Dog Attacks a Child in Denton County, Texas
A quirk in the law has allowed a dog bite to go unpunished. Earlier this month, a five-year-old Denton County boy was attacked by a pit bull after the dog dug under a neighboring fence. The child’s mom rushed him to the hospital where his significant wounds were treated. The doctor advised that if the dog had some sort of disease, that the stitching could make things worse as the disease would be trapped in him. The mom decided against stitching, which makes complete sense.
The dog was properly quarantined for 10 days, but because there were no stitches, he was released to his owner with no further repercussions. Last night, KXAS reported that if the child would have had stitches, then the dog would have possibly been put down after a hearing by a judge.
Who would have thought that the mother’s decision to not let her son have stitches would let the dog off? Why do stitches make a difference? Since the dog’s fate would not be decided until a hearing is held, then the fact of stitching should make no difference. I am not saying this dog needs to be put down, but that should certainly be considered--stitches or not. Here we have an innocent five-year-old playing in his own backyard. I would assume that he will be absolutely petrified to go back there and play again. It's like her son is being punished and not the dog! Sounds like a quick in the law which needs to be fixed.
