Who is Harry's guardian?

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 158346

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

Alla:

Thanks :)
 
> 
> > 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.<snip > 
> 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:

I snipped about the possible dispute over custody, but do you see 
Dursleys **disputing** Harry going to Sirius? I think that they took 
Harry in willingly, but I certainly think that if anybody else would 
have done so, they would love it. Speculation obviously.

But does Dumbledore has a right to disregard the express wishes of 
the parents, IF godparent and guardian are one and the same, which as 
far as I understood is not necessary true?

 
> bboyminn:
<SNIP>
> 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.

Alla:

Short term is the key though, no?

bboyminn:
<SNIP> 
>> 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.

Alla:

Actually I really don't ( I mean I have my usual problems with him 
not checking on Harry, but not necessarily with his initial decision) 
**unless** Dumbledore decided that he will automatically override 
Potters wishes because he is **sure** that Sirius is guilty 
**before** he even talked to Sirius, which I am not sure about.

I mean, sure it is possible that Sirius would have agreed to blood 
protection, yeah, but shouldn't Dumbledore **talked** to him first?

In that line of speculation I wonder why Dumbledore did not go 
himself to pick Harry from ruines of GH, if Fidelius was already 
broken?

And as to Sirius not arguing to Hagrid, um, not that many people 
argue with Dumbledore's decisions in the books IMO.

JMO,

Alla