“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Chromatic v Westminster: The Clinic Without Consent


From Parent to Patient File

The Medical Absconding of U.S. Citizen Children Without Notification, Consent, or Lawful Custody Protocol

Filed Date: 3 July 2025

Reference Code: SWANK/USC/0703-MEDICAL-UNAUTHORISED
Court Filename: 2025-07-03_UrgentUpdate_USCitizenChildren_SubjectToUnauthorisedMedical
One-line Summary: Three U.S. citizen children were medically re-registered without parental consent or court disclosure while under contested UK local authority custody.

I. What Happened

On 27 June 2025, during an ongoing High Court Judicial Review concerning the unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children, three of the minors—Regal, Kingdom and Prerogative—were registered with a new NHS General Practice (Highgrove Surgery, F82680). This occurred without the knowledge, consent, or participation of their mother, Polly Chromatic, who retains full legal parental responsibility.

The fourth child, Heir, was notably excluded from the new medical registration—raising immediate concerns of unexplained separation and administrative opacity. This reallocation of healthcare oversight was not communicated to the Family Court, nor to the parent, nor to the U.S. Embassy, which had previously intervened on consular grounds.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  1. Violation of Parental Rights: The re-registration of minors with a new GP absent court order or lawful justification constitutes a breach of custodial process and international parental rights.

  2. Consular Disregard: The U.S. Embassy had previously been informed of the children’s removal and expressed concern, yet local authorities proceeded to alter the medical oversight of American minors without bilateral coordination.

  3. Safeguarding Confusion: The exclusion of Heir from medical re-registration suggests either a failure of unified care or an undisclosed placement decision — both scenarios posing serious safeguarding contradictions.

  4. Ongoing Judicial Review: The actions occurred during active litigation, reinforcing the impression of procedural circumvention under contested legal circumstances.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This submission documents a pattern of public authority conduct that functions as de facto severance of parental access while bypassing judicial scrutiny. SWANK London Ltd. archives this incident as part of a broader evidentiary matrix tracking unlawful medical, custodial, and procedural violations against American minors resident in the UK under disputed care arrangements.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Sections 3 and 33

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), Article 37

  • Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR

  • United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9

V. SWANK’s Position

This incident is neither trivial nor clerical. The medical reallocation of vulnerable U.S. citizen children without lawful parental notification, consent, or oversight undermines the legal premise of family unity, violates international safeguarding norms, and exemplifies bureaucratic opportunism in the shadow of litigation.

Where the Family Court remains uninformed, and the Embassy's jurisdiction is dismissed as advisory, SWANK London Ltd. acts as the only functioning evidentiary intermediary between institutional indifference and legal redress.

The file is now archived.

⟡ 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.