🪞SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue
Misuse of Section 20 – Legal Condemnation and the Lies They Told About Consent
Filed under: Judicial Commentary, Coercive Procedure, Academic Validation, and Velvet Fury
Metadata
Filed date: 14 July 2025
Reference code: SWANK-A13-BROMLEY-S20
PDF filename: 2025-07-14_Addendum_S20Misuse_BromleyPrecedent.pdf
1-line summary:
Bromley’s Family Law confirms that what Westminster did was not only unlawful — it has been judicially condemned as a human rights violation.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic explicitly refused to allow Westminster Children’s Services to accommodate her children.
No Section 20 agreement was signed.
No consent was given.
On the contrary — Polly stated clearly, repeatedly, and in writing that she would not cooperate due to:
Medical harm,
Safeguarding retaliation, and
Prior institutional abuse.
Despite this, the local authority proceeded as if there were consent, placing the children as though Section 20 had been invoked — when in fact, this was a retaliatory removal in response to her legal filings and disability-based objections.
II. What the Academic Authority Confirms
In Bromley’s Family Law (Oxford University Press, 11th ed., p. 641), the authors state:
“There has been a litany of cases in which local authorities have been adjudged to have misused s.20, often accommodating a child for lengthy periods… notwithstanding a parent’s unequivocal request for the return of the child.”
Sir James Munby P went further, declaring such conduct:
“A denial of fundamental rights of both the child and the adult.”
This confirms that:
Polly’s non-consent was known,
Her legal position was ignored,
The resulting actions are not unusual misconduct, but part of a judicially recognised pattern of rights violations.
Bromley even references Hackney — a case in which accommodation was not found unlawful only because the return request was not unequivocal. In Polly’s case, the refusal was:
Unequivocal,
Written,
Ignored.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
This page is not mere illustration — it is academic validation.
It proves Westminster did not act in good faith, nor in legal ambiguity.
They acted with disregard for precedent, intellectual dishonesty, and strategic obfuscation of the very legal principles they are meant to uphold.
SWANK logs this because:
It is textbook misuse,
Judicially condemned,
And institutionally repeated.
IV. Violations Supported by the Text
ECHR Article 8 – Right to private and family life, breached by forced accommodation
ECHR Article 6 – Right to due process, ignored when accommodation substituted seizure
Children Act 1989 – No lawful threshold met for placement
Equality Act 2010 – Procedural discrimination against a disabled parent refusing harmful services
V. SWANK’s Position
SWANK London Ltd. affirms that Westminster’s use of Section 20 — against written refusals and with no valid legal agreement — constitutes:
A procedural breach
A rights violation
And a documented pattern of abuse
Where the local authority believed they could fabricate implied consent, we respond:
Implied consent does not survive written refusal.
Safeguarding does not survive state retaliation.
Accommodation does not survive medical abuse.
And to the court:
The law already agrees with us.
The only remaining question is whether the court will catch up.
⚖️ 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.