Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 123037


>>Tonks writes:
>I am not saying that the Dursley's are wonderful people.  I am 
saying that they are not as terrible as everyone thinks that they 
are.  Harry hasn't had much in the way of material things and 
material things do not mean anything to him as a result. That is not 
a bad thing; in fact in some circles it is a very good thing.  Harry 
is alive and well, so he was not starved. Harry is not a fat, little 
indulged pig like Dudley, and that is a very good thing.<

>>Nicky Joe (I think?):
>So as long as Harry is still breathing and has no bruises or broken 
bones, he isn't being abused.  That's precisely the attitude of many 
CPS administrations in this country, which is why so many kids are 
left in deplorable conditions.  Granted, there are only enough 
resources to help the most serious cases and that is how it is 
justified.  In my opinion, abuse is abuse, regardless of degree of 
severity.<

Betsy:
I'm going to agree with Tonks here.  And let me give a bit of my 
background, because I think it's relevent.  I work in a law office in 
a small rural area in the SouthEastern United States.  Our CPS is 
*very* vigilant, and has strong support from the judges in our area.  
They've investigated families with very little to go on, just a 
suspicion raised by school teachers, etc.  The lawyers in our firm 
have represented children and families on both sides of the issue.  
So when I say that the CPS would be hard pressed to show actual, 
actionable abuse on the part of the Dursleys against Harry, I'm 
basing that opinion on cases I've seen pass through our office.  I'm 
not a lawyer myself however, so my grasp of the law could be wrong.  
(And it's sort of moot anyway, 'cause this ain't England, but there 
you are.)

Harry is not medically starving.  He's small for his age in PS/SS, 
yes.  But Draco Malfoy is described as being of similar build, and I 
don't think anyone would argue he's been starved.  In OotP I think 
he's just a few inches shorter than his dad, so Harry's growth hasn't 
been adversly affected by lack of meals.  Which means that while he's 
not fed like Dudley - he's not literally starved.

Of course, food is used as a punishment, either by taking it away, or 
giving more to Dudley, and Harry is rarely full, which I agree is 
wrong, but I don't remember Harry ever being described as faint and 
dizzy from lack of food.  (I could be wrong of course - please point 
me to canon!)  Without a medical report showing the adverse affects 
of malnutrition, I don't know if a case could be made here.  The fact 
that Dudley got ice-cream and Harry didn't does not fall under abuse 
by most standards.

The cupboard and the locked and barred room is another story.  
There's a fire hazard issue with at least the locked room, and I 
*know* the judges in my area would have a problem with Harry living 
in a cupboard.  However, I don't think they'd remove Harry from the 
Dursley's.  Rather, they'd insist that he's given an actual room.

His clothes are hand-me-downs, but they're clean, and he's clean.  No 
obvious neglect here.  And yes, Harry does chores around the house 
while Dudley lazes about.  But again, Harry is not overworked for his 
age.  Petunia seems to be responsible for the house and garden, and 
when she gives Harry work to do it almost seems of the make-work type 
designed to keep him out of her hair.  Again, this is not kind at all 
to Harry, and it's decidedly unfair, but I cannot call it abuse.

I've seen cases where children were sent to school soaked in their 
own urine, where children were punched by grown adults as a form of 
discipline, and where children were dumped on strangers and left for 
weeks at a time.  I won't go into the sexual mistreatment.  But 
*that* is abuse, and to me, comparing what those kids have gone 
through with what Harry endures at the Dursleys is almost 
disrespectful.  Harry is badly treated, yes.  And I think it may be 
fear of the neighbors that keeps the Dursleys from sliding into more 
reprehensible behavior, which says something about their character.  
But, I think we should be careful about throwing the word "abuse" 
around.  Of course, this is only my opinion.

>>Tonks again:
<snip>
>And DD had to put Harry with Patunia to protect Harry, it was the 
only way.<

>>Nicky Joe:
>I have extreme doubts about it being "the only way".  I think it was 
the easiest way and DD is as guilty as the rest of us for choosing it 
when anything else would have been difficult.   (And because JKR made 
him do it because it was better for the story.)<

Betsy:
The easiest way?  I've never seen a more reluctant group than 
Dumbledore, Hagrid and McGonagall when Harry was left on the Dursley 
doorstep.  And as per Dumbledore the ancient magic Lily used to 
protect Harry was the one branch of magic that Voldemort dismissed.  
Dumbledore doesn't even say that Voldemort was unaware of the ancient 
magic, he just had a contempt for it that caused him to underestimate 
it.

Folks have been giving Dumbledore a hard way to go on the Dursley 
issue, but seriously - what was the other option?  I'd love to know.

>>Nicky Joe:
>Why is it that Harry's single happiest moment was the thought of 
being able to live with Sirius?  Was it because Sirius was so 
fabulous?  I think it more likely that it was because the Dursley's 
were so horrid.  I believe if Harry had been stuck with the Dursley's 
too much longer, he would have found life on the streets to be 
preferable and ended up another teenage runaway.<

Betsy:
Harry *does* become another teenage runaway - in PoA, when he's 
picked up by the Knight Bus.  And interestingly enough, it wasn't the 
Dursley's who pushed him over the edge, it was Aunt Marge - who I 
think *would* have been horribly abusive of Harry if she ever got her 
hands on him. (A little too eager to hear about Harry being caned for 
my taste. *shudder*)

I'm not, and I don't think Tonks is either, arguing that life with 
the Dursley's was sunshine and daisies.  They were and are quite 
horrible to Harry, and they have very little excuse for their 
behavior.  However, Harry was not as ill-treated as all that.
 
>>JMM writes:
>I realize in all that this is just a story but...I always wondered 
why social services of some type didn't step in.  I realize that 
there were no outer signs of abuse such as bruises or broken bones 
but -- teachers must have questioned the fact that one child in the 
family has everything and the other doesn't even have clothing that 
fits and broken glasses.<

Betsy:
I really don't think there were any signs for the teachers to pick up 
on.  Harry never passed out (as far as we've been told) from lack of 
hunger, and he's not outrageously skinny.  His clothes are hand-me-
downs, but I think it'd be hard to compare the biggest kid in class 
with the smallest.  (Dudley certainly couldn't wear Harry's hand-me-
downs.)  Also, I doubt it's unusual for boys of that age to have 
broken glasses, just from the usual rough-housing, etc.

I think Pippen also pointed out that Harry may have been seen as a 
trouble maker, what with the climbing onto the school roof, and 
turning his teacher's hair (or was is it a wig?) blue.  Dudley, on 
the other hand, has shown an ability to suck-up when he wants to, so 
the teachers may have seen Harry as the problem child and Dudley as 
the angel.

>>Nicky Joe:
<snip> 
>I'll bet Harry had plenty of bruises from Dudley pounding on him.

Betsy:
I think Dudley probably had a hard time catching Harry.  And when he 
was in real danger, Harry's magic would kick in.  I'm betting Dudley 
was unable to get beyond normal bullying behavior.  Of course, this 
isn't great for Harry, always having to be on alert, and knowing 
he'll be pinched or punched or stuck in a toilet if he gets caught, 
does not make for fun school days.

Again, I really want to make clear that I'm in no way condoning the 
Dursley's behavior towards Harry - I just don't think he was abused.  
Not in the full meaning of that word.

Betsy