Yes the father should care more that the child was hurt , and about its safety , but he does have to worry about the dogs general safety aswell. As Dr. Phil said , the dog has an impairment , being deaf , and the breed is not suitable for children. My mother had a canine who had a bad rep. for being a crazy dog. When my parents brought my eldest sister home from the hospital my mother caught the dog trying to bite my sisters head , which got the dog an automatic rejection from the home and humainly utinized. But it wasnt just because the dog was attempting to harm my sister but the dog had caused alot of chaos around the neighboor hood , having accually mutilated the neighbors grill. My cousin and I were chased by our uncles White German Sheperd , who got a hold of my cousin and caused a 2 inch wound into my cousins buttocks. But the dog had been known to be a bit violent.
Not all dogs are bad , Only the canines raised unfairly or with a blaitent history of unruly behavior are the most concern for youth. Parents should select a child friend breed of canine or any type of animal when children are present within the home.
The mother and the father both had things right in their statements and things wrong. The mother was right to want safety for the child , but the dog was most likely startled by the childs sudden presence and was defending himself most likely. The father should care a bit more for his daughters safety but he had right that the canine probably was spooked and to keep the baby a good distance away or be introduced to it to where it can directly see the child coming on so as not to scare it so. Yet Dr. Phils compromise will surely help the family in the long run.
