By Jessica Anstice
A Pakenham Upper family has been left heartbroken after their nine week old service pup was mauled by their neighbour’s dog.
Just four days after bringing Lexi home from the breeder, on June 13, she was attacked by another dog in her own backyard.
Husband and father of two Adam Hillbrick fundraised enough money to adopt a seizure alert puppy to assist him and alert his family of oncoming seizures.
Diagnosed with epilepsy in 2009 at 32, he has since suffered from tonic clonic seizures which can occur up to 13 times in 24 hours.
Mr Hillbrick was playing in his backyard with Lexi moments before the attack.
When he threw a ball for Lexi to chase, the neighbouring dog, which is believed to be a Husky or Alaskan Malamute, approached the fence line.
Mr Hillbrick heard a yelp and witnessed the neighbour’s dog’s head poking through under the fence.
He grabbed Lexi from the mouth of the dog and picked her up, blood dripping from her mouth and face.
“Thankfully as she is a service dog in training, she is required to be with Adam 24 hours a day,” Adam’s wife Bianca Hillbrick said.
“Had Adam not been there, Lexi would have been killed.
“The attack was unprovoked and unpredictable and happened in an absolute split second.”
Lexi required surgery and ended up with 12 stitches to her face and inside her mouth.
Ms Hillbrick said Lexi’s gum was ripped from the bone and her face was severely swollen.
“This was a really stressful ordeal for our family, particularly Adam and Lexi,” she said.
“I immediately came home from work and took Lexi to the Vet as Adam cannot drive due to his epilepsy.
“Stress is a trigger for Adam’s epileptic seizures so we were all waiting for the next seizure.”
The traumatic experience has taken a financial toll on the Hillbrick family, as it resulted in a $750 vet bill.
“I had to leave work to deal with the vet and the council so I wasn’t paid and we had to buy materials to lay chicken wire against the fence line to stop the dogs digging into our yard again,” she said.
“We no longer feel safe in our own fully fenced backyard. We can’t have barbecues or just play out there with the kids and Lexi for fear it could happen again.
“What if this had been our 18 month old daughter picking up a toy from the fence line?”
Over $6000 was raised by the community last month to purchase the service pup.
“Lexi came into our lives through the generosity of our community, friends and family who knew Adam’s uncontrolled epilepsy meant we needed something to keep him safe and gain greater independence,” Ms Hillbrick said.
“We are yet to know how this will affect Lexi’s trainability as a service dog as she may be dog reactive and scared which could have catastrophic consequences for our family.”
In response to the attack, a Cardinia Shire Council spokesman said council adheres to a Dog Attack Policy as part of its Domestic Animal Management Plant, to ensure all Compliance Services Officers take a consistent approach when investigating dog attack offences and when referring matters to the Magistrates Court.
“All complaints of dog attacks are treated with the upmost seriousness and always followed up,” Cardinia Shire Council’s infrastructure and environment general manager Peter Benazic said.
“Before undertaking a criminal prosecution, council needs to be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of proving a criminal offence.
“Council can only apply for compensation orders (such as vet bills) if we are successful in proving the criminal offence.”
Mr Benazic said in a case where two dogs are involved in an incident where there is a hole in or under a fence council must be able to both prove the attacking dog bit the other dog and also disprove the bitten dog did not enter the other property, even slightly, before the attack.
“In this case, no-one saw what happened before the attack and therefore council could not disprove this,” he explained.
“After investigation, it was determined the 15cm hole in the fence would be sufficient for the Magistrates Court to conclude that the defence is raised.
“This, combined with there being no witnesses to what preceded the attack, has led to the decision that council does not have sufficient evidence to prove a criminal offence under Section 29 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994.”
Council has also investigated a number of barking dog complaints for this location, however on each occasion the complainant has not been able to provide the required evidence, and therefore council could not pursue the matter.
