Polly Chromatic v Westminster: ICOs Issued Without Notification to Parent or Solicitor

---

⟡ “They Said I Could Have Responded. I Was Never Told There Was a Hearing. Neither Was My Solicitor.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Late Notice. It Was No Notice. And Now It’s Supplemented with Silence — Filed for Discharge and History.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/ICO-NOSERVICE-NOCOUNSEL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_FamilyCourt_SupplementaryEvidence_NoServiceNoRepresentation.pdf
Supplementary evidence submitted by Polly Chromatic confirming that neither she nor her solicitor received notice of, or attended, the Interim Care Order hearing that removed four U.S. citizen children from their mother.

---

I. What Happened

At 15:40 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an email to five Family Court inboxes — and copied the U.S. Embassy — providing two letters as documentary confirmation that:

• She received no service for the ICO hearing on 23 June

• Her solicitor was not present

• The hearing proceeded without representation or participation

• The orders were issued without procedural integrity

The attachments were from her legal representative and the local authority, both confirming her procedural absence.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• The ICO was granted without notification or inclusion of the parent or her solicitor

• This wasn’t delay or accident — it was a deliberate procedural void

• The mother is a disabled U.S. citizen requiring written access — ignored

• Four U.S. citizen children — Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal — were removed under orders issued in procedural vacuum

• The court is now formally on notice that its own orders are jurisdictionally compromised

This wasn’t a hearing. It was a simulation — performed without the litigant or her legal voice.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when the system excludes both parent and counsel, it has no system left to defend.
Because removal under these conditions is not lawful — it’s theatrical.
Because silence is not consent. And absence, when uninvited, is not abandonment.
Because history must be archived in real time — especially when due process is redacted.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989, Section 38 – Orders require service and legal presence

• Family Procedure Rules, Rule 3.1 & Rule 18 – Notice and representation are mandatory

• Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Reasonable adjustments disregarded

• UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of legal access for disabled litigant

• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Fair hearing rights ignored

• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – Embassy not notified of hearing affecting its nationals

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a protection order. It was a procedural forgery approved in the absence of law.
This wasn’t judicial caution. It was a sanctioned silence wrapped in institutional paperwork.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was structural abandonment filed in the name of care.

SWANK hereby archives this supplementary filing as a citation of deliberate exclusion — with names, dates, and receipts.
They granted the orders.
We were never served.
And now, the archive has filed what the court forgot to deliver.

---

⟡ 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 service failures deserve a record.

© 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.

---