Canadian Teenage Mum Charged With Manslaughter After Dog Kills Baby

[poodlefan]

From the SMH:

A TEENAGE mother whose three-week-old baby girl was mauled to death by a dog in the Quebec province of Canada is facing manslaughter charges.

The 17-year-old girl, who could not be identified under Canadian law, was smoking a cigarette with her own mother on Monday when her baby was killed inside her home in Saint-Barnabe-Sud, northeast of Montreal, the girl’s lawyer Andre Williams confirmed.

Mr Williams said the infant was strapped into a portable car seat when it was attacked by one or more huskies that belonged to family friends who were living with the girl and her 19-year-old boyfriend.

The lawyer said he was surprised by the charges and claimed they would be difficult to prove, The Montreal Gazette reported.

"Could she not have been given time to grieve?" Mr Williams said.

Outside the court the baby’s father, who also could not be identified, told reporters he did not blame the girl: "I know she is not guilty. I hope she will be acquitted."

"She is a good mother," he added.

The girl is due back in court on August 31.

Which part of dogs + baby = supervison required don't people get? I wonder if that's the basis of the manslaughter charge.

Edited June 9, 2010 by poodlefan

[megan_]

The report doesn't say anything about supervision though?

I think the whoel "supervision" thing gives people a false sense of security. A dog attack happens in milliseconds and I can't imagine that someone could pull off a few attacking dogs of that size. Being int eh same room as the baby wouldn't make a difference unless the mother knew how to read signals from the dogs and exactly how to react? Most people don't seem to know the signals of an arroused or scared etc dog.

[mr.mister]

I think regardless of how fast a dog attack can be, if the parents had been in there with the child, they may have been able to intervene in time to stop the dogs actually killing the baby.

[Wazzat Xolo]

The report doesn't say anything about supervision though?

I think the whoel "supervision" thing gives people a false sense of security. A dog attack happens in milliseconds and I can't imagine that someone could pull off a few attacking dogs of that size. Being int eh same room as the baby wouldn't make a difference unless the mother knew how to read signals from the dogs and exactly how to react? Most people don't seem to know the signals of an arroused or scared etc dog.

I think they base the charges on " all that could reasonably be done to prevent an attack at the time' Leaving ANY dog unsupervised with any child, any age is in itself a very stupid thing to do.