Dog That Bit Child Is Returned to HomeBy Timothy Small(10/12/2007) After spending almost three weeks in the custody of the East Hampton Town Animal Control Department, the 6-year-old cocker spaniel, Lacy, who bit a 13-month-old child on Sept. 20, was returned to her owners on Tuesday, shortly after a dispute over the dog’s future was resolved in Town Justice Court.
Timothy Small
Thirteen-month-old Juliana Tubatan and her family were reunited with their dog, Lacy, after reaching an agreement with the East Hampton Town Animal Control Department in court on Tuesday.
|
Lacy was taken into Animal Control’s custody at the request of her owner, Victor Tubatan of Malone Street in Springs, after he came home on Sept. 20 to learn that his 13-month-old daughter, Juliana, had been bitten by the female cocker spaniel earlier in the day. Juliana’s mother, Julia Tubatan, took her daughter to Southampton Hospital to be treated for what the attending physician called “superficial lacerations” on her face.
According to Ms. Tubatan, she was playing with Juliana and their Labrador retriever, Sophie, on the front porch, when Juliana went to pick up a tennis ball that had rolled near a sitting Lacy. Startled, Lacy did not jump or growl, but made contact with Juliana’s face with her mouth open, then walked away, never biting down, she said.
It was later determined by Peter L. Borchelt, an animal behaviorist hired by the Tubatans to evaluate Lacy, that Juliana’s injuries were not consistent with bites, but with “light, open mouth contact” best described as “tooth injuries.”
The Tubatans were in court on Oct. 1, answering a complaint that their dog was dangerous, and that her rabies vaccination and dog license had expired. Because the rabies vaccination had expired in January 2006, Animal Control, adhering to Suffolk County Health Department protocol, had to keep Lacy for 10 days to determine whether or not she may have been carrying rabies when the bite occurred.
“Since you cannot test a living animal for rabies, you must hold it for 10 days, and if after those 10 days the dog is still healthy, it stands to reason that it did not carry rabies during the time of the bite,” Betsy Bambrick, the East Hampton animal control supervisor, said after the hearing. The test is reliable because an animal that transmits rabies typically falls ill within that time period, she said.
Implementation of the 10-day hold was the only technicality preventing the Tubatans from regaining custody of Lacy during that time, Ms. Bambrick said. She contends that in the days after the bite, no request was made on behalf of the Tubatans to get their dog back.
Eileen Baum, a neighbor of the Tubatans, said she called Animal Control on Sept. 21 to inquire about Lacy. Unable to adopt the dog herself, she hoped the Animal Rescue Fund of the Hamptons would consider finding a home for Lacy. But “ARF was not willing to put her up for adoption, based on the dog not being approachable,” Ms. Bambrick said.
This put the animal control supervisor in an “uncomfortable position, where the owner doesn’t want the dog back, he doesn’t want the dog euthanized, and the neighbor doesn’t want to adopt the dog,” she said, “and it was not faring well with me as far as the dog being adopted by someone else. It became obvious that I had to file a complaint because I was stuck with the dog.”
The complaint was unique in that it was filed on behalf of Juliana. Under Section 121 of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, “any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in the case of a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may, and any dog control officer or police officer as provided in subdivision one of this section shall, make a complaint under oath or affirmation to any municipal judge or justice of such attack or threatened attack.” It was the first time Ms. Bambrick has made a complaint on behalf of a victim, she said.
At Tuesday’s hearing, before East Hampton Town Justice Catherine A. Cahill, the dangerous dog charge was dismissed under the condition that the Tubatans follow a number of stipulations, the most significant being that they do not hold the town liable for the Sept. 20 bite or any future bite Juliana may receive from Lacy.
In addition, Lacy must complete training required by the court (and proposed by Dr. Borchelt within three weeks), remain on a leash held by an adult at least 18 years old when off the Tubatans’ property, wear a muzzle when in public, and she must not be left unsupervised with any person under the age of 14. Additionally, Lacy’s rabies inoculation must be updated and her license renewed, and the Tubatans must pay for Lacy’s boarding.
Before the dispute was resolved, contradicting evaluations of Lacy emerged from both sides. Animal Control had hired Tracy Kroll, an animal behaviorist, to evaluate Lacy on Sept. 27. Based on her evaluation, she diagnosed Lacy with severe fear aggression, and recommended that she be put to death.
The Tubatans hired their own animal behaviorist, Dr. Borchelt, the president of Animal Behavior Consultants in Brooklyn, to conduct a separate evaluation on Oct. 3. He contends that Dr. Kroll’s evaluation, because it was conducted in Lacy’s cage at the East Hampton Veterinary Group, was held in a dishonest context.
“A shy dog, in the context of being alone and away from family members (with whom she has lived on a constant basis for 6 years) and housed in a small, uncomfortable, unfamiliar place, confronted closely by unfamiliar people who approach, will likely display defensive or fearful behavior, and even aggressive behavior when given no avenue for escape,” Dr. Borchelt wrote in his evaluation.
“When outside of the cage, she exhibited friendly behavior and no signs of defensive, fearful, or aggressive behavior when confronted and handled (extensively) by me, a stranger toward whom she had previously been defensive in the context of her cage.”
He said it was likely that Lacy, who has generally been shy around Juliana, according to Mr. and Ms. Tubatan, is still adjusting to the presence of a young child. “In most cases, such a dog becomes friendlier as the child develops and particularly if the dog is gradually exposed to the child.”
Rather than euthanizing or finding a new home for Lacy, perhaps one without young children, he suggested specific behavioral techniques to help her warm up to Juliana. Dr. Kroll amended her evaluation after she learned that Juliana’s injuries were not serious, and that the Tubatans wanted Lacy back, Maddie Narvilas, the town’s assistant attorney, who handled the case, said on Tuesday.
Not until the preliminary court conference on Oct. 1 did Ms. Bambrick learn that the Tubatans wanted Lacy back, the animal control supervisor said. It was also the first time the Tubatans and their attorneys, Len Egert and Amy Trakinski, saw the complaints.
Since that time, the Tubatans’ lawyers worked with the town’s assistant attorney and Animal Control to reach a settlement in which Lacy could be returned to her owners.
Immediately after the hearing, the Tubatans went to pick up Lacy at the East Hampton Veterinary Group. “It feels good to have her back,” Mayra Tubatan, Juliana’s 16-year-old sister, said.