“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Polly Chromatic v Family Court: Formal Complaint Over Refused Disability Accommodations in Proceedings


⟡ “You Had the Diagnosis. You Had the Documents. You Still Delivered the Court Process Like I Wasn’t Disabled.” ⟡
Access Isn’t Abstract. It’s the Law You Chose to Breach.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/COMPLAINT-DISABILITYACCESS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Complaint_FamilyCourt_DisabilityAccommodationFailure.pdf
Formal complaint submitted to the Family Court for its failure to provide legally mandated disability accommodations during critical safeguarding proceedings.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to Family Court administration documenting its repeated and unlawful failure to accommodate her disability access needs. Despite years of documented diagnoses — including eosinophilic asthma, muscle dysphonia, and PTSD triggered by unannounced contact — the Court failed to coordinate with her solicitor, refused to facilitate written-only engagement, and allowed Westminster Children’s Services to deliver supervision orders in person, without consent or prior notice. The procedural exclusion was complete — and deliberate.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The Court was on full, written notice of specific disability-related access needs

  • No written-only participation option was arranged, offered, or acknowledged

  • No attempt was made to coordinate with her legal representative

  • The Court permitted paper delivery methods known to cause psychological harm

  • These actions directly violated statutory duties and triggered clinical symptoms

This wasn’t a miscommunication. It was procedural hostility toward the disabled, wrapped in judicial decorum.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because participation should never require survival against your own disability.
Because access needs aren’t theoretical — they’re jurisdictional.
Because the Family Court didn’t forget. It ignored.
Because when the law says “reasonable adjustments,” and the Court does nothing, that silence becomes exclusion.
Because institutional respectability does not excuse architectural ableism.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments and provide equal access to public function

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Denial of a fair hearing due to exclusion

  • Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 3AA – Noncompliance with protections for vulnerable litigants

  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – Refusal to ensure effective access to justice

  • Judicial Office Guidelines – Breach of duty to safeguard against procedural discrimination

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t process. It was a method of procedural silencing.
This wasn’t oversight. It was court-sanctioned erasure.
This wasn’t justice. It was a refusal to acknowledge the disabled as lawful participants.

SWANK does not recognise any ruling issued through inaccessibility.
We do not grant legitimacy to courts that treat disability as inconvenience.
This post is not a complaint. It’s an official entry in the archive of how inclusion was denied — in writing, and by design.

⟡ 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.

⟡ 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.

Documented Obsessions