You Called It Non-Engagement. It Was a Disability Adjustment.

---

⟡ She Ignored My Disability. Then She Called It Non-Engagement. ⟡
“The adjustment wasn’t optional. The harm wasn’t accidental.”

Filed: 4 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/FORMAL-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-04_SWANK_FormalComplaint_WCC_KirstyHornal_DisabilityNeglect_TraumaExacerbation.pdf
A formal complaint to Westminster Children’s Services detailing social worker Kirsty Hornal’s refusal to honour disability adjustments and the resulting psychological harm.

---

I. What Happened

On 4 March 2025, a formal complaint was submitted to Westminster Children’s Services against Kirsty Hornal, outlining:

• Multiple breaches of a written communication adjustment previously agreed due to the parent’s respiratory and psychological disability

• Repeated demands for phone contact and verbal engagement, despite clinical contraindication

• Escalation of safeguarding measures when written boundaries were enforced

• A refusal to process disability as legally binding, instead framing it as “non-compliance” or avoidance

• The cumulative harm this pattern caused — including panic, re-traumatisation, and medical exacerbation

The complaint was submitted after months of clear pattern behaviour, warning letters, and ignored requests for lawful procedure.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That Westminster knowingly violated a reasonable adjustment obligation

• That social worker Kirsty Hornal continued to escalate contact and frame written-only communication as obstruction

• That written preferences were ignored even during periods of hospitalisation, oxygen distress, and clinical trauma

• That the safeguarding process was used as leverage rather than protection

• That the parent was punished for asserting rights already granted under law

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when a public authority agrees you don’t have to speak — and then punishes you for not speaking —
that’s not confusion. That’s entrapment.

Because when a disability protocol becomes a liability in their eyes,
you’re not a parent under review.
You’re a system they want to discredit.

And because when all of this is written — and still ignored —
we don’t follow up.
We file it.

---

IV. Violations

• Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 and 27
  Denial of reasonable adjustments; retaliatory escalation following enforcement

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 3, 6 and 8
  Psychological harm, denial of fair process, interference in family and private life

• Children Act 1989 / 2004
  Abuse of safeguarding frameworks to override disability protections

• Care Act 2014 – Statutory Duties
  Failure to assess and accommodate complex disability needs

• UNCRPD – Article 21
  Right to communicate in a manner accessible to the individual

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We didn’t fail to engage.
You failed to comply.

We weren’t obstructive.
We were medically protected.

This was not safeguarding.
It was institutional retaliation with a paper trail.

Now you’re on ours.

---

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡

Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.

To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.