Chromatic v Westminster (Reasonable Contact Presumed, Consultation Denied)

---

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue

⟡ Very Very Snobby Post No. 631.A

The Legal Standard on Partnership, Contact, and the State’s Duty to Get Out of the Way

Or, Public Law Theory v. Local Authority Fantasy

---

Metadata

Filed: 13 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A12-BROMLEY
Court File Name: 2025-07-13_Addendum_Bromley631_ContactAndPartnership
Summary:
Westminster failed every principle of proportionality, contact maintenance, and statutory duty discussed in Bromley’s Family Law (p.631).

---

I. What Happened

Westminster Children’s Services removed four American children from their disabled mother and immediately violated multiple key principles of public law. No proportionality test. No genuine risk analysis. No consultation. No lawful justification for the suspension of contact.

All presumptions were reversed — not by the court, but by a team of social workers improvising as if their discretion were statute.

---

II. What the Text Establishes

On page 631, Bromley’s Family Law outlines four core tenets:

1. Courts must reject removal orders if viable alternatives exist

2. Authorities must work in partnership — not secrecy, avoidance, or pretext

3. Contact is presumed and must be upheld unless rebutted lawfully

4. Good social work respects identity, continuity, and stability — not performance metrics

Westminster ignored all four. With flair.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Bromley isn’t a quaint academic pamphlet — it’s a legal cornerstone.
Because no one who read page 631 would endorse what happened here.

Polly Chromatic was not consulted. She was not involved in planning.
She was not supported, informed, or invited to co-construct care.

She was erased — and contact was cut, not with justification, but with managerial indifference.

This page proves that Westminster didn’t apply the law.
They rehearsed their preferred outcome — and delivered it as if it were lawful.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989, s.31 and s.1(5) – No lawful threshold or best interests justification

• ECHR Article 8 – Right to family life severed without necessity

• DfE Statutory Guidance – Breach of duty to work in partnership and promote contact

• Bromley, p.631 – Fully ignored. With prejudice.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This isn’t theory. It’s statute. It’s guidance. It’s the legal spine of safeguarding.

And yet, Westminster operated as if Bromley were fanfiction — optional, ignorable, and non-binding.

The contact was presumed. The partnership was required. The proportionality test was fundamental.
None were applied.

So we file this post not with surprise — but with precision.
And yes — it has been highlighted in pink, orange, blue, and purple.
Because nothing says institutional shame like annotated evidence.

---

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.