The dog had been tied up while the partner briefly went to the bathroom, leaving Frankie unattended.<\/p>\n
Frankie turned and bit the child on the bridge between the eyes, causing \u201csmall but deep puncture wounds\u201d.<\/p>\n
The child\u2019s father, who was standing 2-4m away, noticed his child crying with a bloodied face.<\/p>\n
He took the child to a bathroom to clean the wounds before seeking medical attention.<\/p>\n
Council documents state Frankie had been on a lead and remained calm throughout the day, but had become increasingly nervous after children repeatedly approached her, despite requests to leave her alone.<\/p>\n
The council classified Frankie as a menacing dog on March 9 under the Dog Control Act, saying the dog posed a potential threat to public safety.<\/p>\n
The child was attacked by the dog in a Herne Bay park while the animal was unattended. Photo \/ Chris Tarpey<\/p>\n
Rust objected to the classification in a letter to the regulatory and safety committee on June 4, describing the incident as an \u201cisolated and unfortunate\u201d event involving a single \u201cdefensive warning nip\u201d rather than an attack.<\/p>\n
She said Frankie had no history of aggression, lived safely with six children and was generally calm.<\/p>\n
Rust argued the dog had been unable to move away because it was tied up, and that children had been warned several times to keep their distance.<\/p>\n
The couple had a history of fostering dogs from the SPCA, she said, and additional safety measures had already been put in place. <\/p>\n
However, council staff recommended the menacing classification remain in place.<\/p>\n
In their report, staff said there was \u201chigher culpability\u201d because the handlers knew Frankie was nervous around children but still left her unattended in a busy public setting.<\/p>\n
Rust agreed to abide by the rules that came with having a dog classified as menacing, including keeping her muzzled when in public spaces, and to provide evidence that Frankie was desexed, although she had already had the operation before the incident occurred. <\/p>\n
The couple also took additional measures, such as promising to keep their pet away from busy public areas, not to leave her unattended in public, and to exercise her only on a leash. <\/p>\n
Owner disqualified after Luna caught repeatedly roaming <\/p>\n
At the same committee meeting, dog owner Faasasalu Tupai Pio was disqualified from owning dogs for three years after incidents with her 7-year-old fox terrier-Maltese cross, Luna, were linked to seven of nine complaints made to the council animal management unit between July 2024 and March this year.<\/p>\n
The first incident occurred on July 11, 2024, when officers found Luna roaming outside her Manurewa property alongside another dog from the same address.<\/p>\n
Similar incidents followed in May, August and November 2025, and again in March this year.<\/p>\n
On September 12, 2024, Luna was found roaming, behaving aggressively and was seized and impounded. Officers also discovered she was unregistered, resulting in two infringement notices.<\/p>\n
A further incident on August 29, 2025, saw Luna and another dog, Nala, impounded after being found roaming. After that, owner Pio was classified as a \u201cprobationary dog owner\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Auckland Council’s regulatory and safety committee deals with complaints about dogs, among other things.<\/p>\n
Council records show Luna was involved in a total of 11 infringement notices and nine complaints over the period.<\/p>\n
The latest complaint, made on March 14, raised concerns that the dogs were roaming in search of food and were not being properly cared for.<\/p>\n
While an animal management officer found the dogs to be in \u201cacceptable condition\u201d, the concerns were referred to the SPCA.<\/p>\n
As a result of the repeated incidents, the Auckland Council disqualified Pio from owning dogs for three years, beginning in November 2025.<\/p>\n
She was ordered to hand over Luna within 14 days and could not transfer the dog to anyone living at the same address.<\/p>\n
Pio objected to the decision and said she repeatedly asked K\u0101inga Ora to repair a damaged fence and attempted temporary fixes herself.<\/p>\n
She had recently bought a fully fenced property and believed moving there would solve the problem.<\/p>\n
Council staff recommended the disqualification be upheld at the committee hearing, saying the fencing issues had persisted for a long time without action and there was no guarantee a new property would prevent further escapes.<\/p>\n