R (Chromatic) v Westminster: On Pre-Scheduled Contact, Institutional Silence, and the Bureaucratic Suspension of Grandmotherhood

---

🪞SWANK ENTRY
“You Have the Schedule. You Just Won’t Follow It.”
On Ignored Calendars, Unanswered Emails, and the Bureaucratic Sport of Withholding Children from Their Families

---

⟡ Filed Date:

15 July 2025

⟡ Reference Code:

SWANK/CONTACT/VIDSILENCE0714

⟡ Court Filename:

2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_VideoContactScheduleIgnored.pdf

⟡ One-Line Summary:

Polly provided a full contact schedule. Westminster pretended not to see it. The children suffered the silence.

---

I. What Happened

On 9 July 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a full, precise video contact schedule for the week of 14–18 July — including times, dates, time zone adjustments, and parties:

• Monday: Mother

• Tuesday: Maternal Grandmother (U.S.-based)

• Wednesday: Father (Turks & Caicos)

• Thursday: Mother

• Friday: Grandmother again

The email was sent to all key parties — Kirsty Hornal, Sam Brown, Sarah Newman, Legal Services, and Complaints.

And yet, as of 15 July, only one session has occurred — and the rest remain unacknowledged, despite judicial expectations of regular contact.

---

II. What the Evidence Confirms

• Contact was proactively planned

• All parties were given the opportunity to coordinate in advance

• No legal, logistical, or safeguarding objection was raised

• Westminster’s only reply has been strategic vagueness and selective silence

• No response was sent acknowledging the grandmother or father’s contact rights

• No alternative times were offered — only non-engagement

This is not oversight.
It is procedural sabotage through deliberate inaction.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is not a missed appointment — it is a breach of rights.

Because withholding a video link requires more effort than sending one.

Because Kirsty Hornal was not asked to invent new arrangements —
she was asked to click reply and confirm.

And she refused.

And because maternal grandmothers do not lose access to their grandchildren by forgetting the time zone — they lose access when officials ignore them on purpose.

---

IV. Violations Documented

• Article 8 ECHR – Right to family life

• Children Act 1989 – Right to maintain regular contact with parents and family

• Court Order Noncompliance – Failure to implement required contact

• Procedural Neglect – Ignoring clear written requests

• Obstruction of Cross-Border Contact – Blocking U.S. and Turks & Caicos-based relatives

• Ongoing Emotional Harm – Caused by unnecessary silence and separation

---

V. SWANK’s Position

The silence here is not accidental — it is deliberate.
This email confirms Westminster received all details needed to ensure contact.

No reply was sent to the grandmother.
No reply was sent to the father.
No links were distributed.
No legal basis was cited for the refusal.

This is not a safeguarding delay.
This is a weaponisation of logistics.

And Westminster must now answer for each second of silence logged between Monday at 10:00am and Friday at 12:00pm — because each second represents a family forcibly kept apart.

---

⟡ 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.