Home > Abuse > Child Abuse > Child Endangerment > Infant Loses Testicles In Dog Attack, Endangerment Charges Against Mother Dropped

Infant Loses Testicles In Dog Attack, Endangerment Charges Against Mother Dropped

October 20, 2010 at 4:26 am by Jaded

San Diego, CA – Remember the terrible story we posted back in April about a 7-month-old baby boy whose testicles were chewed off after his mother left him alone, strapped in his carseat, in a room with an adult pit bull and 6-month-old weimaraner-pit bull mix? For those who don’t feel like clicking, the child was left unattended in the room for about 10 minutes while mom was elsewhere in the home. The younger dog apparently went sniffing around the infant’s diaper and ended up gnawing on the boy’s scrotum. The child lost both testicles and will forever be required to undergo hormone therapy. Mom, 22-year-old Carrie Rae McKinney, was eventually arrested and charged with felony child endangerment. At McKinney’s preliminary hearing last Friday, Judge Dennis McConaghy characterized the attack as nothing more than a terrible accident and dismissed the case. “I don’t see a crime here,” he said. Prosecutor Sasha Jones argued that McKinney should have known it was dangerous to leave her child unattended around “aggressively playful” dogs. Defense attorney Richard Briones-Colman said that both animals were family dogs, not attack dogs. “Miss McKinney knew these dogs,” he said. “She had left her children alone with the dogs before and nothing had happened. Many parents would have done the same.” Interestingly enough, the judge did not allow testimony from police about CPS having removed McKinney’s two older children from her custody just one week prior to the attack, or the fact that CPS was moving to remove the infant as well.

Tags: California, Child Endangerment, San Diego, When Animals Attack

26 Comments

Comments

V2 Cigs electronic cigarettes - Break Free From The Pack!

The views expressed in the comments are those of the comment writers and don't represent the views or opinions of D'D or its staff. Feel free to flag comments that may violate conditions outlined in our Disclaimer.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Kala-Lynn-Waters-Broccoli/646775267 Kala Lynn Waters Broccoli

this is bullshit! let that judge get his nuts chewed off by “accident” and see how he likes it…
http://www.facebook.com/people/John-House/1011555524 John House

That judge is sick. And an asshat (particularly if he knew of the testimony about CPS but didn’t allow it).
Parrot Toes (kathybird)

“She had left her children alone with the dogs before and nothing had happened.”

Hmmmm….Where have I heard this before?

Oh, I know.

“She had driven home drunk before and nothing had happened.”

or

“She had left the baby in the bathtub for a minute before and nothing had happened.”

or

“She had left her daughter with a new boyfriend before and nothing had happened.”

I think I could go on and on and on with that. What a stupid, STUPID judge! I think he needs to be evaluated pronto!
Anonymous

On the flip side I cant imagine the pain that the baby must have sufferred. My wife knows the difference between the screams of babies she says kev that’s a hurt scream hurry and that is a hungry scream warm the bottles but she has never stated that is a scream of a child getting its testicles eat off. I aggree with all of you the judge needs to be fired.
Anonymous

‘family dogs, not attack dogs’ -ummm…yeah…ok
Why in the hell did CPS remove the two older children one week before the attack but leave the youngest and most defenseless?
Coyote

Asshat judge probably had a golf game he had to get to and didn’t have the time to listen to the CPS drivel. Here’s hoping karma sends a pack of hungry dogs to chew off his balls.
Anonymous

Definate Laugh of the Day! Your wife sounds like she is amazing! I think maybe the judge needs to have his jangles nibbled by a pit mix then rule again!
Anonymous

Definate Laugh of the Day! Your wife sounds like she is amazing! I think maybe the judge needs to have his jangles nibbled by a pit mix then rule again!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Rebecca-Garcia/100000746322144 Rebecca Garcia

this bitch mother is lucky..real lucky
Anonymous

The review board needs to yank this bozo off the bench.
Athena

You’re right. To hell with the law! All judges should be activists, wielding their own agenda in the courtroom. /sarcasm

The judge has the responsibility to omit unrelated evidence. Unless the CPS was removing the children specifically because of the nature of the dogs, that would be one thing. But, based on his decision, it doesn’t sound like this was the case.

Do you know WHY judges are required to do this? Because, like some people say, none of us are truly innocent. The prosecution could drag in all sorts of unrelated bullshit that we did once upon a time in order to demonize our character, which would unfairly bias a jury. In other words, the fact that she was having her children taken away has no bearing on THIS case, which is to determine whether or not leaving a child unattended with the family pets for 10 minutes qualifies as child endangerment.
http://www.facebook.com/kennyhackett Kenny Hackett

To add to what Athena is saying, it may be that the prosecutor choose to harsh of a charge. I think what happened was tragic but I’m not sure it was felonious. The judge can only dismiss the current charges, he can not change them to the correct charges. Also, if the prosecution didn’t both the bring the CPS to court in person, allowing her report from a different case would be allowing hearsay.
Athena

And, this, folks, is why none of you are judges. They are elected and paid to leave their emotion out of it.

Evidence has to rise to satisfy specific criteria laid out for the charges in question. Had she left her child with dogs that had a history of violence, it would have been child endangerment, for example. The same would be true if she had left the child with the dogs for hours. But cases where a family dog attacks a child with no warning are rarely prosecuted to the sentencing stage.

A child being hurt does not necessarily mean a crime was committed. And in this case, the judge didn’t feel the evidence was sufficient to prove endangerment. Given what we know of the case, I agree with his decision.
Anonymous

I am personally not a Judge because being a asshole is not in my nature :>)
Anonymous

I am personally not a Judge because being a asshole is not in my nature :>)
Anonymous

I am personally not a Judge because being a asshole is not in my nature :>)
RobotSocks

Okay, all the shit above me aside, I’d just like to point out that I’m one of the parents who would NOT leave my child strapped in a car seat in a room with two dogs, regardless of what kind of dogs, regardless of how “nice” or “loving” the dogs are, regardless of how long I’ve had them. I’ve watched the news and heard too many stories about loving pets that just snap at something and go batshit crazy. I had a dog that was born the same day as my son. She was a german shepherd lab mix, she was massive, she was the sweetest dog I’ve ever met, and she never stayed in any room with my child with the door open or closed unless my husband or I were in there too. I was 99.9% sure she would never hurt him, but I wasn’t taking any chances.
http://www.facebook.com/people/John-House/1011555524 John House

“Interestingly enough, the judge did not allow testimony from police about CPS having removed McKinney’s two older children from her custody just one week prior to the attack, or the fact that CPS was moving to remove the infant as well.”

That’s what Jaded wrote. This is from the article she linked it to:

“The dog attack occurred just two days after Carrie McKinney’s two older boys, ages 3 and 6, were taken from her and placed in foster care following a court order, according to police. That same day, the grandfather said, San Diego child protective services had opened another case against the woman to take the 6-month-old away from her.”

Now. You obviously believe that it’s “unrelated” to include evidence that this broad was unfit to care for kids on a 273a felony child endangerment case. The prosecution obviously thought that they could prove criminal negligence in this case. Criminal negligence (in California) means that if a -reasonable- person in a similar situation would not have engaged in the same behavior, then the accused could be found criminally negligent for their actions. Reasonable people (this is 2010, not 1920) dealing with *any* type of dog here KNOW not to leave a baby unattended/unsupervised with dogs (no matter what breed, what age, what size, whatEVER). The situation was also very *preventable*, which also counts under the law.

A “terrible accident” (like the judge put it) would be if this woman was overly tired from working two jobs and left the baby to die in a smoldering hot car because she forgot about that he was in his carseat. But she was not a woman in that kind of situation. She *is* a freakin’ crackwhore who just doesn’t give a shit, unless you see something more in those vacant eyes than I do.
http://www.facebook.com/people/John-House/1011555524 John House

“Interestingly enough, the judge did not allow testimony from police about CPS having removed McKinney’s two older children from her custody just one week prior to the attack, or the fact that CPS was moving to remove the infant as well.”

That’s what Jaded wrote. This is from the article she linked it to:

“The dog attack occurred just two days after Carrie McKinney’s two older boys, ages 3 and 6, were taken from her and placed in foster care following a court order, according to police. That same day, the grandfather said, San Diego child protective services had opened another case against the woman to take the 6-month-old away from her.”

Now. You obviously believe that it’s “unrelated” to include evidence that this broad was unfit to care for kids on a 273a felony child endangerment case. The prosecution obviously thought that they could prove criminal negligence in this case. Criminal negligence (in California) means that if a -reasonable- person in a similar situation would not have engaged in the same behavior, then the accused could be found criminally negligent for their actions. Reasonable people (this is 2010, not 1920) dealing with *any* type of dog here KNOW not to leave a baby unattended/unsupervised with dogs (no matter what breed, what age, what size, whatEVER). The situation was also very *preventable*, which also counts under the law.

A “terrible accident” (like the judge put it) would be if this woman was overly tired from working two jobs and left the baby to die in a smoldering hot car because she forgot about that he was in his carseat. But she was not a woman in that kind of situation. She *is* a freakin’ crackwhore who just doesn’t give a shit, unless you see something more in those vacant eyes than I do.
http://www.facebook.com/people/John-House/1011555524 John House

It has nothing to do with our emotions, it has to do with what fits the definition of the crime/codes. Apparently you don’t have a grip on that, so maybe you ought to do some reading. It’s the judge who seems to be working off of some fucked up emotions on this one.
http://www.facebook.com/people/John-House/1011555524 John House

Like I said in the above, any reasonable person knows not to leave a young baby unattended with ANY type of dogs, be they mini-dachshunds or Great Danes. You never, ever leave any small child unattended or unsupervised with dogs/animals, even for one minute. Bites/snaps, and “accidents” happen in split seconds.
Athena

Having worked for a public defense attorney in California (Palo Alto rather than San Diego), I’ve got a better than average grasp on California criminal law, actually. The fact that you didn’t seem to understand why her status with the CPS was excluded as evidence in the case suggests that you might not.

As it pertains to Child Endangerment laws in California, rather than proving simple criminal negligence as described by you, the prosecution must prove “willful injury”, which is a slightly different concept. There is a particularly high level of scrutiny when it is felony Child Endangerment (which is what I assume this charge was, given the nature of the injury). While you and I might consider it obviously dangerous to leave a child unattended around a dog for any amount of time, this is not a concept that has taken hold in the courts. In all the cases I’ve ever seen, there has to be some other element that satisfies negligence or willful injury, i.e. leaving a child with dogs for an extended period of time or leaving a child with dogs that have a history of violence.

Never once have I seen a case where briefly leaving a child with a dog unattended qualifies as criminally negligent or willful injury. Never once. In fact, in most cases, charges aren’t even brought. The prosecutor was probably banking on the CPS status to establish willful injury, which was a mistake on the prosecutor’s part. This judge was not being emotional, he was clearly ruling in line with general precedent (and the spirit of the law).
Count Rackula

RE: “there has to be some other element that satisfies negligence or willful injury, i.e. leaving a child with dogs for an extended period of time”

How does anyone know exactly how long the child was left in the room for? She says it was only ten minutes but how does anyone know that that is true? If for some reason she did leave him in there for an elongated period of time, do we really think that she would ‘fess up to that? She might have heard the baby crying and just ignored it because she might have figured he was just crying for whatever reason since that’s what babies do. I’m not sure. I’m not trying to argue anyone’s points, I can see it from both sides. I guess when faced with both sides of the argument I’m simply left wondering how long exactly she left him in there all alone with the dogs. I think it would make a big difference in the way that this was handled.
Count Rackula

RE: “there has to be some other element that satisfies negligence or willful injury, i.e. leaving a child with dogs for an extended period of time”

How does anyone know exactly how long the child was left in the room for? She says it was only ten minutes but how does anyone know that that is true? If for some reason she did leave him in there for an elongated period of time, do we really think that she would ‘fess up to that? She might have heard the baby crying and just ignored it because she might have figured he was just crying for whatever reason since that’s what babies do. I’m not sure. I’m not trying to argue anyone’s points, I can see it from both sides. I guess when faced with both sides of the argument I’m simply left wondering how long exactly she left him in there all alone with the dogs. I think it would make a big difference in the way that this was handled.
Athena

Understood. The way our justice is set up, the prosecution has the burden of proof. In other words, generally speaking, the defendent is presumed innocent, his or her statements considered true, and it’s the responsibility of the prosecution to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent’s statements couldn’t possible be true.

So, yeah, she could be lying. Absolutely. But, unless the prosecution can prove she’s lying, her version of events stand as fact.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F2L6QGZ5E3SIRNQOPKFCIFHEAY R Smith

As long as this breed is allowed in cities, etc., people will be maimed and killed. However, these idiots really are so stupid they don’t know any better. How about maybe giving them PARENTING classes, etc. instead of trying to charge some fucking felony. NOW me personally I would never own a fucking pitbull, if somebody in my neighborhood ever has one, it better not ever get out, because I’ll make it my life’s cause to get it gone!!

I have been very upset recently by some parents getting charged with horrible charges like first degree murder, when negligence YES or in this case STUPIDITY-YES — but there was no malice or malice of forethought, and they are just stupid. They have got to start realizing, you can’t arrest people all the time just because they’re STUPID. There’s a million more families like this, where the dog hasn’t attacked (yet) you can’t charge them all for that when there is no law against owning that dog !!!