Mother Locks Herself And Five Children In Dog's Cage

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

Yet another moronic, irresponsible owner doing things all the wrong way, subjecting her kids to an traumatising ordeal, and basically not claiming any responsibility whatsoever.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2011/11/08/281225_news.html

POLICE were called to the RSPCA'S Bohle shelter yesterday after a woman locked herself and her five children inside a cage with their pet dog that was about to be euthanised.

Helene Douma, 25, and her children aged from nine to five months had been allowed to visit the shelter to spend time with their dog Shadow before she was put down by order of the Townsville City Council.

Once inside the caged enclosure with Shadow at 9am, Ms Douma used a padlock she had hidden in her clothing to lock a chain around the gate.

Police were called and at 10.50am they arrived with bolt cutters to cut the chain.

The bolt cutters were not needed and 20 minutes after police arrived Ms Douma, of her own volition, led her children out of the cage after officers warned her that if they had to cut the chain she would be arrested and her children would be placed in care.

When Ms Douma emerged more than two hours after locking herself in, she and her three eldest children formed a circle and hugged and cried in the shelter's carpark for several minutes before being asked by police to leave the area.

The Townsville Bulletin was stopped by the Townsville City Council from speaking to Ms Douma while she was in the cage with her children at the rear of the RSPCA property.

But, when she came out she said Shadow was innocent of any wrongdoing.

She said the dog was a victim of malicious complaints and that Townsville City Council had erred badly in judgement and in stealing a harmless dog from its family and sentencing it to death.

Ms Douma said Shadow ``would never hurt anyone''.

Ms Douma's mother and father arrived at the shelter to support their daughter.

Her father John Douma said Shadow was a 14-year-old bitch and that she had never hurt anyone.

He said the council was using legislation in the Health and Safety Act to harass his daughter and her family.

``They use this act to bludgeon people, to make them comply,'' he said.

``This old bitch is missing most of her teeth. She wouldn't hurt a fly.''

Townsville City Council disagrees and has a rap sheet on Shadow that includes complaints about ``wandering and aggressive dogs'' and of an attack on a neighbouring dog.

Council's Director of Community and Environment Gavin Lyons said what it came down to was Ms Douma's refusal to build a suitable enclosure to contain the animal which was listed as a ``regulated dog''.

``The dog was involved in a serious attack on other dogs last year and despite numerous requests over the past 15 months, Ms Douma has refused to put up a proper enclosure,'' Mr Lyons said.

``Following last year's attack the dog was declared a regulated dog under State legislation. This means the owner has to keep the dog within an enclosure 1.8 metres high and at least 10 square metres in area.''

Mr Lyons said council only impounded the dog and issued the destruction order as a last resort.

He said it had given Ms Douma every opportunity to meet the conditions that would have allowed her to keep the dog.

Mr Lyons said that as late as last Friday when Ms Douma discontinued an appeal to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have the council order overturned, council was prepared to stop the action if she put up the fence.

``Council provided Ms Douma with a chance to see the dog this morning. It was unfortunate she chose to take the action she did,'' Mr Lyons said.

Ms Douma's friend Fiona Wilkinson said Shadow ``hardly had any teeth''.

``This dog is not a menace. That's why we are here,'' she said.

Ms Douma said she wanted to spend time with her dog, but left when told she would be arrested and her children put into care.

[Silvawilow]

Those poor child What a terrible thing for them to be made to be a part of

[Sayly]

Am I missing something? If she loves it that much, why not build the required housing?

[Guest lavendergirl]

Some people are just nuts. Hope Communities is looking into her parenting behaviour - and what about the grandparents??

[Jodi]

Was thinking the exact same thing.

Am I missing something? If she loves it that much, why not build the required housing?

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Stupid moron, it's scary that she's reproducing .... zero concern for other people and their pets. Makes me very angry.

[indigirl]

Hmm 25 yrs old with a 9 year old.. 5 kids... locks them all in a dog cage with her including a 5 month old baby... yep sjes got her priorities right.. NOT

Edited November 9, 2011 by indigirl

[B-Q]

What an idiot, she had every chance to save her dog and didn't take it.

[emgem]

Sadly, she probably couldn't afford to fulfill the council's requirements, or she is renting and the landlOrd wouldn't let her. There are sadly lIt's of reasons why someone might not comply with the councils request. That has nothing to do with being stupid or not caring about the dog. To be honest if governments are going to make these kinds of laws they also need to provide financial assistance to those to who those who need it.

[Souff]

To be honest if governments are going to make these kinds of laws they also need to provide financial assistance to those to who those who need it.

I would suggest to you that governments are already handing over quite a bit of OUR money to assist people who need financial assistance. And I would also suggest to you that no government is going to make a special case for this one and build a fence where the level of responsibility is so poor that the occupants would probably not bother to close the gate anyhow.

The first and last rule of dog ownership is KEEP YOUR BLOODY DOG AT HOME!

I don't want to see it chasing cars, I don't want it bailing up somebody's cat or some elderly person, fighting with other roaming dogs, I don't want it pooping all over the nature strip or outside the shops, and I don't want to hit it on the road with my car when I come around a corner on a dark night.

If these people cannot safely keep their dog at home, then they should find another home for the dog, or surrender it to council.

No government handouts of taxpayers money, no freebies, there are enough rorts already.

Souff

[wherezaball]

Well said Souff!

Governments only put these laws out there because of irresponsible people who repeatedly break the law or fail to comply with requirements. Speaking from experience most Councils will assist a dog owner by giving them more time to comply IF the dog owner can show they are trying to comply with requirements. Some Council's even offer payment plans for impound/release fees and rarely are these fees paid in full.

So why should Councils/Governments pay for enclosures for dog owners who will not use them anyway? Just another case of the responsible people getting nothing and the irresponsible expecting/getting everything.

Rant over...

[indigirl]

To be honest if governments are going to make these kinds of laws they also need to provide financial assistance to those to who those who need it.

I would suggest to you that governments are already handing over quite a bit of OUR money to assist people who need financial assistance. And I would also suggest to you that no government is going to make a special case for this one and build a fence where the level of responsibility is so poor that the occupants would probably not bother to close the gate anyhow.

The first and last rule of dog ownership is KEEP YOUR BLOODY DOG AT HOME!

I don't want to see it chasing cars, I don't want it bailing up somebody's cat or some elderly person, fighting with other roaming dogs, I don't want it pooping all over the nature strip or outside the shops, and I don't want to hit it on the road with my car when I come around a corner on a dark night.

If these people cannot safely keep their dog at home, then they should find another home for the dog, or surrender it to council.

No government handouts of taxpayers money, no freebies, there are enough rorts already.

Souff

+1

[Silvawilow]

To be honest if governments are going to make these kinds of laws they also need to provide financial assistance to those to who those who need it.

I would suggest to you that governments are already handing over quite a bit of OUR money to assist people who need financial assistance. And I would also suggest to you that no government is going to make a special case for this one and build a fence where the level of responsibility is so poor that the occupants would probably not bother to close the gate anyhow.

The first and last rule of dog ownership is KEEP YOUR BLOODY DOG AT HOME!

I don't want to see it chasing cars, I don't want it bailing up somebody's cat or some elderly person, fighting with other roaming dogs, I don't want it pooping all over the nature strip or outside the shops, and I don't want to hit it on the road with my car when I come around a corner on a dark night.

If these people cannot safely keep their dog at home, then they should find another home for the dog, or surrender it to council.

No government handouts of taxpayers money, no freebies, there are enough rorts already.

Souff

+2

I am so sick of people blaming others for their shortcomings.

[aussielover]

Sadly, she probably couldn't afford to fulfill the council's requirements, or she is renting and the landlOrd wouldn't let her. There are sadly lIt's of reasons why someone might not comply with the councils request. That has nothing to do with being stupid or not caring about the dog. To be honest if governments are going to make these kinds of laws they also need to provide financial assistance to those to who those who need it.

Pets are a luxury, not a necessity.

The government has no obligation to provide financial assistance to those who choose to keep a pet, let it become a nuisance and then can't afford to comply with regulations.

[emgem]

Wow, I admit to being somewhat flabbergasted at the miserly responses here. I disagree that governments, particularly local governments do enough to assist those who are socially and financially disadvantaged. However, I did think since it was the dogs life at stake rather than the mother or children's happiness that people on this forum might have been more compassionate. Yes, people should be responsible and no, they should not get a pet if they cannot take care of it. But pet ownership is a long term thing and unfortunately people's circumstances change. Sometimes the law changes. Don't forget once a dog has been declared dangerous or a restricted breed ownership cannot be transferred, so if the current owner cannot afford the new fees or security measures the dog is killed. I think there are measures that councils could take to help people keep their pets, particularly in the case of dogs who have never been aggressive but have been declared a restricted breed and dogs who have only displayed agression toward other dogs. Councils could reduce the fees, give payment plans for the fees, provide loans so people could afford fencing, allow the once of transfer of dog ownership so the dog could move to a more suitable home and in rare circumstances provide money for fencing etc. I really do not think it is too much to ask in exchange for a life, even a dogs life.

Also when they calculate benefits for people, they make the assumption that people should be able to have a TV or they would be materially (read socially) disadvantaged compared to the rest of society. Since more than half the Australian has pets and pet ownership has clearer benefits than TV ownership, I think it should be considered a right.

[Souff]

Wow, I admit to being somewhat flabbergasted at the miserly responses here. I disagree that governments, particularly local governments do enough to assist those who are socially and financially disadvantaged. However, I did think since it was the dogs life at stake rather than the mother or children's happiness that people on this forum might have been more compassionate. Yes, people should be responsible and no, they should not get a pet if they cannot take care of it. But pet ownership is a long term thing and unfortunately people's circumstances change. Sometimes the law changes. Don't forget once a dog has been declared dangerous or a restricted breed ownership cannot be transferred, so if the current owner cannot afford the new fees or security measures the dog is killed. I think there are measures that councils could take to help people keep their pets, particularly in the case of dogs who have never been aggressive but have been declared a restricted breed and dogs who have only displayed agression toward other dogs. Councils could reduce the fees, give payment plans for the fees, provide loans so people could afford fencing, allow the once of transfer of dog ownership so the dog could move to a more suitable home and in rare circumstances provide money for fencing etc. I really do not think it is too much to ask in exchange for a life, even a dogs life.

Also when they calculate benefits for people, they make the assumption that people should be able to have a TV or they would be materially (read socially) disadvantaged compared to the rest of society. Since more than half the Australian has pets and pet ownership has clearer benefits than TV ownership, I think it should be considered a right.

Pet ownership is not a right, it is a privilege.

It is also a big responsibility.

One of the first checks that needs to be done BEFORE anyone takes on the responsibility of dog ownership is "Are the fences OK".

Every set of legislation about dogs says that the dog must be under control AT ALL TIMES.

People who do not contain their dogs at home not only put the public and other animals, including wildlife, at risk but they put their own dog at huge risk.

Allowing a dog to roam is totally irresponsible and this dog was known to council.

If a person cannot keep their dog at home, for whatever reason, then it is up to them to find ways of fixing the problem.

If money is an issue, there is always a way of finding the money. A lot of people find a job and this provides the money to be able to spend on the things we need.

Television sets and dogs are the sort of things that we can live without, believe it or not.

They are luxuries, they are not necessities.

We might love them and want them, but the bottom line is that we can live happily without them.

Thinking that somebody else will pay for the fencing for this dog is daft.

Would you like somebody to be paid to open and close the gate too?

Souff

[Souff]

btw Em Gem, there are 5 little children involved and Souff has not ignored this fact.

A 25 year old Mum of 5 cannot hold a full time job, I appreciate that.

However, I have just been thinking about another young family of similar size (4 kids under 6)and similar age of parent and they don't have a dog because they are in rented accommodation in a town and they are not allowed a dog. They have guinea pigs, a cat, chooks, birds and fish. Pets galore. Mum works 3 evening shifts a week at the local takeaway while her parents sit with the kids. The 2 older kids are at school and two littlies are not. Mum also takes phone messages for the local tradesman, whose number is diverted to her number while he is at work and she is paid for that. She also minds children at her home for a small fee. She is on government benefits but she works and saves money as well. They have somebody else's old TV and other people's old furniture, gratefully received and now painted in bright colours. If I were to ask this lovely young Mum about your suggestion, I am quite sure that you would not be pleased with her reply either.

She too would like to have a dog.

Later.

Souff

[Rebanne]

Wow, I admit to being somewhat flabbergasted at the miserly responses here.

how do you know the dog is not dangerous?

and that the rulings passed on the dog are not fair?

you don't; but the council has seen all the evidence and acted upon it. I have no time for an agressive dog.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Rebanne

[emgem]

btw Em Gem, there are 5 little children involved and Souff has not ignored this fact.

A 25 year old Mum of 5 cannot hold a full time job, I appreciate that.

However, I have just been thinking about another young family of similar size (4 kids under 6)and similar age of parent and they don't have a dog because they are in rented accommodation in a town and they are not allowed a dog. They have guinea pigs, a cat, chooks, birds and fish. Pets galore. Mum works 3 evening shifts a week at the local takeaway while her parents sit with the kids. The 2 older kids are at school and two littlies are not. Mum also takes phone messages for the local tradesman, whose number is diverted to her number while he is at work and she is paid for that. She also minds children at her home for a small fee. She is on government benefits but she works and saves money as well. They have somebody else's old TV and other people's old furniture, gratefully received and now painted in bright colours. If I were to ask this lovely young Mum about your suggestion, I am quite sure that you would not be pleased with her reply either.

She too would like to have a dog.

Later.

Souff

It's not about the children or the mother, but about the dog. I am not advocating that people should be encouraged to take on animals that they cannot afford or control. What I am suggesting is that assitance be provided in a few extreme cases so that fewer dogs get killed each year. Looking over the history of seized dogs financial difficulties seems to be the main reason that people don't comply with council requirements. There are very few dogs declared dangerous each year (from the NSW stats). The numbers and the number of people in that kind of finacial difficulty would probably equate to less than one case per council per financial year. Hardly, a huge expense.

I do think that the ability to have a pet is a necessity rather than a luxury. I don't think landlords should be able to discriminate on the basis of whether or not people have pets anymore than they should discriminate based on whether or not people have children, and I say this as a landlord myself. I also think that pet ownership should be taken into consideration as a necessity when setting benefit limits and I made the direct comparision to TV because the government already considers that a necessity (as they do personal computers).

Personally, I think that providing assistance to people so that fewer pets are handed in to shelters and at risk of death is a good thing. But I can see you think differently.

[indigirl]

emgen you seem to be completly missing the point that this owner is not a responsible dog owner. Her dog has been declared dangerous yet she still does not contain it. I fail to see how you can see her as a victim??

If she cared for her dog and was responsible she would have contained her dog! Whether the dangerous dog ruling was fair it not is irrelevant - she risked her dogs life by nit containing it.

In my opinion she has no business owning a dog. It is HER fault the dog was PTS all she had to do was contain it, if she was unable to contain it then it was her responsibility as the owner to make alternative arrangements to ensure the dog didn't break the dangerous dog order.

If she can't/ won't provide afequate fencing she has no business owning a dog. If you can't afford a dog then don't own one! It's irresponsible and unfair to the dog.

Pets are a luxury that not everyone is able to afford. Owning my dogs and cats means I choose to sacrifice other things in order to be able to afford them. It's a choice

I make. My lounge needs replacing but my animals come first, so the new lounge has to wait.

Owning pets is NOT a right.