⟡ Chromatic v Hornal & Brown: When Procedure Became Punishment ⟡

---

⟡ “We Raised a Concern. They Called It Non-Cooperation.” ⟡
Formal complaint to Social Work England citing disability discrimination, cultural erasure, and retaliatory safeguarding misuse

Filed: 19 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/ETHICS-FAILURE-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-19_SWANK_SWEComplaint_Westminster_DiscriminationRetaliation.pdf
Formal submission to SWE naming social workers for procedural breaches, racial insensitivity, and disability discrimination under PLO

---

I. What Happened

On 19 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to Social Work England against Westminster Children’s Services, naming Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown for repeated failures in ethical conduct, professional standards, and legal obligations. The complaint outlines four core issues:

• Non-disclosure of key assessment documents being used to justify PLO proceedings

• Refusal to accommodate a written-only communication adjustment for medical reasons

• Racial and cultural disregard, including the exclusion of the children’s Haitian father

• The use of safeguarding escalation as retaliation for asserting legal rights

This submission followed months of ignored access needs, withheld reports, and surveillance-style safeguarding under the guise of concern.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Procedural breaches: Failure to disclose evidence under PLO; sidelining a co-parent; ignoring written-only accommodations

• Human impact: Repeated trauma exposure, medical destabilisation, and cultural erasure

• Power dynamics: Disguising retaliation as policy; framing advocacy as aggression

• Institutional failure: Systemic disregard for mixed-heritage families and disability rights

• Unacceptable conduct: Threatening escalation when parents assert lawful concerns

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this complaint named it plainly: “If I speak up, they escalate.”
Because when racial bias, disability erasure, and threat-as-response converge — that’s not poor practice. That’s coercive administration.
Because safeguarding is not supposed to mean: comply, or we call court.
And because the refusal to provide the assessment in question speaks louder than the assessment ever could.

This archive entry is not a grievance — it’s a record of pattern. The conduct wasn’t accidental. It was embedded.

---

IV. Violations

• Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 – dignity, access, honesty, cultural responsiveness, avoiding harm

• Children Act 1989, Sections 17 & 47 – misuse of escalation powers; failure to promote welfare

• Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, & 27 – failure to accommodate, racial insensitivity, retaliatory behaviour

• Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – procedural fairness, right to family life

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that refusing to accommodate a disability is minor.
We do not accept that failing to include a non-English-speaking father is oversight.
We do not accept that safeguarding powers can be wielded like threats.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
This was escalation-as-discipline.
This was white governance over a mixed-heritage household.
And now, it is documented.

---

⟡ 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.