Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Judicial Orders Issued Without Notice, Inclusion, or Legal Access

---

⟡ “They Granted Care Orders for Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal. I Wasn’t Told the Hearing Existed.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Miscommunication. It Was a Jurisdictional Erasure — Filed with Velvet Malice and Carbon-Copied to the Embassy.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/ICO-HEARING-NOTICE-VIOLATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_LackOfNoticeForICOHearing.pdf
Formal email from Polly Chromatic to solicitor Alan Mullem requesting urgent explanation for her exclusion from the Interim Care Order hearing that placed four U.S. citizen children under state custody.

---

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a direct email to solicitor Alan Mullem after discovering that the court had already held — and ruled on — an Interim Care Order (ICO) hearing concerning her four children: Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal.

She had:

• Received no notice

• Been given no access

• Had no representation

• And was prevented from making submissions

Despite her known status as a disabled litigant, no adjustments were made to ensure participation. She demanded an immediate explanation for this legal blackout — and cc’ed the U.S. Embassy.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• A hearing took place without the parent’s knowledge or involvement

• The solicitor has not confirmed attendance, absence, or reason for silence

• No disability access was arranged — in breach of prior notices and legal duties

• Four disabled American children were judicially removed with no procedural fairness

• The court acted in absence of the one person legally entitled to respond: the mother

This wasn’t omission. It was institutional choreography — with the parent written out of the scene.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because removal by EPO is already severe. But holding a second hearing to grant ICOs — and keeping the mother out — escalates the breach from domestic to diplomatic.
Because disabled litigants do not require “inclusion” — they require access by right.
Because four U.S. citizens are now detained under orders made in a vacuum of law, ethics, and process.
Because asking for clarification is no longer personal — it is jurisdictional theatre logged for transatlantic review.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989, Section 38 – ICOs must involve due process and fair notice

• Family Procedure Rules, Rule 3.1 – All parties must be notified and able to attend

• Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate known disability access

• UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of participation in legal proceedings due to disability

• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – No fair trial or hearing access

• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – U.S. nationals seized without consular notice

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was exclusion dressed in robes.
This wasn’t legal process. It was silencing by court calendar.
This wasn’t judicial care. It was foreign family separation rubber-stamped in secret.

SWANK hereby archives this message as a letter of record, a notice of breach, and a permanent filing of procedural shame.
The children were heard about.
The mother was not heard from.
And the archive heard everything.

---

⟡ 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 a transcript.

© 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.

---