If they did put the dog down, pardon my words, they would be one of the most stupid persons on earth.

It was not the animal's fault, your niece should be watched and educated while "playing" with the dog.

If the dog had bitten her with intent to hurt her, it makes him a dangerous animal who might do it to other children who aren't abusing him, and that means that he would have to be put down, period.

Even if he didn't mean to hurt her like that, I'm not sure how much that changes things in the eyes of the law.

If a family friendly dog attacked my niece I would make sure that my dumb sister and brother in law would meet someone who could teach them the obvious reasons why the dog attacked the girl after being molested countless times.

I would also make sure to educate better my niece as she grows and teach her not to abuse animals.

Finally I would also make even more sure, that the dog still behaves ok and is not disturbed by the child's presence. A dog also has memory.

It's state level, I think - the laws in Euphoria's state were linked earlier in the topic. If it's classified as a dangerous animal who's likely to bite another child even if it's he nicest dog in the world otherwise, they would have to kill it.

But obviously this dog, like many normal dogs, will bite again if being provoked. Even if it is a child.

So in that sense he is likely to bite again, but I think the law means wether the dog is likely to bite unprovoked (or" too easily" provoked).

That's why he would be put through an evaluation by Animal Control. They would determine if he was likely to bite another kid (or even the same kid) without being hit again.

That's a good idea.

I think they should call the social services and let them take the child away instead, because it's obvious that the mother isn't fit to take care of her kid.

Everybody learned a harsh lesson here, but you're going to much more seriously negatively impact a child's way of life by taking her away from the parents she already knows than by taking away a dog.