⟡ “A Hearing I Wasn’t Told About Has a File I’m Not Allowed to See” ⟡
If the Process Is Real, Where’s the Record?
Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/REQUEST-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Request_FamilyCourt_CareOrderFileDisclosure.pdf
Formal request to Family Court for full records of a care order hearing that occurred in secret on 22 June 2025.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal request to the Family Court asking for the full court file, transcript, attendance list, and service details for a care order issued the previous day — a hearing which resulted in the forcible removal of her four U.S. citizen children at 1:37 PM. She had received no notice of the hearing, was unable to attend, and was excluded entirely despite her documented communication and disability accommodations. No court document had been served at the time of removal.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
A care order was issued on 22 June 2025 without prior notice to the mother
No documentation, explanation, or copy of the order was provided during or after removal
A disabled parent was procedurally excluded from the hearing
The court file and basic legal facts were not disclosed
The solicitor on record failed to notify or represent the client
This was not legal process. It was the administrative concealment of it.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because court hearings conducted without the subject are not justice — they are ghost trials.
Because no child should be removed based on paperwork no one has seen.
Because when you ask for the court file and are met with silence, it is not incompetence. It is design.
Because in a lawful system, records are discoverable — not hidden behind paternalistic pretext.
Because this letter confirms the process was not only inaccessible — it was cloaked.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Parental right to be notified and heard
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Denial of fair hearing
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate known communication needs
Family Procedure Rules, Parts 12 and 18 – Requirements to serve and disclose court documents
Common law natural justice principles – Right to know the case being made against you
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was procedural laundering of jurisdictional violence.
This wasn’t transparency. It was evidentiary exile.
This wasn’t law. It was a closed loop designed to erase contestation.
SWANK formally logged this letter as a demand for the full evidentiary basis of an unlawful removal.
If the system will not show the record, then the archive will show that it didn’t.
⟡ 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.
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.