The Dursley - Law and Obligation

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 158230

---  "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > Note I never said 'law', I said 'obligation', and I
> > meant normal muggle social and legal obligation. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> What is the difference between `law' and `legal 
> obligation'? I guess if the obligation is legal it 
> must be falling within the province of law, mustn't 
> it?
>

bboyminn:

I knew that was going to come back to bite me. Trouble
is I'm not sure I can really explain it. But I think the 
context is contained in my use of 'right of first 
refusal'.

The Dursley's HAVE certain legal rights and obligations,
but unlike criminal law, they have the right to refuse 
to honor those obligations. 

In other words, legally the Dursley are Harry's defacto
guardians by the mere fact that the are his CLOSE and
only living relatives. Legally, I would speculate that
both wizard and muggle law requires that they be 
consulted first regarding Harry's disposition.

If they are not consulted, they do have some legal rights
that would allow them to take the matter to court and 
have a legal ruling made on the matter. I suspect, if 
Dumbledore had taken it on himself to make other 
arrangements and the Dursleys discovered there was a pile
of gold involved, they very well may have demanded 
guardianship and would likely have received it from either
the muggle court or the wizards court. Why? Because being
Harry nearest relatives gives them some legal rights. 

However, the Dursleys would also be legally free to 
refuse to care for Harry. They could /decide/ to send 
him to an orphanage. They could /decide/ to give him 
back to Dumbledore. But the key point is that THEY DECIDE
because they have the strongest legal position from which
to make decisions. 

Is there anyone with a legal background that could put 
what I am trying to say into a better legal context?

Steve/bboyminn