Many sleepless nights

[Elizabeth G]

No: HPFGUIDX 124582


Lupinlore:
>Which strongly implies that Dumbledore left Harry at Privet Drive
>because of the blood protection, not because he felt that the
>experience would be "good" for Harry.
SNIP
>If one wants to predicate a "likeable" Dumbledore, much less a good
>Dumbledore, then I think nrenka is right when she says all DD's
>comments about Harry not being spoiled have to be taken as a kind of
>desperate justification -- i.e. a deeply conflicted statement about
>something positive that comes out of a horrible situation.

>

I recently joined this group and I have been following this discussion. I 
don't think that on November 1, 1981 that Dumbledore actually knew how bad 
the Dursley's were. Other than the Potter's being members of the Order, we 
have no canon basis as to how close James and Lily actually were to 
Dumbledore. If Petunia and Dudley were Harry's only relatives,especially 
with the blood protection that was available for him On Privet Drive,  the 
logical solution was to place him in the custudy of Petunia and Vernon. And 
while I personally believe that James and Lily meant for him to live with 
Sirius in the event that anything happened to them, Sirius was arrested 
shortly after their deaths. With that in mind, the Dursley's would have been 
at the top of the list for custody. As the reader, we have the opportunity 
to see that Petunia and Lily are estranged from one another, and appear to 
have been for some time. But McGonagall's comments on the Dursley's being 
the worst sort of Muggles, appears to not give any valid, legal reasons why 
they should not assume custody of Harry. Dudley begging for sweets is being 
a normal toddler. To all outside observers, they are a "perfectly normal" 
family who both love and care for their son, and Dumbledore, as far as we 
know from canon, would have had no reason to believe that Harry would not be 
treated, raised, and loved as Dudley was.

With that in mind, I do think that Dumbledore should have arranged to have 
Harry removed from there custudy as soon as he knew how they were actually 
treating him, blood protection or not. And according to my mother the social 
worker who used to work Child Protective Service, she would have removed 
both Harry and Dudley from the home if this had been an actual situation.
According to the US 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act child 
abuse is "physical and mental injury, sexual abuse, or negligent treatment 
of a child under the age of 18 by a person who is responsible for the 
child's welfare under circumstances that indicate that the child's health or 
welfare is harmed or threatenend." Neglect is abuse by omission. According 
to my sociology text, "Physically neglected children often show signs of 
malnutrition, lack immunization against childhood disease, lack proper 
clothing, attend school irregularly, and need medical attention for such 
conditions as poor eyesight or bad teeth. Often these conditions are 
grounded in parents' or guardians' economic problems, but child neglect can 
also be willful neglect. Emotional abuse or neglect involves a parent's 
often being overly harsh and critical, failing to provide guidance, or being 
uninterested in a child's needs." (Marriages and Families: Making Choices in 
a Diverse Society. Lamana and Riedman. 8th edition. copyright 2003. pp357 - 
358) I'm sure that I'm not the only one who sees Harry in this definition, 
and even Dudley to some extent. Bazile