Who is Harry's guardian?

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 158341

---  "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > > a_svirn:
> > > And Harry's parents appointed Sirius as his 
> > > guardian, yet nobody bothered to honour their wish,
> > > least of all Dumbledore. ...
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > Sirius, or possibly someone impersonating him, 
> > relinquished Harry to Hagrid at Godric's Hollow. The
> > fact that Sirius (or whoever) gave up the child so 
> > reluctantly but didn't insist on protesting to 
> > Dumbledore in person ... 
> > 
> > Once Sirius's innocence was established, Dumbledore
> > seems to have regarded him as a co-guardian, ...
> ><SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> The question ... is whether Godfather automatically 
> equals guardian in RL. I mean I know in many fanfics 
> it does, but is it in RL?
> 

bboyminn:

Being a Godparent does not necessarily make you a 
guardian but it can. In the context of a newborn, 
Godparent usually means a sponsor at baptism. But being
a sponsor does come with some implied commitment. When a
'godparent' is assigned outside the context of baptism, 
it usually implies they are accepting the responsibility
of taking care of the kids if something happens to the
parents. 

So, I suspect in common language, even if not techincally
in law, godparent and guardian /can be/ one and the same.


> Alla:
> 
> If something happens with the parents, is it 
> automatically assumed that child goes to godparents?
> 
> Because if it **does** assumed so in RL, then ...that
> should also apply to the story, I absolutely agree 
> with a_svirn that Dumbledore had no right whatsoever to
> bring the child to Dursleys when it went against the 
> direct wishes of his parents.
>

bboyminn: 

On the first point, I don't think it means that the kid
/automatically/ goes to the Godparent. I think it means
that the Godparent is automatically available to take
on the role of guardian. None the less, that wouldn't
eliminate or override the rights of close blood 
relatives. If there was a dispute, or the parties 
couldn't resolve it on their own, the court would 
probably hear both sides and make a ruling. But /I 
think/ in court, preference is probably given to blood 
relatives. 

On the second point, as a high officer of the court, 
Dumbledore certainly does have some right to make a 
determination as to the disposition of Harry. 

> Alla:
> 
> Then it would means that Sirius was indeed the guardian
> and **not** Dursleys, but I am not sure about that.
> 
> And Dumbledore, unless he has psychic powers could 
> **not** have known that Sirius would be arrested, so he 
> had no right to direct Hagrid to take Harry from Sirius
> IMO.
> 

bboyminn:

It means Sirius was assigned the intent to be guardian
if something happened to the Potters. But formal 
guardianship can and usually is determined by the court. 
Even if Harry were turned over to Sirius immediately, at
some point Sirius's guardianship would have to be made
legally formal. 

It doesn't matter whether Dumbledore foresaw Sirius's 
action, I think as an officer of the court, Dumbledore 
was within his rights to take short term custody of Harry
until official and formal guardianship could be assigned.

Further, any reasonable person would have suspected that
Harry was in danger at the moment, and an additional 
level of protection would be required. We don't know 
where Hagrid took Harry, but it is safe to say where 
ever he took him it was very likely to be very safe.

Also, note that while Sirius asked to take custody of
Harry, he didn't argue when Hagrid insisted on keeping
him. If fact, he very much cooperated by giving Hagrid
his motorcycle. That implies short term consent.

Shortly after, Sirius got arrested, and took himself out
of the picture. Also, assuming for a moment that Sirius
did not get arrested, once Dumbledore explained the 
intense level of protection that was available to Harry
at the Dursley's, it is possible Sirius would have agreed
with Dumbledore, and allowed the Durselys custody. 
Though I suspect, if Sirius had been around and out of
prison, regardless of what Dumbledore thought, Sirius 
would have made sure the Dursleys treated Harry better.
Sirius can be very intimidating when he wants to.

You seem determined to find fault with Dumbledore, but
Harry's cicumstance was not a simple common everyday 
custody dispute. Harry was seriously at risk, and very
serious action needed to be taken to protect him. 
Dumbledore, in that moment, seemed to be the person most
able to arrange a safe situation for Harry, a situation
that, though reluctantly, it is possible that Sirius 
would have agreed with.

Just a thought

Steve/bboyminn