R (Chromatic) v Hornal: On the Administrative Weaponisation of Silence and the Disruption of Family Contact

---

🪞SWANK ENTRY
“Refusal to Confirm Contact Schedule”
Bureaucratic Obstruction as Emotional Sabotage

---

⟡ Filed:

15 July 2025

⟡ Reference Code:

SWANK/CONTACT/KH-SILENCE

⟡ PDF Filename:

2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_KirstyHornal_NoContactConfirmation.pdf

⟡ One-line Summary:

Despite multiple requests, Westminster has failed to confirm any contact arrangements for the children.

---

I. What Happened

Despite repeated and clear requests sent directly to Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services has failed to provide even the most basic information: when I am permitted to see or speak to my children.

The contact centre confirmed that in-person and video sessions are being discussed — but the social worker responsible for coordinating this contact, Ms. Hornal, has not responded with a schedule. Not for me. Not for the children’s father. Not for my mother. Not even for herself.

The result? I remain in the dark while my children are isolated under a so-called Emergency Protection Order that continues to function as emotional siege warfare disguised as safeguarding.

---

II. What the Silence Establishes

• The Local Authority is unable — or unwilling — to facilitate contact in a manner consistent with due process, dignity, and child welfare.

• Article 8 ECHR is once again treated as optional, rather than binding.

• The emotional health of four U.S. citizen children is being deliberately destabilised by administrative inertia.

• No formal communication has been provided regarding:

  • My in-person contact schedule

  • My video contact schedule

  • My mother’s contact

  • The children’s father’s contact from abroad

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because silence is not a neutral act.
Because withholding contact information is not a clerical error — it’s a strategy.
Because failing to notify a parent of their own contact rights is not just discourteous — it’s procedural cruelty.

We log it because the children’s attachments are being slowly eroded by adults who refuse to put pen to paper — and because Westminster appears more committed to controlling access than preserving connection.

---

IV. Violations

• Breach of Article 8 (ECHR) – Interference with family life without justification or proportionality

• Failure to facilitate ordered contact – In direct conflict with best practice and judicial expectation

• Emotional Harm by Neglect – Psychological impact of silence, unpredictability, and separation

• Disability Discrimination – Ignoring the medical needs of a mother who requires advanced notice and clarity to manage health logistics

---

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster’s failure to confirm contact dates is not administrative oversight — it is a deliberate tactic of emotional estrangement.

We assert that:

• Contact is not a gift — it is a right.

• Schedules are not discretionary — they are mandatory.

• And silence is not neutrality — it is obstruction.

We therefore issue this log not as a plea for compassion, but as a record of harm.
Because every day without confirmed contact is not just a delay.
It is an act of legal sabotage against family unity.

---

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
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.