Drugs and childminding?

[Thomzo]

Hi
I'm not a parent and I'm very rarely trusted to look after anyone else's kids. Perhaps you guys can give me your take on this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/mers ... 987128.stm

Little Ellie Lawrenson died after being savaged by a pit bull terrier while in the care of her grandmother. The grandmother was cleared of any wrongdoing even though she had drunk two bottles of wine and smoked 10 cannabis joints.

Personally, I think it should be a crime to be looking after young children if you are drunk or under the influence of illegal drugs. What does anyone else think?

Zoe

[Tensing]

Amazing isn't it, mind you I was disgusted at the time that the dog was allowed near the child.

[Martin]

What I couldn't work out was how come the poor leary granny got the blame? - the brainless, convicted criminal of an owner of an illegal dog somehow got away with it totally..........
......and in a week where another possibly dead girl is in the news - I'm kinda old-fashioned about child-care - you do NOT leave a young child in a hotel bedroom, and clutter off for a meal, neither do you leave your precious children in the care of anyone who does not come up to your highest expectations! (granny or not!) - no need for yet another bunch of bureaucrats, just a bit of common sense, and taking real responsibility for your offspring!

[Thomzo]

In principle I agree about the beauracracy thing but if a drunken druggy gets away with allowing a young child to be savaged to death in front of her eyes because she's too drunk or stoned to stop it, something is surely wrong?

The dog owner did go to prison but for owning the dog, not for the death of the child.

Zoe

[Russian Doll]

i had to leave my kids with someone i thought i trusted when i gave birth to my son....my husband got a call two mins after he was born from the woman saying they were pissed and could he come home cause alex the girls had been crying for half hour..needless to say she is not a friend anymore

[the.fee.fairy]

Well...
I kinda feel a bit sorry for the bloke who owns the dog.
It is not actually an illegal animal. Dangerous dogs are not illegal to own - it is allowing them to exhibit certain behaviours that is illegal.

We had a dog that had a brain tumour that caused him to lash out. He was also a wolf-mix and extremely protective. one day, when i was walking him, i fell over. A bloke came walking towards me and i told him to stop until i had got up, otherwise the dog would go for him. He carried on walking and the dog got hold of his jumper and aggressively tried to drag him away. We had a visit from the police who talked to us about dangerous dogs. Not long after that, we had to give him back to the RSPCA (we'd had him less than a year and therefore couldn't get him put to sleep).This was not because of this incident, i must add, it was because his tumour was getting worse. His behaviour could have been classed as illegal if i hadn't warned the bloke, or if i'd let go of the dog's lead at any time.

So, back to the subject, i feel sorry for the bloke that owns the dog. yes, he may be a convicted criminal, but i know of plenty of people who own, or have owned pit bull terriers, and they have trained their dogs to behave properly, and therefore, although the dog is on the dangerous dogs list, it is not illegal. The owner also gave strict instructions to his mother not to let the dog into the house. I assume that the dog was fine with his owner, but not anyone else, in which case, the owner acted sensibly putting rules into place about where and when and with whom the dog was allowed to socialise. Because one person broke his rule, this tragedy happened, but he was not there and so is not directly responsible, yet his dog, his pet has been destroyed.

I do think that there should be better protection in place for small children (or any children) and who can and can't care for them. At the end of the day, there will be no hard and fast rule to stop this happening - children will always be sent to stay with their grandparents. It is only becuase of this case that you find out that the grandmother was drunk and stoned. If there had been no death, no dog, then no-one would have known that that child was left with an incapable person. I can bet that this weekend, there will be thousands of children in the care of unsuitable people, but few will be reported to the authorities, and even less will make it into the public knowledge.

Not being a parent myself, i can't pass judgement on what people should and shouldn't do with their children, but i do find it abhorrent that a couple of supposedly intelligent, well educated people would leave their small children sleeping alone while they went out for a night out. When i was a child, my parents would have taken me with them - i got quite good at sleeping on two chairs pushed together no matter where i was! Or, they would take me to their friends' houses and i'd sleep in a sleeping bag on their beds. I don't believe that small children should ever be left alone - people lose enough children while their back is turned in a supermarket!! I won't get into the sedating evidence...

[red]

Well...
I kinda feel a bit sorry for the bloke who owns the dog.
It is not actually an illegal animal. Dangerous dogs are not illegal to own - it is allowing them to exhibit certain behaviours that is illegal.

I thought it was an illegal animal - or was a decision overturned?
in this BBC article it says it was illegal

Kiel Simpson, 23, pleaded guilty last month to owning a dog banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

and the judge said:

This is a dog of a type nobody has been allowed to possess for the last 15 years, and for good reason.

I think the dog owner and the grandmother were both responsible. owner for keeping a dog that was known to be violent - and apparantly an illegal dangerous dog too, and granny cos she was stoned drunk and allwoed a known violent dog into the house with a small child and baby

there was heroin in the house too. really this poor child was at risk from so many angles.

[Silver Ether]

I thought it was illegal to get drunk in charge of children and it doesn't matter id your a parent , grandparent or childminder and this topic highlights the need for everyparent to use a properly registerd and trained childminder. while we are not all perfect at least the majority of us wont get drunk when with your children. It is against the law to leave your children with anyone who isn't registered,for more than two hours per day and pay them and sorry ... I dont believe "she/he is a friend I dont pay them " cuss I know what kids are and folks and looking after some ones elses child on a regular basis for nothing just doesnt happen. There is a very heafty fine for the career and the parent and there can be a jail sentence ...

ooops sorry went of on one there

[circlecross]

there has been a trend for grandparents to train as childminders, simply because they are an easy hit for childcare, but if you want togive them any money there are legal thingies - tax, on both sides etc. Some grandparents decide to get themselves registered so they are able to process the money like a business, and also so they can keep ahead of legal requirements.
There are problems with giving your children to someone who is doing you a favour (believe me, I know), as you feel yhou have to make conversation, make them cups of tea, and eat into the time you are meant to be working or whatever. Also, we are now finding that my mum and uncle are feeling the strain, but will never admit to it, so we have the thorny decisions of whether to trust them, or tactfully eat into the time we used to let them have. Whichever we do, it leaves us without the necessary time we need for working. I know it sounds ungrateful, but the issue is you have to be confident that your children will get the best of care. How to let grandparents down tactfully is another factor of this whole guilt making round of family life.
Time and again I have had to berate my uncle for "neglect", and I wonder is it laziness on his part as he knows I'll be home soon to change the children, and if not, it is something serious. But time and again he volunteers to take the eldest boy, and how can I say no without hurting his feelings? Yet if a childminder or nursery constantly neglected to change a nappy, you wouldn't keep your kids there would you?
I am in no way excusing the granny's behaviour - she chose to take drugs and drink while looking after a child - I don't know enough about the dog, but again, the woman should have ensured the dog couldn't get near the child.
As for the hotel thing - I said at the time that it seemed outrageous that the children had been left, I think the dh tried to defend them (he'll prob write later saying "no I didn't", but he did). I once asked my father "how did you manage with us when you went out to restaurants, did we behave?" and he said "we never took you out to restaurants, couldn't afford it". So that was that.

[cir3ngirl]

Just read in our local paper that a mum here was arrested for "being drunk while looking after two children under the age of seven". They were her own children the youngest was only one week old.

As an ex childminder I got caught between a couple who had just split up. The childs granny was told by me that if I felt daddy had been drinking when he was on pick up that I would not hand the child over. I fely that was my duty to the child.

Davina

[Masco&Bongo]

Well...
I kinda feel a bit sorry for the bloke who owns the dog.
It is not actually an illegal animal. Dangerous dogs are not illegal to own - it is allowing them to exhibit certain behaviours that is illegal.

I don't feel sorry for him at all. He bought the dog (from a man in the pub) knowing exactly what it was. You don't buy a pit bull unknowingly. There are no "reputable" breeders of them. You get them from men in the pub, or a friend of a friend. They're bought so the owner can either look tough, or so the dog can fight.

A "dangerous breed" dog (4 breeds in the UK) are not illegal to own, but there are strict rules about owning them which have to be adhered to.

The DDA states that

Section 1(2) imposes a number of prohibitions on the owners of specially controlled dogs: they cannot breed from them; sell or exchange them; or give them away.
The dogs must be muzzled and on a lead in a public place; under 7(1)(a), the muzzle must be sufficient to prevent the dog biting any person; and, as the result of section 7(1)(b), the dogs must be held by a person who is not less than 16 years old. Specially controlled dogs cannot be abandoned or allowed to stray.

Of course, the rules weren't stuck to and so someone died.

I think both the owners and the grandma should have been stuck with a prison sentence.

Anyone that leaves any type of dog alone with a child is asking for trouble. Anyone in charge of a child who is drunk/on drugs, should have at least a harsh fine, if not some sort of custodial sentence.

[floraadora]

Dont the parents of the child have some kind of responsibility too? I mean they did leave their kids with a known druggie, she also drank as well. They also left the kids knowing the dog was around, even if there was a rule about being in the house its easy to slip up and let the dog in by accident.

[red]

yes probably so. they are probably suffering enough though.

[Silver Ether]

Just read in our local paper that a mum here was arrested for "being drunk while looking after two children under the age of seven". They were her own children the youngest was only one week old.

As an ex childminder I got caught between a couple who had just split up. The childs granny was told by me that if I felt daddy had been drinking when he was on pick up that I would not hand the child over. I fely that was my duty to the child.

Davina

I did that only I told mum... turns out he wasn't a nice daddy at all .. so I am really glad that I went with what I felt right.

[Thomzo]

Dont the parents of the child have some kind of responsibility too? I mean they did leave their kids with a known druggie, she also drank as well. They also left the kids knowing the dog was around, even if there was a rule about being in the house its easy to slip up and let the dog in by accident.

I was thinking that as well. They must have known that mum used drugs. OK so they have to live with their loss but I still think they should be punished. Otherwise anyone could commit manslaughter and get off on the basis that they will have to live with their guilt!

I'm undecided on the dog owner. Except, again, he must have known that his mum was a drug user so he shouldn't have trusted her to look after his dog. Did he know that the child was going to be there? I don't know the answer to that one. If he did then he must be partly responsible.

I can't get out of my head that it took the poor child half an hour to die. If granny had been sober surely she would have been able to get help or stop the attack in that time?

Zoe