Charges for Not Having My Daughter Treated for a Facial Dog Bite

[spazilton]

My question involves child abuse or neglect in the State of: Virginia

Background, there is a custody dispute between myself and my in laws. (I don't want to give any more information than that for identification reasons)

On a weekend visitation I noticed my young daughter had scarring on her face and very close to the eye, from what looked like a healed wound. When I questioned her on what had happened, she stated that my in laws pit bull mix had bit her in the face. She stated that it had bled profusely and that she was not taken to the doctor, or allowed to call me to tell me what happened. Even talking to her 5 or 6 times between when it happened and the time I saw her again, she never mentioned it which is VERY out of character for her.

When I heard what had happened, I took her to the doctor for assessment and treatment. The doctor did file a Dog Bite report with the VDH. My opposing party is adamant that she was not bitten. I did not obtain the medical report until today.

The report that I got today clearly states that this was an untreated dog bite, states the injuries she sustained, that she did have discomfort in the area, that my daughter did convey to the doctor that she was bit and there was residual busing consistent with a dog bite etc.. However it did appear to be healing normally.

Now almost 4 weeks after the bite occurred, she has visable scarring on the face from this injury. I have scheduled her an appointment with a reconstructive plastic surgeon next week, to have the scarring evaluated and a treatment plan devised to minimize the visibility of the scars.

My question is, is refusal to have a dog bite treated on the face of a young child in violation of "§ 18.2-371. Causing or encouraging acts rendering children delinquent, abused, etc.; penalty; abandoned infant."

Any person 18 years of age or older, including the parent of any child, who (i) willfully contributes to, encourages, or causes any act, omission, or condition which renders a child delinquent, in need of services, in need of supervision, or abused or neglected as defined in § 16.1-228 (Relevant section of "2. Whose parents or other person responsible for his care neglects or refuses to provide care necessary for his health; "

I believe I have all of my ducks in a row on this, and I know it would be risky pulling the trigger on my opposing party with criminal charges, prior to my trial, however I believe this was so willful, and showed such a disregard for the well being of my daughter it cant be ignored. This is not the first instance of medical neglect I have documented, this is just the worse.

Did my in laws violate the law under this section?

[Disagreeable]

Only the judge can determine that. Children accumulate scars as a process of growing up. Your argument you are making is not about the scar, it is about whether the resulting treatment was reasonable. It does not appear the wound was infected or required mandatory doctor intervention.

[aardvarc]

I think you're going to have difficulty with using phrases like "refusal" to get the bite treated. Refusal implies that a source with knowledge of dog bites or similar injuries ordered or recommended treatment, and such treatment was not sought in accordance with that recommendation. That doesn't appear to be what happened here. Kids get hurt every day, and most of those injuries are dealt with via kisses, bandaids, icepacks, and other home care. The burden will be on you to show that the level of injury was to the level where medical treatment was blatantly necessary. If the guardians felt that the level of injury didn't need care, such as stitches, and after the injury no infection or other complication was apparant, then the state isn't likely to consider further action. If anything, the avenues here may point to issues with not reporting a dog bite, if your jurisdiction has such a requirement - but it's highly doubtful that simply not seeking medical care for what appears to be a healed injury is going to ruffle any feathers with either authorities or the court. The incident can also point to the need to examine whether proper supervision was in place (depending on the circumstances in play at the time the incident occurred - who was watching her? whose dog was it? how did the dog and child come together?). So while there may be some things that need to be looked at, chances of a criminal charge for abuse or neglect not seeking treatment for a dog bite of this nature are about nil. Any legal fallout will center on reporting issues (regardless of injury or not), or supervision issues.

[spazilton]

I wanted to thank you for the response.

In VA, any Dog Bite reported to a doctor is required by statute to be reported to the Department of Health. I believe that the dog did not have a valid rabies cert and because of that fact and that it would be a mandatory reporting if she was taken to the doctor, she was not.

I have to agree, that you are most likely correct without confirmation of the orginial state of the bite, and the actual injuries at the time of the bite I would have a hard time establishing that it would have been medically necessary to take her.

I think I will end up pressing this issue as extremely poor judgement, and lack of proper supervision, especially since the dog has bitten 4 times prior to this. Since the bite occured on his property and by his dog, Virginia law does not allow the dog to be declared dangerous.

Thanks again for the advice.

[aardvarc]

Absolutely. If this animal has a history of dog bites, and the child and dog were not kept separated such that the child got ANY level of injury from an animal KNOWN to be a biter - that's going to point to some serious (and perhaps chronic) supervision issues. Focus there.

[spazilton]

The last avenue, I am going to try is talking about this to my child's teacher. She might have been a witness to what the injury looked like the day after it happened. I know for a fact that she did not miss school for the time in question (I pulled her attendance records). I can't imagine that it wasn't noticeable. I have a real suspicion she was given false information as to the nature of the injury, and if true, I guess I will be throwing her on my witness list.

I guess I am just to the point of frustration, this entire custody battle has been very long and protracted, everyone gets a tad tired of fighting after some point.