Polly Chromatic v Westminster: ICOs Granted Without Notice, Representation, or Legal Justification

---

⟡ “They Granted Care Orders for Four U.S. Citizen Children. I Wasn’t Told There Was a Hearing.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Just Exclusion. It Was State-Orchestrated Jurisdictional Disappearance — Filed for the Record, Copied to a Government.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/ICO-HEARING-NOTICE-ABSENCE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_LackOfNoticeForICOHearing.pdf
Formal demand for explanation after Interim Care Orders were granted for four U.S. children — Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal — without the disabled parent being notified, represented, or allowed to participate.

---

I. What Happened

At 15:20 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic emailed solicitor Alan Mullem after discovering — without notice — that the court had granted Interim Care Orders (ICOs) that morning for all four of her children.

Polly:

• Had no prior notification of the hearing

• Was not present

• Was not represented

• Was given no opportunity to speak or submit evidence

She demanded immediate answers:

1. Why was she excluded?

2. Was her solicitor notified and silent?

3. Did the court document any legal reason for excluding a known disabled U.S. citizen parent?

The U.S. Embassy in London was cc’ed.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• The ICOs were granted without basic procedural fairness

• The parent was excluded from a hearing that altered her legal parental status

• No adjustments were made for her disability, despite numerous prior notices

• Her solicitor’s silence or absence remains unexplained

• The Embassy was forced to retroactively monitor a hearing it should have been informed of in advance

This wasn’t child welfare. It was an international removal ratified in silence.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because hearings don’t happen if one party is systemically disappeared.
Because when you remove the children and the parent’s voice, you are not protecting — you are erasing.
Because exclusion without reason is not neutrality — it is jurisdictional violence.
Because the courtroom became a stage, and the parent was deliberately uninvited.
Because the archive does not rely on invitation — it relies on evidence.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989, Section 38 – ICOs require just and fair participation

• Family Procedure Rules, Rule 3.1 – Mandatory notification of hearings violated

• Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Written access and disability adjustments ignored

• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Right to a fair hearing denied

• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular notification for U.S. citizen minors

• UNCRPD Article 13 – Exclusion of disabled litigant from access to justice

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was judicial ghosting of a disabled American parent.
This wasn’t due process. It was a procedural mirage performed without consent.
This wasn’t lawful. It was state-stagecraft played out in the absence of the only person who mattered.

SWANK formally archives this demand not as a plea — but as a recorded indictment of procedural erasure.
They held the hearing.
They granted the orders.
They forgot one thing: the archive was watching.

---

⟡ 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 erasure deserves international notice.

© 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.

---