Guardianship, agreements, and public protection

[Bruce Alan Wilson]

No: HPFGUIDX 158393

a_svirn:
"For one thing it does not "fall" to them. It's offered to them and 
may be refused. More importantly, there *was* a very good reason not 
to involve the Dursleys - the Potters' Will where they appointed 
Sirius their son's guardian."

BAW:
Sirius was, at that time, a wanted criminal.  He was believed to 
have betrayed James & Lily to Voldemort and to have killed Peter 
Pettigrew.  WE know from hindsight that he was framed, but nobody 
knew that at the time.  I think that, notwithstanding the Potter's 
Will, nobody would have considered Sirius as a proper guardian.

a_svirn:
"A guardian has the same rights as a parent." 

BAW:
> If his parents had put him down for Hogwarts before they died, 
> his guardians should honor that wish. 

a_svirn:
"And Harry's parents appointed Sirius as his guardian, yet nobody 
bothered to honour their wish, lest of all Dumbledore. Which only 
goes to show that he's bothered with laws only when it suits him."

BAW:
We, of course, don't know what was in the letter, but if one of 
the conditions was that he was to be sent to Hogwarts at the proper 
time--which is not unlikely--well, we know how the Wizardling World 
feels about vows and contracts.

Pippin:
"Perhaps in that era it would have violated the Statutes of Secrecy
to tell any Muggle, whether parent or guardian, about the nature of 
Hogwarts. In any case, a child has the right to an appropriate 
education, and in my country, at least, the state will enforce that
right against the wishes of the parents or guardians if need be."

BAW:
Good point.  I've quoted this before: "It is ill done to keep dark 
the mind of the mageborn."  A wizardling child--fullblood, halfblod, 
or Muggleborn--must get the proper training if s/he is not to be a 
danger to him/herself and others. Wizardling parents can ride herd 
on the kids' and do damage control for magical breakouts, but what 
of Muggle parents?  

There may be a way of stripping a mageling of his/her powers--some 
fantasy systems do have that feature--but if JKR's does, she hasn't 
mentioned it.  That, really, would be the only way for safely  
allowing a mage-gifted child to go untrained.

Jordan:
"The only state (specifically, the UK) that has any _moral_ right 
to say considers Stonewall a perfectly appropriate education. 
Muggles, and even muggleborn witches/wizards before accepting 
Hogwarts attendance, are not a party to the Wizarding World's 
social contract, and thus should not be considered to be bound by 
its laws."

BAW:
In the case of Aunt Petunia, she became 'a party to the Wizerdling 
World's social contract' when she agreed to take in Harry.  As for 
other muggleborns, we have no evidence of coercion; Hermione's 
parents seem quite happy to take her to Diagon Alley to shop for 
school supplies.

a_svirn:
"I guess it all comes down to the concept of the appropriate. Would 
the state in your country force a parent or a guardian to send their 
child, say, to Phillips Academy instead of a public school? Or to 
Harrow instead of a grammar school? The Dursleys were completely 
within their rights - as guardians - to send Harry to the local 
comprehensive. If - as you seem to imply - the wizarding law leaves 
them without a choice of the matter, it shouldn't allow muggle 
relatives to assume the custody of wizarding children at all. This 
would be much fairer."

BAW:
Magic isn't something that you can turn off, at least in JKR's 
system.  Would you want a child in your neighborhood going around 
inflating obnoxious aunts, releasing pythons from the zoo, 
teleporting to the roof of the school to get away from bullies 
(this last isn't such a bad thing), engorging slugs, entirely
without consistent conscious control? Training of the magegift is 
essential for the safety of the one gifted and everyone around 
him/her.

BAW