R (Chromatic) v Hornal: On Vagueness as Procedural Sabotage and the Administrative Erosion of Contact Rights

---

🪞SWANK ENTRY
“Provisional Contact Is Not Contact”
Day One of Administrative Vagueness and the Lawful Weaponisation of Delay

---

⟡ Filed Date:

15 July 2025

⟡ Reference Code:

SWANK/CONTACT/KH-DELAY01

⟡ PDF Filename:

2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_KirstyHornal_ContactDelay01.pdf

⟡ 1-Line Summary:

Kirsty Hornal sent a message so vague it practically confessed to obstruction.

---

I. What Happened

Following multiple unanswered emails, social worker Kirsty Hornal finally replied — not with a schedule, but with an open-ended non-commitment. Her email, sent at 12:59 p.m. on 15 July 2025, offers no confirmed dates, times, formats, platforms, or arrangements for the children’s contact with their mother, their father, or their maternal grandmother.

Instead, she says that contact is “likely” to occur and that she is still “in negotiation with providers.” This is not a confirmation — it is speculation disguised as progress.

---

II. What the Delay Confirms

• No confirmed in-person contact for the mother

• No confirmed video contact for the mother

• No mention of grandmother contact

• No mention of father contact

• No confirmation of providers, platform, or time

• No evidence of compliance with court expectations

By any legal standard, this is a failure to comply with contact duties under the Children Act 1989, Article 8 ECHR, and the procedural principles governing family court arrangements.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because vagueness is not neutral — it is a tactic.
Because provisional language (“likely,” “in negotiation”) is a shield against accountability.
Because no mother should receive a message implying that her access to her children depends on third-party logistics, ambiguous possibilities, or institutional delay tactics.

Kirsty Hornal has had ample time to coordinate contact. Her refusal to provide a clear, written confirmation of lawful arrangements has left four children disconnected and three adults (mother, father, grandmother) in a state of emotional uncertainty and logistical paralysis.

---

IV. Violations Documented

• Article 8 ECHR – Breach of family life rights

• Children Act 1989 – Failure to facilitate contact as required

• Procedural Obstruction – Deliberate vagueness in the face of clear request

• Emotional Harm – Delays causing instability and distress to children

• Disability Disregard – Failure to provide scheduling needed for a disabled parent to plan

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not consider “likely” to be an acceptable legal position.

We do not consider “negotiating with providers” to be an excuse when days have passed without meaningful contact.

We do not consider contact ambiguity to be compatible with child welfare, parental rights, or international diplomatic obligations.

We file this delay as Day One of documented obstruction, with the clear understanding that each day following will be logged, numbered, escalated, and formally submitted to:

• The Central Family Court

• CAFCASS

• The U.S. Embassy and State Department

• Social Work England

• Ofsted

• The United Nations

Contact is not a favour.
It is a legal obligation.
And Westminster is failing to meet it.

---

⟡ 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.