“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 – On Weaponised Niceness and the Misuse of Supervisory Power


⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue
Filed date: 18 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-CONTACT-KH01
PDF Filename: 2025-07-18_SWANK_Addendum_KirstyHornal_ProfessionalHostility.pdf
1-Line Summary: Ms. Hornal’s contact supervision displays weaponised control, emotional suppression, and trauma-uninformed hostility.

I. What Happened

During the contact session on 17 July 2025, Polly Chromatic arrived to see her four U.S. citizen children and observed the following:

  • Children standing outside with a carer, visibly relieved and affectionate upon seeing their mother.

  • Kirsty Hornal arriving late, then immediately inserting herself with hostility, reprimanding normal parent-child interaction.

  • Repeated efforts to suppress emotional expression, override bonding, and enforce vague or shifting “rules” — none of which were trauma-informed or developmentally sound.

Despite Polly’s clear medical vulnerabilities (asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, PTSD), Ms. Hornal persisted in pressuring, standing confrontations, and emotionally destabilising interruptions. When Regal asked for a visit with the family cat, even that warm gesture was made emotionally delicate by the atmosphere of procedural coldness.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This conduct is not “neutral supervision.” It is:

  • A performance of control masquerading as professionalism.

  • A sustained pattern of procedural hostility rooted in personal bias and institutional cover.

  • An abuse of supervisory power that fails to accommodate disability, preserve emotional safety, or promote restorative parent-child contact.

Ms. Hornal’s actions constituted:

  • Emotional policing

  • Verbal aggression via interruption and contradiction

  • Hostile nonverbal dominance

  • Psychological disorientation through sudden rule-enforcement

  • And the suppression of normative parenting practices such as asking about clothing, hair, food, affection, or emotions.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the Family Court is not a stage for power displays — and child welfare is not a canvas for the emotionally unwell.

Because Kirsty Hornal’s behaviour cannot be excused by her tone. A soft voice does not soften:

  • Her contradictions

  • Her hostile interventions

  • Her health-damaging triggers

  • Or the visible effect she has on the children’s comfort

This is not passive observation. It is active destabilisation.

IV. Violations

  • Article 8 ECHR – Interference with family life, emotional continuity, and medical accommodations.

  • Article 12 UNCRC – Suppression of children’s expressed wishes, affect, and attachment.

  • Equality Act 2010 – Disability-based discrimination through repeated failure to accommodate medical conditions.

  • Breach of Supervisory Neutrality – Conducting emotionally disorienting sessions rather than facilitating restorative contact.

  • Procedural Unfairness – Reprimanding and obstructing lawful parenting without clear legal basis or consistency.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not professional oversight. This is institutionalised hostility, cloaked in bureaucratic civility.

Kirsty Hornal has demonstrated an incapacity to serve as a neutral facilitator. Her tone may be polished, but her conduct is coercive, controlling, and emotionally abusive.

Her presence induces:

  • Asthma exacerbation in the mother

  • Emotional shutdown in the children

  • A climate of fear and caution where love itself becomes a liability

This is not safeguarding. This is safeguarding perverted.

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

⚖️ 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.

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.