t control impulses like grownups. They think, “Oh what a great dog, I’ll pet it,” or whatever, and then do it even though they’ve been told over and over not to.
The problem here is really much greater than light strand’s dogs (which I agree were properly restrained), it’s the fact that a child is being allowed to roam unsupervised. What is this mother doing? I’m home all day with my kid, he doesn’t get out of the house without me knowing. This girl could get hit by a car, abducted, or even just lost. I would be tempted to place a call to CPS the next time I see the child outside w/o supervision.
Since you know this kid is a problem, I’d say it’s reasonable to expect that she can’t get her hand within biting distance of the dogs. Particularly when you know she annoys the hell out of them. I’m just sayin’.
The way I see it, a kid like that shouldn’t be wandering around the neighborjhood in the first place. I’m aware that you can’t watch them all the time, but she should be kept to her yard when unsupervised. It’s not that hard to fence in a front yard and have it where she can’t leave on her own. And it isn’t to much to ask to do so, if only for her own safety. She’s lucky she didn’t mess with someone else’s stray pitbull and get mauled or anything. Her mom ought to be thankful and take precautions against worse.
light strand, I’m with you all the way. You’ve taken every precaution to guard your home from this little girl. You shouldn’t have to pay a stinking penny to these people. It’s obvious that after warning them to stay away from your dogs, the girl made an effort to “play” with them.
I agree that **every **child should have an opportunity to be a kid. But with a disabled child, you need to find other ways of letting her be a kid without supervision, not letting her wander the neighborhood. They knew she wasn’t welcome without supervision and yet the mother doesn’t do anything about it? This is worse than bad parenting. It’s zero parenting.
And if you don’t mind, I’d like to make this my sig. Hell, I’d love to have this as a bumper sticker.
It depends on her level of functionality. A mildly retarded kid can play outside like any other kid. She’ll go to school and get a job just like other people, just not as functional as most (but more functional than many).
I agree. Who would know the level of functionality of this little girl but the parents? They’re either too lazy with her, or they don’t even bother to really think about what boundaries she needs. They are not meeting their own child’s needs. Not every parent of a disabled child is an attentive one. I’d say this mother fits that description.
What do you say about the parents of average children who are bitten by dogs? Are they bad parents, too? Kids who fall off bikes? Get hit by cars? Fall out of trees? It appears our poster went out of his way to create a gap in the fence, putting a narrow view for his dogs (who have a whole yard to play in) The negative effect of this gap allows them to see things beyond their reach and get agitated, and small children could be tempted into fucking with the dogs. If the gap was high enough that the dogs could stand on their hind legs and look out, but little kids couldn’t get themselves into trouble, it would be better. If there was chicken wire around it, that would be better still.
If the kid acts like the one in the OP, yes. Seven is old enough to know that you don’t antagonize other people’s pets or trespass on their property. If they do and get bit? Too fucking bad. Consider it a life lesson not to do stupid shit in the future.
And it’s the responsibility of the parents to teach their kids how to behave properly in that situation, not the responsibility of everyone who lives nearby to make sure their home is nerfed to the point that even the most irresponsibly parented child can’t possibly harm themselves when they illegally venture onto someone else’s property.
No, that would be immeasurably worse, because any fence high enough for a dog to see over by standing on its hind legs is high enough for a dog to jump over. Especially when the dogs are border collies.
Unfortunetly, you’ve got a point here. It’s not right in a moral/ethical sense: the fault here is entirely with the kid and its parents. But the way the law stands on these issues, right no longer enters into it. No matter how many precautions you take, if someone finds a way to circumvent them and gets hurt, it’s going to be the end of your dog. You should seal that hole, or put chicken wire over it. Not to protect the poor little children (most of whom could probably use a good savage mauling) but to protect your dogs, who are in mortal danger from any parent who’d rather call a lawyer than a babysitter when their brat misbehaves and gets hurt.
All I’m saying is that in this circumstance the parents should be more attentive to their child. All kids do stupid stuff. That’s what being a kid is all about. BUT. This girl in particular has been known to enter the property of the OP on her own and the parents didn’t take precautions. The girl and her parents were told not to fuck with the dogs, but the parents didn’t do anything to prohibit this. Any kid could have been told not to fuck with the dogs and then gone ahead and do it. But when you have a child with a disability you need to step up your guard and make sure she’s safe.
I don’t believe the 11 x 3" hole in the fence is a problem. It’s the parents responsibility to make sure the girl doesn’t go near the hole because they’ve been told not to fuck with the dogs.
If an “average” child had gotten themselves bitten in the situation as described, then yes, I would be inclined to blame the parents.
The hole in the fence is not on the “sidewalk” side, and therefore is not where the dogs (and other people) will be interacting on the “public” side. It is on the driveway side, meaning it is fully on light strand’s property. The child should have been taught not to tresspass. It is equally obvious, from the situation as described, that the child has no concept of other people’s property and/or privacy, if the child is willing to walk into light strand’s home without light strand’s, or the spouse of light strand’s, permission.
Even if we assume this child is ~4 years developmental age, even I knew not to just walk into someone else’s house or go on their lawn/driveway without permission at that age. I would be willing to bet that today’s “average” 4-year-old would know the same thing - if their parents were doing their job.
Now. It is possible that light strand is exaggerating the child’s level of cluelessness. It is possible that the child has never set foot in light strand’s house without the permission of light strand or the spouse of light strand. However, given the facts that we have, the mother in question should have been watching the child because the child is not (developmentally) ready to be out on their own. Or the mother in question should have made the same arrangements with her lawn that light strand has made with his - a fence that the child cannot get out of, with a small hole for the child to view the family’s driveway.
So what we have here is a dog doing what dog’s do and a child doing what a child does. Since both can act in inappropriate, erratic and dangerous ways, we require them to be supervised, restrained and protected by adults who presumably act in a more “thinking” manner. So which side did this responsibly. I would say light strand certianly did. Maybe not 100% so, let’s say 90%. The parent’s of the child, failed in this regard miserably, cahrtably 15%. So that is basically how I would assing blame. No I dont’t expect parent’s to engulf their children in a world of nerf set behind fences and locked doors. But certainly they must be ready to accept the consequences of the compromises they decide to take in this regard. (of course the dog owners must also be willing to accept the consequences of whatever compromises they make, just in this case I think the “compromise” peep hole was very minor compared to letting a child with Down’s Syndrome wander around.)
Nobody else is freaked out at the child wandering into a neighbor’s home uninvited? What if the OP and her SO were doin’ the nasty? Personally, I keep my doors locked. If it is hot, I’ll lock the screen door and leave the other door open. Sorry, but if I found a neighbor’s child in my home once let alone on multiple occasions, I would call the cops and report an intruder. I live in a rural setting with my closest neighbor about 600 yards away, so I am not an inner city person, but I like my privacy!
And as far as the dogs are concerned, I have no dog in this fight.
I don’t think that’s what was being suggested. Figure the fence is eight feet high. Instead of having the slot two feet off the ground, so the dogs can peek through while standing normally, put it four feet off the ground so the dogs can peek through while standing up on their hind legs, their forepaws resting against the fence. Anyone tall enough to reach through a slot four feet off the ground is presumably smart enough not to do so.
Personally, I think a chicken wire “dome” of some sort is the better solution, raised so the kid can’t even poke fingers through to get near the dogs, and if she somehow batters it out of shape so her fingers can reach, sue her mother for damaged property.
I’m not refering to the legal aspect of the situation. It’s only my ethical opinion.
As much as people want to view their pets as “their girls”, like one of the previous poster did, owning a pet is introducing a potentially dangerous animal in an human environment. As such, the owner should be responsible from harmful consequences resulting from this choice. Not necessarily faulty, but responsible. I don’t necessarily think that the OP was morally wrong, for instance, but still that he should accept the responsability of what occured.
IOW, I consider pet-owning as something which is tolerated, but trumped every time by the necessity to shield kids from harm. The concept of “kids” always including the concept of “stupid and self-endangering behavior”.The OP might have deemed the precautions he took reasonnable, but the event showed he was wrong and that they were insufficient to protect who really matters (kids) from harm.
Is that the worst case scenario you could imagine? I’m sure the kid would survive the experience and would have something fun to tell to his buddies. And you would too (both survive and have a funny story to tell).
I’ve been brought up in a rural area and I’m now a big city dweller. What would worry me the most about an intruding kid is that with the current paranoid mindset currently so prevalent (something I deeply regret) I could be suspected of having somehow lured the kid in for some nefarious purpose.
And being retarded is an excuse for trespassing? And that oh well, the parents can’t watch her all the time, so what if she just wanders into people’s houses uninvited and refuses to leave-she can’t help it, it’s too hard to watch her!
Jesus, that little girl is going to get HURT doing this. Yes, it’s hard looking after someone with disabilities. That doesn’t mean said little girl gets to do whatever she wants.
I remember the time the family cat got my brother for pulling his tail. Now, my parents had the cat before they had the kids, and I think the cat took the attention of two small boys fairly well. In any case, the cat either scratched him or gave him one of those warning bites–you know, the ones that don’t break the skin but get the message across clearly of “hey, don’t fuck with me”–and he went running to Mom. Mom’s response, when she learned that my brother was pulling the cat’s tail? “Well, don’t do that.” I don’t think he (the human, not the cat) got any sympathy at all for that one.
As far as I’m concerned, I think the OP is completely in the right. Yes, light strand could probably get CPS involved as a counterattack, but it seems like fighting dirty and with lots of possible fallout.
That’s what I was thinking. If I found this girl in my house (specifically her, with what we’ve heard about her in this thread). I’d grab my cell phone, walk outside and call 911. I’d tell them that I was outside [doing something] and I started to come back in and I think there’s someone in my house. I’d ask them to send an officer over right away to check it out for me. The problem with that method is, it may involve two officers with guns out (I said out, not pointed, not fingers on triggers, just out of the holsters). This may very well get the point across, but could have some bad reactions. To lighten up a little, you could make the same call, but instead just tell the dispatcer that you were outside and have come back in to find a small child in the house that refuses to leave. If you do that a few times, they may get CPS involved for you. Come to think of it, if the neighbors tell you they’re going to call the police, tell them that you will call the police the next time you find their child in your house. Hell, the next time she sets foot on your property.
Come to think of it, a recurring theme in this thread is how hard/easy it is to contain a child to you’re own property. Seems to me it would by easier to keep a kid on your property then a dog, and most people don’t have a problem doing it with dogs. Maybe you should suggest the neighbors put up a fence around their yard and keep the front door locked.
Did I say that? If it was as easy to instruct Down’s kids as some people seem to be suggesting (It must be bad parenting that she doesn’t know boundaries!), then the kid wouldn’t be retarded.
This woman obviously needs help. I’d like to see you attempt to provide constant supervision to someone for 7 years (with the prospect of it for the rest of your life). People can’t do it alone. Sure, this lady should’ve had a fence up preventing the child from getting out, but retarded child = little or no job = little money for a fence. Or it could be a rental. Maybe she is misguided and thinks the child learning in the outside environment trumps the safety concerns. She probably doesn’t like to keep the child inside (the inside of the house is the most dangerous place for my retarded sister, she gets bored easily, and retarded kids need all the exercise they can get).
I would take Joey P’s advice and tell them that you would call the cops next time she was on your yard. They might not even know that there is a problem (I don’t think light strand has elaborated on whether she has talked to the mother about the trespassing).
You owe me ONE(1) Irony metre.
I thought you’d be more understanding of people with mental disabilities. But apparently what’s good for the goose, isn’t good for the gander.
