Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Family dog troubles
Okay, please tell me if I'm over reacting here. Seriously, I want to know.
My IL's have a 100 lb, two year old german shepherd. They love this dog like a child, sign his name to every card, celebrate his birthday, etc. The dog is not vicious (not that I'm aware of, anyway) but he is extremely excitable, and that's difficult because he's so big. Basically, he acts like a 100 lb puppy. He's literally pulled FIL off of his feet a few times during their daily walk. MIL enrolled the dog in special classes to train him to be a therapy dog, and he was kicked out for bad behavior.
Anyway, DH and I just had our first baby, a seven-week-old son. DH and I both feel that we don't want the dog around the baby, at least not until the baby is older. I don't usually have a problem with dogs, but this one is so unpredictable, and I'm nervous enough being a first time mom. DH is on the same page as me.
MIL and FIL invited us both to their house last weekend. MIL quickly told us that she'd make sure the dog was crated while we were there, which we said we'd appreciate. FIL kept saying how great he thought the dog would be around the baby, how protective he'd be, etc. We told him that was all well and good, but for now we wanted to keep them separate. He just kept repeating great things about the dog, but then, he's never been the best listener in the world.
While we were over on Sunday, IL's were true to their word and kept the dog away from the baby. BIL and SIL were also over, and MIL offered to watch the baby while the four of us went out for a little while. Please note, this was her idea. We hadn't been out in a while so we took her up on it and stayed our for about two hours.
So you can probably see where this is headed. When we got back, MIL gently informed us that they'd introduced the dog to the baby. She said she had the baby in her arms the whole time, and that everything went fine. I was caught a bit off guard, but I tend to trust MIL (she's been a great mom to her two sons) so I let it go. DH didn't mention it either, and I think we both kind of forgot about it (hey, we have a baby, so we're busy).
A few days later, FIL stopped over for a visit when I was home alone with my son. FIL also mentioned that they had introduced the dog and the baby. He said the dog had sniffed the baby--and then he said that the dog had started very gently nipping at the baby's socks, as thought to try and steal them. I think he thought I'd think this was cute. I didn't. Again, I was caught kind of off guard and couldn't think of what to say. I tried to explain that I was uncomfortable with the dog's sheer size, but FIL just kept saying what he always says: how good and protective the dog will be around the baby.
Now, I know in all likelihood, the dog probably will be fine around the baby. But the dog can be unpredictable and he can overpower his owners, and that's just a chance I don't want to take just yet. What if the dog had opened his mouth just a little bit more a bit the baby's foot, even accidentally? Am I being unreasonable? Should I lighten up about this?
Also, I'm a bit annoyed that the IL's introduced the dog to the baby when we weren't around. They basically disregarded our wishes. To be fair, we might not have communicated how strongly we feel about the issue (I sort of left that to DH, but he doesn't always communicate with his family as clearly as I think he should).
The IL's have been extremely helpful to us since the baby's been born, and I know that they'd protect our son with their lives. Still, the whole thing bugs me. I'm not sure right now how much of an issue I want to make out of it. I don't want to seem ungrateful, but I want to be clear about our feelings. Again, am I being unreasonable? Should we just let it go?
FWIW worth, I discussed this with DH last night and told him what FIL said. DH wants to call and confront them.
Re: Family dog troubles
First: this: "What if the dog had opened his mouth just a little bit more a bit the baby's foot, even accidentally?" is a silly argument. Will you not drive with the baby in the car for fear of an accident? The dog is not a biter. He was probably licking the socks.
I'm a dog lover and dont want kids. I have a large dog. that being said if someone was bringing over an infant and if my dog was a typical 2 year old i would not let the dog near the baby if the parents requested it. my dog is extremely gentile and not exictable so i wouldn't worry about him. if he was excitable then i totally understand your stance.
at the same time-these are your ILS and they obviously love you and DH and baby with all of their hearts. I dont really see the harm in letting the dog out to meet the baby and vice versa. Excitable and agressive are NOT the same things. And I think your ILs were right-GSs are AWESOME with kids and very gentile, in spite of their size. But I agree. They should have absolutely NOT have the baby meet the dog while you weren't there. absolutely not!!!
shoudl your dh call and 'confront' them? in my opinion no. absolutely dont confront them-no need to start a fight or be confrontational. pull back on the overprotective parent thing for a minute-you dont need to go all dramatic with the 'what ifs' and crazy. these are your ILs and his parents. they love you and the baby. they made a mistake. if anything, the next time you see them, tell them that you discussed and you'd appreciate them not doing anything when you're not around. end of convo.
perhaps next time meet them halfway. You or dh hold the baby, let the dog out to see him and see how it goes. i think more of an issue is when baby is a toddler or standing the dog might knock him over accidentally or something. while he's an infant it might be easier to introduce him to the dog. i say give it a try. if it works great-if not, then you know that the dog needs to be crated-better yet your ILs will see for themselves.
i used to have a 125lb ridgeback. my cousin was a baby at the time. he guarded her and stood next to her high chair when ever they were at my house. most large dogs are spectacular with kids.
Also, I think you need to let the dog get used to your baby. If everytime the baby is there, the dog is put off in the crate- the DOG can't learn about the baby. If you want the dog to be a good dog around your child, the dog needs to be introduced to your baby and be around and get the "sense" of whats going on.
~Benjamin Franklin
DS dx with celiac disease 5/28/10
Sounds to me like this dog's only crime is being a dog and being big...
you haven't described any bad behaviors, a dog pulling while walking is something I deal with my 35lb dog...and I deal with it with a suitable collar. The dog hasn't done anything unpredictable or dangerous.
Your inlaws did but the baby in danger. They did do something without telling you, that's their crime, that's what you need to deal with "next time, I would rather you include us in the plans beforehand and not after the fact".
Nicely I want to say, lighten up.
You want your dog to learn about the baby and your baby to learn about the dog. Keeping them away from each other isn't ideal. You want you baby to learn to "be gentle" with not just this dog, but all dogs they may encounter...how to pet them, not to pull tails, or take a bone away.
This. Doing anything against your wishes when you're not around, well, that's a recipe for anger/resentment. Of course you're nervous, but hey, pit bulls were known as "nanny dogs" for years in England. German shepherds are very good with babies. But they do need to learn how to behave with each other. Hopefully they'll develop a great bond.
I think it's fair to ask your in laws to have you there when they have the dog out, perhaps even with a training collar and leash, and not to ever leave the dog & baby together unsupervised. Oh, and future babysitting at your house
I sort of agree with the PPs but I keep coming back to the fact that they at least had a vague idea that you were not comfortable with the dog and baby meeting yet, and they waited for you to leave and did it behind your back.
Sure, the dog probably will be good with the baby, and they do need to meet, BUT they should never have done it without you there unless they asked you first. So, I would be bothered because it *might* indicate that they will ignore you in the future with other things you don't want your child exposed to yet (I'm not saying this will happen but the whole way they did it leaves a bad taste in my mouth).
I could totally see my mom doing something like this. My aunt got severely scratched and bitten by one of my mother's cats when she was there taking care of them while my parents were away and she wound up having to go to the hospital. My aunt did not do anything wrong - the cat is a rescue from one of the job sites my dad was working at and she gets very violent towards people sometimes out of nowhere for no real reason. She's attacked me, my H, both my parents, and the other pets in the house. And every single time she does, my mom makes excuses for the cat's behavior. (she's a 'misunderstood kitty') When it happened to my aunt though, animal control came and quarantined the cat and ran tests on her and all kinds of stuff before eventually giving her back to my parents.
Sometimes people are blind when it comes to their pets.
I realize your inlaw's dog is not violent, but they still violated a direct order from you when it comes to your child and your child's exposure to their dog. German Shephards are generally great around kids, yes, but at the same time, you never know what can happen if the dog gets overly excited. And it won't be the dog's fault really - they're just being a dog...
I don't have kids yet. I love dogs, I own one myself (small dog.) BUT... it seams to me that your IL's obviously have not appropriately trained their dog. Since the dog was kicked out of therapy dog school, it's apparent the dog does not have self control, which needs to be taught to them as puppies. Now that he is 2, its not impossible, but they need to start now. Untrained dogs, especially at that size, can be very destructive, or accidentally injure even adult size humans, I don't care how friendly they are. When they behave rambunctiously they are not aware of what's around them.
And from people's comments with the argument 'would you be afraid to put your child in a car?' There is a difference between putting your child in a car with someone you trust like your husband, or your parents, and putting your child in a car with (example) your party-hungry 16 year old BIL who just got his license and loves to speed. Its about the risk factor. The dog might not 'purposely' hurt your baby, but there is high risk he might do it accidentally. I would keep the baby away from the pup until they get a handle on his self control, or until your baby is big enough to tolerate a dog of that size.
Your IL's need to respect your wishes by not having the dog around while baby's around. Doing that behind your back was very disrespectful. Its your baby, not theirs! If it comes down to it, remind your IL's that if God forbid their pup did hurt the baby, accident or not, it could be cause for the dog to be put down. Especially if it happens multiple times.
Also, it sounds like your FIL is a bit in 'lala land' by saying he thinks the dog will be 'protective' over the baby. To me, 'protective' isn't always the best quality in a dog. I think of 'protective' dogs as being a dog who will snap at anyone who tries to get close to their toy, bone, food, etc. In my book, 'protective' is 'possessive.' If you want your pup to 'watch over' your baby, it would take serious training and self control. Unfortunately, not all dogs can be trained to have the right demeanor around children.
Stand your ground, you are not off base here.
Okay I have a kid so I'm going to tell it like it is. You never leave a baby, toddler or small child alone with a dog. No matter how sweet, gentle & adorable you just don't do it. This time your MIL held the baby in her arms, but what about the next time? Your FIL said the dog nibbled at the socks, not licked.
Your inlaws aren't listening & are blinded by their love for this dog. My MIL has a dog that nips, hard. I told her to keep her dog away from my daughter or we will not be coming over. Ever. She tried to let her dog out one time & I was on the way out. She never pulled that again.
The main lesson for you is that they aren't listening and they done respect you. They ignored what you asked & as soon as you left they did what they wanted. Your H should call & lay down the law. I'd think long and hard before I left my child alone with them ever again. They broke your trust. Big time.
My shepherd died two years ago, and he was a sweet, gentle boy. Very quiet and mellow. So I LOVE shepherds.
Your in-laws seem to have blinders on to some of their dog's traits, and don't seem to get that as the owners of a 100 pound dog who can be "excitable", they have a responsibility to make certain that their dog is well-trained and under their control, at all times. I'm not sure they are up to that task.
I would advise you to have optimism about the future of your kid and this dog getting along famously. Think positive, why not? It'll probably turn out just great.
BUT I would also not leave the in-laws in charge of my kid until I was comfortable with how the dog and the child were together. It's not cute that the dog was nipping at the baby's feet, I see that as a bad sign. I see it as another bad sign that your FIL was so dismissive about that. It does not sound like he had a plausible explanation for why the dog did that, or that he gave a good correction.
I've seen plenty of dogs around infants and none of them nipped at a baby's feet.
This.
My biggest concern is that you in-laws did the introducing of the dog, while you were gone, knowing you were uncomfortable with it. That they rushed to reassure you the dog was crated when you came over, and you said you appreciated it, and told them you wanted to keep baby and dog seperate, and then they waited for you to leave to do the introducing the baby to the dog. That's sneaky. If their thought was "the dog needs to get used to the baby so the dog will learn how to interact appropriately with him," or "it's better to introduce them while the baby is young- if we wait until the baby is crawling or something then it's going to be harder to make sure we're in control of the interaction" or whatever- they should have SAID that to you. And let you say, "We plan to introduce them when the baby is 6 months," or whatever your plan is. They knew your position, they didn't respect it, and they went behind your back to do it their way anyway.
And what I'd say next is- especially knowing this, you and your husband need to speak up. Don't wait for your husband to handle it, don't just try to explain and give up when FIL starts repeating himself about what a great dog he has. I think you and your husband should come up with your own plan of when and how you want the baby introduced to the dog- 6 months? 3 months? 2? How long will the visit be? Will both of you be in the room? And then SAY it to your in-laws: "We want Baby kept seperate from Dog until X time. Then we will arrange a visit, hold the baby, have them together for Y time, and then that's it until the next visit. We told you earlier that we wanted them seperate and you introduced them anyway, and we don't appreciate that. You need to wait for our okay before having the dog around the baby again, or we will not be leaving the baby with you."
It sounds harsh, but they have showed you that they have every intention of having the baby around the dog- so much so that they'll just do it when you're gone if you don't agree with that. You and your husband should be equally firm.
We had a very similar situation. My MIL has a giant dog that she adores. She's a very sweet dog but she's huge, clumsy, very playful and completely uncontrollable. I was never worried she'd hurt my son on purpose, just that she'd try to play and do something.
When he was a newborn, I made it very clear that I was uncomfortable with having the dog around him until he was bigger and asked my MIL to keep the dog on the porch when we were there. She did for the most part. But when I went to the bathroom, I came back and she was holding the baby and the dog had been let in. She said the dog got in accidentally. I have no idea if that's true or not but I know she was in no rush to put the dog back out and that the dog had my kid's foot in it's mouth.
I ended up just not leaving him alone with MIL at her house until he was bigger and I was more comfortable. Now he's allowed near the dog but I stay very close by and watch him like a hawk. My coworker just had his 9 month old have plastic surgery to repair her face after their beloved family dog bit her trying to play. I don't screw around with animals and kids.
Two points (mind you, i grew up in a house that bred, raised, trained and hunted Springer Spaniels - a high energy breed)
1) This dog was kicked out of a training class. While the odds are that the biggest issue is that your inlaws could not control the dog vs the dog could not control himself, it still leaves you with an uncontrollable (ie trained) dog.
So while I do not believe excited = aggressive, it DOES MEAN that when the exticed gets overwhelming, NO ONE in that house can stop him from overpowering your child. EVEN IF you are in the room with them.
This is NOT the dog you want to train your child with.
2) Your INLAWS blatantly ignored your request to keep the dog and baby seperated. As a parent, it is your RIGHT to decided when and where things happen with YOUR child (hello, you are the one that will have to deal with a hurt, sad, scared child were the dog to actually bite, not grandpa).
The op wasnt VAGUE about her concerns. She asked them to keep the dog gated off.
I see this senario - Granny babysits again. Grandpa lets dog out as soon as Mom and Dad leave. They are ever vigilant for the first 30 mins. Then the phone rings, or the baby needs the bottle from the kitchen, and one adult leaves the room. Dog walks over and jumps up to sniff the baby's foot and the remaining adult tries to say no. Untrained dog ignores human and jumps again (as dogs are want to do) and jumps higher, this time scratching the baby on the arm or face.
Again, as someone with two dogs and a cat, how hard is it to put your dog away for a couple hours (not asking for forever, just a couple hours) just in case?
The reality is, you either be a good host/grandparent or you accept that you will not see your grandchild at your house until he/she is old enough to protect his/herself from the unruly pet.
I agree with this for the most part, but I also think that you are overreacting (just my own personal opinion here) but most importantly that you should have anticipated something like this and not put your child in that position in the first place if you were already so concerned about the dog. Your inlaws do not seem the type that would be comfortable crating their dog when company is over. I would have assumed that they would have felt guilty about it, and once you left they would have talked themselves into letting the dog out.
I think that their intentions were good, they were being careful and were not deliberately putting your child in harm's way, so I don't think you should treat them like they did by "laying down the law". However, as illumine explained above, you can imagine how a well intentioned situation can turn badly without it taking too much.
I don't think that you should leave your baby there with them until the baby is old enough to handle a scratch. If they babysit, have them babysit at your place.
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
Thanks for the comments so far, everyone.
As helpful and generous as my in laws are, we've had our differences in the past. Truth is, sometimes I'm really easily annoyed/angered by fairly minor things they do, so before doing/saying anything to them I posted here to try to determine if I'm overreacting again. After reading through your responses, I don't think my IL's are bad people but I do think I've got a legitimate reason to be PO'd.
Some info I didn't mention before: this is not IL's first large german shepherd. It's their fourth. Their first dog was mellow, but the second ran out the front door one day and bit a random person who was walking down the street. The third GS they only had for a few weeks--it bit my husband twice in a row, completely unprovoked. And this happened with both IL's in the room, while FIL was holding the dog. (That dog had some especially serious issues, so they gave it back to the shelter after that). I don't believe this current dog is as bad as the other two, but the moral of the story is, my IL's have proven several times that they suck at controlling big dogs. Also, I've always liked dogs, (and had an *amazing* family dog growing up) but I guess I'm skeptical about how great german shepherds are, just because my only experience with them has not been great.
So far, this is what I'm leaning towards: I'm open to the dog and the baby being in the same room if the dog is calm and if DH and I are there. I am not okay with the dog being around the baby when DH and I are not there.
DH actually called his mom last night. According to him, he told her not to introduce the dog to the baby, and she simply said, "Okay." He said she seemed like she wasn't in a good mood so he didn't keep discussing it after that. I find this frustrating because I just don't think DH is having, or has ever had, a real conversation with his parents about what our concerns are. I think he just says the bare minimum and leaves it at that.
I'm going to discuss all of this with DH tonight, and the two of us will try to come up with an actual plan for when/how dog and baby can be introduced. Also, the next time his parents bring this issue up when I'm around (which I think will be sooner, rather than later) I'm going to be very straightforward about exactly what we expect. I won't be rude, just firm.
Dog wasn't kicked out of your standard obedience classes...it was kicked out of " special classes to train him to be a therapy dog". I believe there is a pretty strict screening process, and the dogs that become therapy dogs are kind of the navy seals of obedient dogs, a very select group. Thus, this part doesn't concern me.
Not to be argumentative, but about the bites from the last dog...I have an australian shepherd...I quickly learned that what I was calling "bites" was just mouthing behavior that they do as part of their herding instinct. Sometime there's even blood but it's more from like a tooth scrape vs. he chomp down as hard as he could on me. Still behaviors I needed to train him on but to say a dog "bites" is a major label when it could not be that at all.
If you're referring to GS#3, it was more serious than that. DH had to go to a doctor, and still has scars. It doesn't really matter either way, I guess, since GS#4 has not shown himself to be a biter. With this new dog, I'm more worried that he'll try to play and cause damage by accident, because he's so big.
I only brought up the last GS because it's an example of FIL thinking he had a dog under control, when he didn't.
I'm also a little concerned about them getting kicked out of therapy dog training - not because the dog was mis-behaving but because they clearly didn't have a clear view of their own dog's capacity for obedience before enrolling them in a program like that. THAT is a problem. Therapy dogs have a really high bar for gentle obedience because they tend to be working with populations who are physically and/or emotionally challenged and for them not to recognize that their dog may not be a good candidate for working with those groups is a little troubling. (and also perhaps not recognizing that their dog is still too much of a puppy to be reliably left around a child).
Do I think that your child and the dog need to be introduced to each other - absolutely. Do I think that needs to be on your terms - absolutely. It was wrong of them to go behind your back and that needs to be addressed.
It is tough when people view their pets as family and are blind to their capabilities. We are going to have a very similar struggle with my ILs when our first baby is born this spring so I totally feel your pain (they adopted a rescue dog who was surrendered specifically because he nipped at/snapped at the family's infant once the infant began to crawl).
My guess is that their hearts are in the right place but they went about it all wrong. Set your expectations now but be aware that the dog will likely be around for a good chunk of your child's early childhood and efforts do need to be made on both sides to ensure that their interactions are positive ones.
No I meant GS3 and you've answered the question there, I was making sure you weren't over interpreting that.
I think you've gotten a lot of good advice/perspective...the only thing that is still grinding at me is the "big" dog thing. The size of the dog is NOT the problem...
1- on the first paragraph - realize that this probably means not using them for babysitting (if they've even offered) at their house. Just putting that out there - they've shown what they'll do when you aren't' there, and I personally wouldn't trust them to abide by this.
2- on the second paragraph, eh, I go both ways on this. I'm not a very verbose person. I'll sometimes tell someone (like my DH) "don't do __ again", he'll say "OK" and I leave it at that. Why? Because he's an adult and I know that he "gets it" as to why I said what I said.
Reality is- his parents KNOW. Really, they do. They may ignore it, but they know. His going on about it really kind of is like kicking a dead horse.
BUT, that being said - if the topic comes up, if they express ANY inkling of actually not getting it (which is really more them playing dumb), then have a more direct conversation about it.
But at face value, I don't entirely blame your DH for not pushing the issue when his mom said "ok".
~Benjamin Franklin
DS dx with celiac disease 5/28/10
I'm going to discuss all of this with DH tonight, and the two of us will try to come up with an actual plan for when/how dog and baby can be introduced. Also, the next time his parents bring this issue up when I'm around (which I think will be sooner, rather than later) I'm going to be very straightforward about exactly what we expect. I won't be rude, just firm.
This seems very reasonable. At first I was going to say you were overreacting, but the stories of the other biting dogs they have had were sobering.
I would be even more careful when he is older and walking. Toddlers are more threatening/annoying to animals and are right at mouth level.
I do not think you are overreacting to this situation at all. You and your husband are the parents which means you get to set the rules for your kids...period. I would be irate if my in laws did something I explicity told them not to regarding my kids.
That being said German Shephards are great dogs. We have a 7 year old female that is 95 lbs and she means the world to us. That being said she is very high energy but not aggressive by any stretch of the imagination. She is huge though and if she wanted to could overpower me or my husband which is my we spent a lot of time training her and teaching her impluse control. We don't leave her alone with kids and we make sure that any kid that interacts with her understands how to treat her (no tail pulling, no chasing her, petting nicely etc). Your inlaws may want to check with their local ASPCA, the one here in Phoenix has a special training class people can take their dogs to in order to help get them ready for a baby in the family. Its a big change for a dog to have a baby around, sights and smells they have never seen so its important to prepare them accordingly and maybe that would help you feel more comfortable in the future with the dog. Like I said, German Shephards are great dogs, but they need a lot of training and a strong leader so they know what is expected of them and a lot of exercise to work out all of the energy they have. They are very loyal wonderful dogs but ultimately you both as the parents get to decide who and what your baby is around and those wishes need to be respected.
So just because it is the animal's instinct to mouth, that we should allow the pet around that baby until it is trained? Because is is easier, somehow, to control the breed's inheirant instincts?
(I now have a Corgi, so I understand the nipping that herding dogs do to move their animals along - they are not "moutning" they are BITING hard enough to make the cow, sheep, etc MOVE where they want them to go - MOUTHING softly is what retrievers do, when they carefully retrieve the dead bird so as not to destroy the meal).
And I stand behind my comment about being kicked out. He was kicked OUT, not that he didnt pass, but not allowed to continue. Why would ANY dog be KICKED OUT of any obedience classroom? Because he/she is uncontrollable and is a major distraction to the rest of the class OR there is just NO HOPE AT ALL to pass.
And what does a therapy dog need to do? Be calm, under control at all times and obedient around people needing therapy.
Wouldnt that about cover what a baby needs?