Dangerous dog

[Jonathan]

STBXW has accused me of brining our child to a house with a dangerous dog, ironically this is her parents home and parents dog, where she brought our 9yo numerous times
In her words the dog has
- killed other animals
- bitten other children numerous times
- and more besides
Is this relevant within a C100, if the dog is dangerous as claimed (by her) I think it should be within scope as a welfare concern going forward and should/will the court deal with it, could I make a specific issues order that the dog is destroyed? Sounds extreme but I'm at a bit of a loss

 

[Resolute]

Could you just say that you will not bring the child to your ex's parents' house any more?

It the child is not with the dog, the dog is irrelevant to welfare.

 

[Jonathan]

Considering the dog is alleged to have bitten other children numerous times, and is therefore a risk to more children than my own (e.g. other grandchildren, wider community) then should the dog not be dealt with? The irony is that I'm being accused of introducing the risk but I'm not responsible for the dog, and the dog owners refuse to take responsibility - therefore there is a live risk until resolved

Would this be considered a legitimate entry on a form 100c?

 

[Busydad1985]

I believe that a dog that bites a child would be euthanised after the first incident, if it was reported, so the argument doesnt hold any weight

 

[Peanut 21]

Then should the dog not be dealt with?

This isn't your problem. It could cause more animosity within the family.
If your ex is bothered by the dog she needs to tell her parents to do something, not you.
If the ex raises it just respond back in court paperwork with "the dog is Ms Exs parents and in order for our child to continue a relationship with his/her grandparents, we will have to meet them away from the house."

 

[Resolute]

Considering the dog is alleged to have bitten other children numerous times, and is therefore a risk to more children than my own (e.g. other grandchildren, wider community) then should the dog not be dealt with? The irony is that I'm being accused of introducing the risk but I'm not responsible for the dog, and the dog owners refuse to take responsibility - therefore there is a live risk until resolved

Would this be considered a legitimate entry on a form 100c?

This is a distraction. It doesn't matter if the dog is destroyed or not, so long as it will not pose a risk to the 'subject child'. Risk it may or may not pose to other children is not the issue in question.

If I were a Judge/Magistrate, I would be more interested in what the dog issue tells me about parents' ability to manage risk for the child.

Is there some imperative for the child to be around this dog? Something beyond your control? If there is not, keep the child away. If there is, ask the court for a Specific Issue Order or a Prohibited Steps Order that will manage risk posed by the dog.

Stepping back, it feels like there is something else going on here. Why would your ex problematise time with her own parents? What advantage does she see in this? Is there a trap she is hoping you will fall into?

It doesn't feel like I have the full picture.