Dog that mauled Kamloops boy returned to owner, mom demands change

CONTENT ADVISORY

A 10-year-old Kamloops boy who was the victim of an unprovoked attack by a neighbour’s dog last month required transport by ambulance to Kelowna’s hospital for reconstructive facial surgery.

“It’s emotional for our whole family, it’s definitely going to have a lifelong impact on my little one,” said the boys’s mother Jennifer Billingsley.

The family remains shaken by the incident and the dog is still living at the house. She’s lobbying the province to change the definition around dangerous dogs to protect other children from dog attacks.

The attack occurred in the residential Sagebrush neighbourhood on Nov. 26 at roughly 4 p.m. Her son and his two friends had run across the street to say hi to a neighbour.

“Some new roommates had moved into the neighbour’s house and they have a dog,” Billingsley said. “The neighbour invited the kids into the yard to meet the dog. The dog’s owner agreed and opened the door to let it out.”

Two of the kids were inside the yard while a third was standing on something, peeking over the fence.

“The kids say the dog ran straight after my son without hesitation and attacked his face,” Billingsley said. “It was pulled off my son, then subsequently went back and attacked him again and bit him on the hand.”

Billingsley’s husband rushed the boy to Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops where it was determined the injuries were so severe he needed to be transferred to Kelowna General Hospital to have plastic surgery done.

“He was terrified,” Billingsley said, choking back tears. “He couldn’t talk, his lip had been shredded and he was in too much pain. His eyes looked so scared and he had a constant stream of tears coming out for 12 hours.”

While waiting for transport to Kelowna, Billingsley went home to pack an overnight bag. She phoned the Kamloops’ Community Services Division, formerly knowns as the bylaw department, and gave them a verbal statement. She made a second statement when a bylaw officer called back at midnight.

Upon returning from the hospital in Kelowna, Billingsley filled out a witness report for bylaw.

The dog was temporarily apprehended by the city where it underwent a two-part test to determine whether the case would go to the courts for a warrant for a destruction order.

“The two-part test is what the courts use for the destruction order,” Kamloops community services manager Will Beatty told iNFOnews.ca. “If the City says the dog is dangerous and releasing it to its current owner would pose a risk to the public the judge would have to, as per the Community Charter, issue the euthanasia order.

“If the dog is deemed dangerous as per the Community Charter but it can be released to the owner with no risk to the public with mitigative strategies in place, then the court is ordered to not order to euthanize.”

Based on a behavioural consultant the city hired, Beatty determined the dog could be returned with strict rules in place.  

Billingsley said that isn’t good enough.

“They do a behavioural assessment to see if the dog can be rehabilitated and whether or not it poses an unreasonable risk to the community,” she said.

“That assessment showed the dog could be rehabilitated and it was returned to its 18-year-old owner with a whole bunch of rules including having a muzzle in public and being put in a cage when outside. The kids living at that home are between 18 and 20. That’s a huge responsibility for someone with a dog we already know mauled a child without provocation.”

Billingsley is lobbying Kamloops MLA Peter Milobar to get the law and definition around dangerous dogs changed.

“I have to illicit change, the law is not acceptable,” she said. “You have no rights for protection or to ensure the dog doesn’t come back to the community. Once the decision is made by the city, there’s no appeal process.

“If you’ve had to get reconstructive surgery as a result of an interaction with a dog, I don’t know how that dog can be deemed safe.”

Since going public with the story numerous community members have reached out to Billingsley to share personal stories of similar incidents.

“The threshold for a judge to warrant the destruction of a dog is quite high,” she said. “Did my son have to die in order for something to be done here? My intention is not be retaliatory, it is to make sure this doesn’t happen to another child.”

She has not spoken to the dog’s owner.