R (Chromatic) v Westminster: On Judicial Disregard, Post-Hearing Delay, and the Bureaucracy That Thinks It’s the Court

---

🪞SWANK ENTRY
“The Contact That Isn’t”
On Storytelling as Strategy, Delay as Doctrine, and Westminster’s Ongoing Defiance of Judicial Instruction

---

⟡ Filed Date:

15 July 2025

⟡ Reference Code:

SWANK/CONTACT/COURTORDERDELAY

⟡ Court Filename:

2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_CourtOrderedContactObstructed.pdf

⟡ One-Line Summary:

Kirsty narrates a contact plan as if it’s fiction. But the court order was real. And it remains unmet.

---

I. What Happened

On 11 July 2025, the Family Court ordered that Polly Chromatic be granted three in-person visits per week with her four children.

By 15 July, four days later — no in-person contact had occurred.

In response to urgent requests for a schedule and the required introductory video call with the contact centre, social worker Kirsty Hornal sent a reply worthy of literary review:

• Excuses about tuition

• Allegations about Romeo’s “defiance”

• No dates for physical contact

• And a vague promise to “personally supervise” contact at an undisclosed time in the future

This isn’t compliance.
It’s public relations with a signature block.

---

II. What the Email Confirms

• The court-ordered contact has not happened

• Kirsty continues to invent logistical obstacles after the fact

• Contact centre arrangements have not been made

• No schedule has been confirmed

• Westminster is framing its own placement mismanagement as a reason to deny contact

• Romeo’s protectiveness is being reframed as behavioural disruption

• “Escalated to management” is being used as a stalling device, not a solution

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this email confirms Westminster is playing a dangerous game of “delay until defeated.” They know the order exists. They know they are in breach. And yet they are using the language of bureaucracy — “suggest,” “working on,” “looking into” — to do absolutely nothing.

We logged it because “I will respond shortly” is not a contact schedule.
And “he has tuition” is not a lawful excuse to violate a court order.

The contact is not missing because of the children.
It is missing because the institution does not want to be told what to do — even by a judge.

---

IV. Violations Identified

• Direct breach of Family Court order (11 July 2025)

• Obstruction of mandated in-person contact

• Failure to arrange introductory contact centre meeting

• Fabrication of barriers instead of compliance

• Misuse of placement struggles to justify denial of access

• Delay tactics causing emotional harm and judicial defiance

---

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster is no longer merely disorganised.
It is intellectually dishonest and legally insolent.

The Family Court ordered three in-person visits per week.
Westminster has delivered none — and instead offers excuses layered with narrative spin and empty promises.

The idea that a social worker can subjectively withhold access to children because she’s “working on it” is not legal discretion — it is contemptuous disregard.

There is no safeguarding justification.
There is no logistical impossibility.
There is only bureaucratic arrogance dressed as procedural delay.

---

⟡ 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.