Sharing names - Heritage

[Mandy]

No: HPFGUIDX 98756

> Wanda: 
> > I stand corrected.  Well, in that case, it was illogical writing 
on  Rowling's part.  <snip>  A wife has power, a mistress has none.  
> > And there's no reason for the state to take care of an "orphan" 
if  he has a legal father or other relatives to do so, so Tom could 
not  have ended up in an orphanage the way she describes.
 
> SSSusan:
> I disagree.  There are ways that a child can end up in the care of 
> the state even if he/she has a biological parent still alive.  Tom 
> Sr. might have refused to care for the child, he might have abused 
> him, or might even have claimed that the child wasn't his--that 
Tom's mother had had an affair.  (Who would be there to deny it?  Do 
they do blood tests in the WW?)  Tom Jr. might well have been put 
into the only place where he could receive care:  an orphanage.  


Mandy here:
Of course he would have gone into an orphage. If Miss Marvolio died, 
leaving the hospital to send to Mr. Riddle to pick up his child and 
he simply said 'It's not mine', the hospital would have no choice but 
to give the child to the 1940's equivalent of child protective 
services.  If the social services could not convince Mr. Riddle to 
take the child, the baby would have gone into an orphanage.   Social 
services would not have sued a man to take responsibility for a child 
he doesn't want.  

Keep in mind too that this was just after the war, and there were 
many lost, orphaned and unclaimed children who were sent out to the 
countryside for saftey and who's parents then died in air raids.  
This obviously didn't happen to Tom Riddle Jr., but the system would 
have been over loaded with orphaned children and stretched to the 
limits.

Cheers Mandy