IN THE MATTER OF: The Law’s Vanishing Act Where a Mother Stands Present

---

🪞SWANK Addendum

Of Evening Liberties, Bicycle Bans, and Procedural Hypocrisy

---

METADATA

Filed: 29 July 2025
Reference Code: ZC25C50281-A11-ParentalExclusionAndHealthRisk
PDF Filename: 2025-07-31_Addendum_ParentalExclusion_MissedCare_RomeoWelfare.pdf
Summary: Local Authority allows unsupervised 9pm outings but bans bicycle use and educational contact with mother.

---

I. WHAT HAPPENED

The Local Authority has scheduled a carer meeting for Friday involving the children's grandmother — while excluding me, their mother, from all participation. Despite holding full parental responsibility and acting in person before this court, I have been wholly bypassed in all recent care, education, and health arrangements.

My children have missed critical asthma appointments at Hammersmith Hospital — a direct health risk. Romeo is reportedly permitted to stay out until 9:00pm unsupervised, yet is not allowed to receive his bicycle, which I have repeatedly asked to deliver.

At home, I provide structured educational care, family outings, and engagement in creative academic life. In contrast, the current arrangement offers him unstructured time, deprivation of exercise, and institutional indifference.

---

II. WHAT THE ADDENDUM ESTABLISHES

• Exclusion of the mother from health, education, and carer meetings

• Medical neglect via missed asthma appointments

• Logical incoherence in safeguarding: a child may roam until 9pm, but not ride a bicycle

• Suppression of lawful contact and the delivery of personal property

• Disrespect for a declared unified family representation structure, including SWANK London Ltd.

---

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

This exclusion is not a mistake — it is a pattern. The Local Authority has persistently disrupted my ability to parent by stealth, not order.
To allow this to pass unrecorded would grant legitimacy to a system that blocks family involvement in private while appearing cooperative in public.

---

IV. VIOLATIONS

• Children Act 1989 – Section 22C, 26: Failure to consult parent on care matters

• Article 8 ECHR – Interference with family life without lawful justification

• Procedural fairness and duty of candour in local authority operations

• Right to medical continuity and access under safeguarding standards

• Failure to adhere to representation instructions by both parents

---

V. SWANK’S POSITION

The Local Authority cannot bar bicycles while permitting curfews that extend beyond safety.
They cannot hold carer meetings without carers’ knowledge.
They cannot split a united family’s representation because they dislike who does the filing.

The irony is institutional. The harm is personal. The record is legal.

---

We respectfully ask the Court to:

1. Order the re-booking of all missed medical appointments for the children;

2. Require the Local Authority to schedule and allow delivery of Romeo’s bicycle;

3. Direct that I be included in all future planning meetings;

4. Acknowledge the procedural and ethical absurdity of banning bikes but permitting 9pm wandering;

5. Recognise SWANK London Ltd. as the coordinating representative body for this family.

---

🖋️ Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
(Legal Name: Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett)
📍 Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
📧 director@swanklondon.com

---

⚖️ 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.