Chromatic v Contact Fiction: On the Procedural Fabrication of Parental Disengagement

---

💎 THE CONTACT CORRECTION

On the Reassertion of Lawful Contact Rights and the Collapse of the Local Authority’s Procedural Theatre

Filed by: SWANK London Ltd
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Date: 1 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/CONTACT/0701-01
PDF Filename: 2025-07-01_StatementOfPosition_ContactRightsReassertion.pdf
Summary: A position statement dressed as a scalpel — clarifying that no contact refusal ever occurred, and that the fiction of disengagement is the Local Authority’s own invention.

---

I. What Happened

Following the Emergency Protection Order issued on 23 June 2025, the Local Authority began circulating a familiar lie:
That the mother, Polly Chromatic, was refusing contact.

This document corrects that fiction — precisely, procedurally, and with documentation in hand.

Filed in anticipation of the Case Management Hearing on 11 July 2025, the statement reasserts that:

• The mother never refused contact;

• All communication was made in writing;

• Contact was to occur lawfully, with accommodations, and under supervision;

• The LA’s proposed contact arrangements between 25–27 June were procedurally defective, coercive, and made without proper notice.

It is a legal clarification and institutional indictment rolled into a single page.

---

II. What the Statement Establishes

This document does not plead — it declares.

It establishes, with surgical clarity, that:

• The mother was available and willing for contact, immediately and continuously

• She requested contact be conducted in line with:

  • Safeguarding standards,

  • Medical accommodations,

  • Consular protections for her four U.S. citizen children

• The LA’s narrative of refusal is a fabrication of convenience, designed to justify further restriction

It is the LA, not the mother, who has obstructed lawful contact.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because there comes a moment in every procedural theatre when one must rise and burn the script.

Because it is not disengagement to request lawful procedure.
It is not refusal to require 48 hours’ notice.
It is not obstruction to ask that one’s disability be accommodated.
And it is not parenting to supervise fear with fiction.

This post is a declaration:
The mother did not refuse contact.
The Local Authority refused truth.

---

IV. Violations

• Article 8 ECHR – Unlawful interference with family life

• Children Act 1989 – Misrepresentation of contact willingness, obstruction of contact

• Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate communication-related disability

• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – Failure to uphold protections for U.S. citizen children

• Procedural Fairness – Contact proposals made with no valid notice, structure, or accessibility

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a position statement — it was a velvet objection wrapped in legal silk.

Polly Chromatic has not missed contact — contact missed her.

And the fiction that she disengaged is now shredded in court filing form, with date, reference code, and composure intact.

When the Court asks what happened to contact, the answer will not be confusion — it will be archived retaliation.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.