Who is Harry's guardian?

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 158374

Julie:
And remember, we're not talking of convicting a man in court
(which is what "innocent until proven guilty" references)
but of protecting a child to the best of one's ability. It
is the latter that is DD's concern immediately after GH.

a_svirn:
Actually we've been discussing the legality of Dumbledore's actions 
concerning the matter of Harry's guardianship. Let me tell you that 
the same "innocent until proven guilty" principle applies here too. 
Sirius was Harry's legal guardian since Halloween 1981. Until this 
appointment was overturned legally Dumbledore had no right to 
conjure for Harry any other guardians. It is one thing to secure 
Harry's person until Sirius's guilt or innocence is proven, but 
giving him away to the Dursleys without so much as by your leave is 
something else entirely. 


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.

a_svirn:
No, he did not have any legal right as an officer of the court. 
Dumbledore was no magistrate; he was a member of the legislative 
body that acts occasionally as the high court jury. And a jury can 
only act collectively. 

And even if he did have the authority to administer and enforce the 
law – which he didn't – he still would need solid legal grounds to 
overturn the Potters' appointment. Otherwise it would be abuse of 
power. 

His moral rights were dubious at best. And what on earth 
does "social right" mean in this context? 

bboyminn:
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.

a_svirn:
You are totally wrong, you know. In real life Social Services would 
only get involved if a child's parents died intestate, without 
appointing a guardian and thus leaving their kid in the lurch. If 
they were prudent enough to take care of the matter and appoint a 
legal guardian (as the Potters did) the said guardian steps in their 
shoes right away. They can appoint a guardian in their Will (which 
is better since they can made financial arrangement as well) or they 
can follow the Children Act guidelines. Either way the Social 
Services will be satisfied unless they will have a very good *legal* 
reason not to. Believe me it's the law. Or look it up if you don't 
believe me. 

bboyminn:
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

a_svirn:
Best possible location, huh? Could have fooled me.