“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: In Re The Disassembly of a Family Without Legal Authority


Divide and Misrule

A Judicial Demand to Halt the Institutional Splintering of Four American Siblings

Filed Date: 24 June 2025

Reference Code: SWANK/JR/0624-NONSEPARATION-ADDENDUM
Court Filename: 2025-06-24_JR_Addendum_NonSeparationRequest_Simlett_v_Westminster
One-line Summary: Filed to prevent the unlawful, unjustified separation of four U.S. citizen siblings after their removal into UK state custody.

I. What Happened

Following the forcible and procedurally unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children on 23 June 2025, this Judicial Review addendum was submitted the next day to pre-emptively block Westminster Children’s Services from splintering the sibling group.

Regal (16), Prerogative (13), Kingdom (10), and Heir (8) were raised together in a medically coordinated, emotionally bonded home. They were removed as a unit, without safeguarding conflict, without medical grounds, and—crucially—without a single legal order requiring their separation.

This filing seeks a protective order to preserve their unity, their health continuity, and their basic familial dignity—against an authority whose recent actions suggest it might prefer otherwise.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That the four children were removed from their mother without cause, notice, or legal accommodation, and are now at risk of being institutionally scattered.

  • That these siblings have no history of conflict, no contraindicated medical placements, and have always received coordinated asthma care together.

  • That separation would represent not a protective measure, but a bureaucratic assault on stability.

  • That Westminster has presented no lawful or evidentiary justification for fragmenting the family unit.

  • That the proposed harm is not hypothetical. It is material, foreseeable, and entirely avoidable.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because institutional convenience is not a lawful basis for sibling severance.

Because separating children without judicial scrutiny, medical rationale, or family conflict constitutes a second harm layered atop an unlawful removal.

Because safeguarding is not a synonym for disappearance, and “placement” should not mean scattering.

Because if the law won't defend siblinghood, then SWANK will file it into permanence—one PDF at a time.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Sibling placement principles and welfare prioritisation

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (right to family life)

  • Equality Act 2010 – Disability-related service fragmentation

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Articles 9 (separation from family), 23 (disabled children), and 3 (best interests)

  • Common Law Principles of Necessity and Proportionality in Child Interventions

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not a logistical issue. It is a legal and ethical emergency.

The children have already endured a sudden, silent, and procedurally corrupt removal. Now, with their mother still denied contact and their medical care suspended, Westminster may seek to scatter them like bureaucratic inventory.

Let the record show: there is no safeguarding mandate here. Only silence, haste, and institutional neglect of trauma-informed practice.

SWANK London Ltd. has filed this not as courtesy, but as preemptive indictment.

⟡ 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.