⟡ “Psychiatrically Well, Legally Targeted” ⟡
"The accusation was withdrawn — but not before it was used."
Filed: 30 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/ADD-MENTAL-0625
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-30_SWANK_Addendum_MentalHealthRebuttal_PsychiatricReview.pdf
Official rebuttal to unsubstantiated mental health and substance misuse allegations.
I. What Happened
In November 2024, at the request of Westminster Children’s Services, a psychiatric assessment of the Applicant, Polly Chromatic, was conducted by Consultant Psychiatrist Dr. Irfan Rafiq. This assessment unequivocally confirmed that she:
• Does not use alcohol or drugs
• Has no mental illness
• Presents no high-risk behaviour
• Requires written communication due to medical conditions
Despite this, on 15 April 2025, social worker Kirsty Hornal introduced mental health allegations during a PLO meeting — after the Applicant filed a £23 million civil claim and just days before submitting her Judicial Review.
The PLO was mysteriously cancelled weeks later. No new psychiatric report was cited. No correction issued.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
• False or abandoned mental health concerns were deployed to justify procedural escalation.
• These claims were not based on evidence or updated assessments.
• The existing psychiatric report contradicted every claim made in the April PLO.
• These tactics followed protected legal filings — revealing a retaliatory sequence.
• The misrepresentation of health records and withholding of exculpatory evidence breaches statutory duty.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
SWANK London Ltd considers the strategic deployment of disproven mental health concerns to be emblematic of a broader institutional failure — one in which vulnerable litigants are mischaracterised in order to silence or discredit lawful resistance.
That the psychiatric report in question was commissioned by Westminster, and then apparently ignored, demonstrates an intent to distort truth rather than discover it.
This is not safeguarding.
This is administrative defamation in legal costume.
IV. Violations
• Data Misrepresentation and Withholding – Breach of statutory duties under the Children Act 1989
• ECHR Article 8 – Right to private and family life
• Duty of Candour – Procedural fairness ignored
• Misuse of Statutory Powers – Inappropriate invocation of safeguarding based on disproven claims
V. SWANK’s Position
Westminster’s handling of this issue reveals a dangerous institutional impulse:
To retaliate when challenged. To escalate when legally resisted.
And to weaponise medical narratives as a smokescreen for failure.
SWANK London Ltd does not accept:
• The distortion of psychiatric findings
• The strategic withholding of exculpatory documents
• The abuse of mental health tropes to undermine parental credibility
⟡ 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.
© 2025 SWANK London Ltd.
All formatting and structural rights reserved.
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.