Who is Harry's guardian?

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 158370

---  "julie" <juli17 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Julie:
> 
> So, even though Dumbledore was told directly by James
> that Sirius was the secret-keeper, and he knows that 
> nobody BUT the secret-keeper can give away the 
> location of the Potters, ...Dumbledore should have 
> thought,"Hmm, while there seems to be very damning 
> evidence against Sirius already, and if the evidence 
> is true Harry's life will likely be forfeit, ... hey, 
> why don't I just hand over baby Harry to Sirius anyway,
> ...
> 
> And remember, we're not talking of convicting a man in 
> court ... but of protecting a child to the best of 
> one's ability. It is the latter that is DD's concern 
> immediately after GH. 
> 
> Julie, 

bboyminn:

Finally, someone who seems to /get it/. Dumbledore was 
well within his social/moral/legal rights as an officer 
of the court, a friend of the Potters, and a leader in 
the Voldemort resistance to take Harry into custody until
such time as a /suitable/ guardian could be found.

Let's take a real muggle life example. The police find 
the muggle parents murdered and only a infant surviving. 
Are they going to hand over the baby to the first person 
who comes along? Definitely not; Social Services is going
to take the infant into protective custody until a 
**suitable** guardian can be found. 

In Harry's case, his parents had been murdered under very
suspicious circumstances and reasonably a certain amount
of that suspicion was cast on Sirius. Dumbledore is not
giving Harry to anyone until he undestands the situation
and can find the best possible place to put Harry.

In the real life example, Social Services would consider
someone who came forward and said they were the child's
godparent/guardian. But they would also weigh nearest 
living relative. They would look at both parties and 
decide who was in the best position to care for the 
child. In that case, the (apparently) stable, employed, 
middle class family would probably have the upper hand 
over a questionably employed bachelor friend of the 
family, even if that friend was selected by the parents
as guardian. 

Though as I've said before, both parties are free to 
assert their rights or refuse their rights a potential
guardians. When presented with the details, the Dursleys,
begrudingly, accepted that duty.

Again, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, all the circumstances, 
Dumbledore was not going to hand Harry over to anyone 
until he determined the best location to place Harry. As
an officer of the court, a friend of the family, and
a fighter against Voldemort, Dumbledore had a duty to 
find a ***suitable*** guardian for Harry. I don't 
think under the apparent circumstances, Sirius equaled
a suitable guardian, regardless of Lily and James wishes.

When Sirius had the chance at Godrics Hollow, he did not
strongly object to Dumbledore taking control of Harry.
That, I would say, is implied permission to let 
Dumbledore take control of the situation.

So, I can only conclude what I have said before, 
Dumbledore's actions were completely consistent with what
any society would have done to protect a child in danger.

Steve/bboyminn