⟡ “We Taught Our Children – You Just Didn’t Read the Drive.” ⟡
Mischaracterisation of Home Education and Suppression of Submitted Materials
Filed: 30 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/ADD-EDUFILES-0625
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-30_SWANK_Addendum_EduFilesNeglect_FalseClaimRebuttal.pdf
A formal rebuttal documenting institutional neglect of submitted home education records and unlawful obstruction of professional development.
I. What Happened
Despite providing Westminster Children’s Services with over 350 emails and a dedicated Google Drive link containing extensive homeschooling records since 2023, Polly Chromatic’s lawful and well-maintained home education programme was ignored. Social workers—including Kirsty Hornal—never requested specific documentation, never acknowledged receipt, and failed to review materials provided for educational oversight. On 23 June 2025, four children were removed under an Emergency Protection Order—mid-education—without any substantiated safeguarding concern.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
A complete, detailed curriculum was maintained and documented
Westminster social workers refused to acknowledge submitted materials
Regal’s legal career path via acting and modelling was obstructed
Sudden removal constituted both educational and professional sabotage
Written communication was necessary due to diagnosed vocal impairment
Westminster never adapted or accommodated disability-related needs
III. Why SWANK Logged It
To document the disturbing pattern whereby public authorities suppress parent-provided documentation in order to fabricate a narrative of neglect. This is not a case of educational failure—it is a case of institutional failure to read.
IV. Violations
Article 8 ECHR – Interference with family life, identity, and personal development
Procedural Negligence – Refusal to process or acknowledge shared records
Tortious Interference – With a child’s lawful professional activities
Disability Discrimination – Failure to adapt communications despite medical diagnosis
V. SWANK’s Position
SWANK London Ltd affirms that the Applicant’s home education programme was active, legal, and vibrant. Romeo’s professional work was legitimate and disrupted without justification. Westminster’s claims are demonstrably false. This is not safeguarding. This is sabotage.
Filed and submitted by:
SWANK London Ltd
Evidentiary Audit Division
www.swanklondon.com
director@swanklondon.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.