“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Documented Obsessions

Re Four Siblings (Welfare, Separation, and Bureaucratic Forgetting)


⟡ They Took Four, Then Forgot They Were Siblings ⟡
The Unauthorised Splitting of a Neurodivergent Unit in Care

Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0626-SIBSEP
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_FamilyCourt_Addendum_SiblingWelfareSeparationImpact.pdf
Impact statement on the risk and harm of separating neurodivergent siblings during state custody.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four neurodivergent American children were removed from their home under an Emergency Protection Order by Westminster Children’s Services. No legal finding of harm was established. No placement hearing was held. No consent was given. As of filing, their mother — Polly Chromatic — has not been informed whether the children were kept together or separated in care.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Sibling interdependence was disregarded entirely.

  • Neurodivergent care routines were interrupted without coordination.

  • Section 1(3)(f) of the Children Act 1989 — the sibling welfare clause — was bypassed.

  • Trauma-informed alternatives and kinship care offers were ignored.

  • No legal or ethical justification has been given for the potential separation.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Sibling separation of neurodivergent children is not merely a procedural error — it’s an erasure of their social architecture. These children are not just cohabiting; they are co-regulating. To divide them in silence is to institutionalise neglect while branding it as “care.”

This document demands legal clarity on an emotional catastrophe — one authored without evidence, justified without reasoning, and communicated without dignity.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 1(3)(f): Failure to consider the effect on children of ceasing to live with siblings

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8: Interference with family life without proportionate grounds

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 9 & 20: Right to maintain sibling relationships in alternative care

  • Failure of procedural transparency in placement disclosure

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not child protection. This is sibling dismantlement under bureaucratic fog.
The law does not authorise this kind of silence. The court must not tolerate it.

We demand disclosure. We demand reunification. We demand recognition that to separate these siblings is not only an ethical failure — it is a lawful one.

⟡ 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 retaliation deserves an archive. © 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.