⟡ “I Said I’d Attend the Hearing. I Also Said I Can’t Speak — Because When the Court Removed My Children, It Ignored My Voice First.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Confirmation. It Was a Disability Declaration Filed in Jurisdictional Silence.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/HEARING-ATTENDANCE-WRITTENACCESS
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_Hearing_AttendanceStatementFromPollyChromatic.pdf
Written confirmation from Polly Chromatic to her solicitor agreeing to attend the upcoming hearing in person, while asserting her communication limitation due to disability and requesting written access accommodation.
I. What Happened
At 15:10 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a brief, clear email to solicitor Alan Mullem, formally confirming her willingness to attend the next hearing in person.
In that message, she stated:
Her attendance was contingent on bringing a written position statement
She would try to speak, but could not guarantee full verbal participation
Her communication limitations were the result of a known disability, already on file and cited in multiple legal documents
The solicitor was instructed to attend with her. No reply was received within the archival window.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The litigant confirmed her presence in a case she was nearly excluded from
Written-only communication was reasserted as an accommodation
The solicitor was asked to support attendance — not initiate or interpret it
The court and counsel had prior knowledge of the disability, but adjustments remained unconfirmed
The parent made herself present despite procedural exclusion, emotional trauma, and diplomatic breach
This wasn’t just a hearing confirmation. It was a human rights statement submitted in lowercase clarity.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because attending court shouldn’t require fighting for your voice in advance.
Because a parent shouldn’t have to explain twice that she’ll write what others say aloud.
Because speaking shouldn’t be the price of legal recognition.
Because when communication is compromised, jurisdictional clarity must take its place.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Reasonable adjustments for written communication must be ensured
Family Procedure Rules, Part 3A – Vulnerable litigant access requirements ignored
UNCRPD Article 13 – Legal system accessibility for disabled persons disregarded
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Participation in proceedings obstructed by failure to accommodate
Children Act 1989 – Procedural integrity breached when parent is silenced in protection proceedings
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a message. It was a flag — waved not in surrender, but in proof of presence.
This wasn’t a request. It was a declaration filed on behalf of a voice denied by institutional process.
This wasn’t optional. It was compliance by grace — not access by default.
SWANK hereby archives this statement as both a confirmation and a citation of the systems that made it necessary.
She will attend.
She will write.
And this time, the archive will speak louder than the silence she’s owed.
⟡ 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 silence deserves jurisdiction.
© 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.