Harry was raised by his aunt and uncle, who were unloving at a minimum. But if the CPS (or equivalent) were called and did an investigation on his living situation, do you think they would declare him an abused or neglected child?
Were the Dursleys just rotten to him, or did they cross the line into abuse?
I’d say that if there were any sort of Muggle authorities called, they’d have considered him to be abused.
After reading the first book, I called it “a charming tale of magic and child abuse”. So you have my vote.
I think that having to live in a broom closet under the stairs probably qualifies, and even if not, then being deadbolted into that broom closet on occasion definitely does. If I remember right, I think they also withheld meals on a regular basis, didn’t they?
Probably. There’s no evidence of physical beatings of any kind, but locking a child into a room is dangerous in and of itself; what if there’s a fire? Putting that aside, failure to provide proper nutrition is a major issue for CPS types. I’m sure that the Dursleys would have been in trouble, and frankly, I’m surprised his (Muggle) elementary school teachers never noticed.
Edit: I said there were no physical beatings, but now I seem to recall offhand remarks about Uncle Vernon cuffing Harry occasionally, directing Dudley to hit Harry with sticks, and Aunt Petunia swinging frying pans at Harry’s head. So maybe there was some physical punishment. How much is actionable in Britain, I don’t know.
If you think Harry Potter was abused, don’t read any Roald Dahl.
I think in one of the HP books, Harry says something along the lines of the Dursleys had never starved him, but had kept him short of food. He didn’t have as much trouble adjusting to short rations on the run in book 7 as Ron did because of this, IMS.
The Dursleys were certainly verbally abusive and generally neglectful. Then again, Harry did own glasses and seems to have had all his teeth. Really, he was fiction-abused: the state of being treated badly but that leaves no lasting scars, entrenched rage or self-destructive behaviors. We should all be so lucky. 
If he was beaten at all, it was minor. He wasn’t starved, he just couldn’t eat all he wanted.
But I think locking him up in his room (or earlier in the closet-under-the-stairs) is the biggest issue that would raise flags for a CPS investigation.
Couldn’t he have just created all the food he wanted for himself, using magic? Sounds like Elemental Transfiguration to me!
I am like, this close to nerding out with a lengthy explanation of how wrong this is, but thankfully for you and everyone else in this thread, my pizza just showed up.
I take exception to that.
Enjoy,
Gamp
Forget the Dursleys, the school seemed to put him in all kinds of hazardous situations without adequate supervision.
I really wanted the first book to end as the escapist fantasies of a neglected and abused child. Think about it- he’s orphaned and treated like dirt. So in his fantasy he’s powerful (a wizard), special (the boy who lived), revered and able to destroy the evil that abuses him (Voldemort).
You mean like St. Elsewhere? Maybe call him Harry Westphall?
Nicely done.
And the Dursleys live at 4 Mulholland Drive.
Yes, I think Harry was abused. I remember being surprised (not appalled or shocked or disgusted, to be clear) at Harry’s treatment after reading the first few chapters of the first book.
Course he was. Same as lots of kids in fantasy books are: orphaned, abused and ‘special’ in some way.
Woah. Your standards are a little different to mine if you consider an 11-year-old kid ‘lucky’ to have his own teeth. I mean, all healthcare in the UK is free, but even without any dental care, kids would generally not be toothless by 11.
And it would also explain why almost nothing makes any kind of sense or is consistent in any way.
I always assumed that with the Dursleys, Rowling was trying to imitate Dahl’s extravagantly villainous villains.
Wizards don’t care about that sort of stuff, and let kids run off the leash.
I strongly suspect that this was one of the most appealing things to the audience of eleven year-olds who made Harry Potter a best seller.
If they were a poor family the fact he lived under the stairs probably wouldn’t be an issue (I’ve slept on worse- a sofa bed) but the fact Dudley had two bedrooms and Harry only got his hand me down too-big clothes would both speak to neglect. I’m not sure what the English criteria for abuse are, but even if they don’t meet them I think the neglect would be sufficient to remove him.
You really have to wonder about Dumbledore’s judgment on many issues, this being one.