Messages By: hollyufpsy

There is nothing normal about the husband’s feelings or yours! There is nothing normal about a child not being able to play safely in his own living room floor either. This is the humans domain and the not an animals if you want to get technical about it. Does the father understand? Does he understand that in no circumstances should he as a father and protector even consider letting this type of danger reside at his home and put his CHILD at risk of being mauled or worse! The dog should not even be there because of the child’s fear now. Does Dr. Phil really understand or is he smart enough to know the type of floodgate this would open with people who value dogs more than children. This is crazy! I can only hope you are speaking from the point of view of a person with no children in the house.  The things people to children these days in the name of selfishness is sickening. It should be hard wired in every humans soul to PROTECT ALL CHILDREN AT ALL COSTS!….NOT VERY HARD!!!

FROM PREVIOUS POST:

  Steve's obvious unwillingness to separate from this dangerous animal is the problem! NOT THE MOM! It happened, its over, now the question is what will be done to keep it from happening again? Mom recognizes the problem and obviously regrets what happened and is pleading with her husband to get rid of the dog, and not just ship it to grandma's where the child will see it again. Steve refuses and believes it can all be worked out. Simply put he chose his love for a DOG over his child's physical and mental safety. Mom wants it gone! It is that simple. What is so hard to understand?

the fact that they appear in Dr phil show and not in jail concerns me. those innocent children were not born by their own choices;consequently, it is parent's responsibility to nourish them with their ultimate love. what the hell is going on in this country? I have been beaten by my parents probably more than them so I know what it feels like, and I don't want anybody else to feel the same way that I do about my parents and my childhood. when a child gets beaten, it changes their personality, there is nothign like, ok they experience it and they get away with it. 

I don't know why I'm bothering to explain myself because it's like banging my head against a wall with the two of you and I know it just feeds into the obvious need you have to argue about something. 

 Yes, you have struck a nerve because I feel your comments are so insulting to people that you know nothing about, and you don't know a darn thing about how they run their households, yet you feel the need to nit pick and question every decision they make simply by the few details they tell you when they share their story.  As I said, you should definitely share your viewpoints, but it's a different story to question and insult people's priorities repeatedly. 

When I said that the mother came off nutty to me, it had nothing to do with her being concerned about her child, she has every right to be.  I thought it was a little much that she was SO freaked out about having the child even visit the grandmother's house even if the dogs were locked behind a fence, which is a comment the father made.  If people are worried that the child might somehow get out of the house to see the dogs, my response is, who the heck is watching the child?  It was made clear that the mother will not allow the dog back into the house, so I don't know why JoeyJohn keeps going on about how the gates and things would work. I think people were making general comments about how you COULD keep a dog and child separate if need be and telling their stories about what worked for THEM. I would imagine that people aren't answering you because your questions are pointless asking about things that obviously worked already for them, why should they have to justify it to you after the fact! 

So to sum up, because this is the last I'm writing on this: 

yes, perhaps I should not have used the word "nuts" in regard to the mother and perhaps I also used the wrong word in my one post when I said the "only " reason I disagreed with the person was that the dog was sleeping.   I still don't believe that you allow a toddler to crawl over to a dog, sleeping or otherwise,  and you would especially have to use extra precaution around a special needs dog. It was a horrible accident, but I still do not believe the dog is a vicious dog. It did not run up to the child and attack it, the child approached the dog. I still believe that if Steve wants his mother to take care of the dogs and she's willing, why not let her so he can still have them in his life?  If they have that option, then why does the dog have to die? It makes no sense to me. Steve said on the show, all he wanted from his wife was a compromise so that he could still have the dogs somehow in his life. I still agree with Dr. Phil's advice, provided the dogs are not  put outside full time. And as strongly as you feel about standing up for children, I feel just as strongly for standing up for dogs, because they surely can't speak for themselves and do not deserve to pay the price for what ignorant people to do to them in the forms of abuse and neglect. I will not ever apologize for that.