Chromatic v Westminster & RBKC On the Quiet Erasure of a Black Father from His Children’s Lives and the State’s Comfort With That Silence

---

⟡ Annex X – A Father They Refused to Name ⟡

On the Racial and Procedural Erasure of a black father by Westminster Children’s Services

---

Metadata

Filed: 8 July 2025
Reference Code: N1/ADDENDUM/ALAIN-EXCLUSION
Court File Name: 2025-07-08_Addendum_N1Claim_AlainSimlett_ExclusionAndRacialDisplacement.pdf
Filed by: Polly Chromatic 
Court: Central Family Court
Children Involved:
• Regal
• Prerogative
• Kingdom
• Heir

---

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four disabled children were removed by force — without notice, without medical cause, and without so much as a phone call to their father.

Despite being married to the Claimant since February 2008, and listed on all birth certificates, Mr. Simlett was excluded from every single document, threshold conversation, and safeguarding decision. The children’s legal father was, quite literally, written out of their lives by bureaucrats with poor spelling and poorer ethics.

This addendum is not a request. It is a formal accusation of racial exclusion and procedural sabotage.

---

II. What the Addendum Establishes

• That the Local Authority knew of Alain Bonnee Annee Simlett’s identity, legal status, and marital position

• That his Black fatherhood was treated as negligible, optional, and discardable

• That this omission was not accidental — it was operational

---

III. Procedural and Racial Violations

1. No Section 20 consent was signed or sought

2. No emergency threshold was lawfully met to override dual-parent rights

3. No consultation, notification, or inquiry was extended to the father

4. No respect was paid to the children’s cultural, racial, or paternal identity

---

IV. Legal and Civil Breaches

• Violation of Article 8 ECHR (Right to family life)

• Discriminatory exclusion of a Black British and Turks & Caicos citizen parent

• Suppression of kinship care alternatives

• Procedural dishonesty and archival omission

Had Mr. Chromatic been white, British-born, or institutionally affiliated, we have no doubt he would have received both a letter and a microphone. Instead, he was airbrushed from state records in a process so profoundly racist it would have felt more at home in colonial archives than in 2025 London.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. identifies the exclusion of Alain Bonnee Annee Simlett as a textbook act of racialised safeguarding misconduct.

The Local Authority failed not only the father, but the law itself. This was a ritual of administrative cleansing — removing the inconvenient Black parent from view to stabilise a narrative that never aligned with facts.

The consequences are not symbolic. They are legal.

The Claimant reserves the right to:

• Escalate this matter to the EHRC

• Submit evidence of racial exclusion to the High Court

• Seek compensatory damages on behalf of the children for unlawful family separation

This addendum has now been filed to the Central Family Court, served to Westminster, and added to the Claimant’s N1 civil claim.

---

⟡ 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.