R (Chromatic) v Westminster: On Procedural Breach, Judicial Defiance, and the Letter That Documented Everything

---

🪞SWANK ENTRY
“This Is What Breach Looks Like”
A Formal Notification of Noncompliance, Filed With Judicial Precision and Maternal Fury

---

⟡ Filed Date:

15 July 2025

⟡ Reference Code:

SWANK/CONTACT/BREACH-NOTICE

⟡ Court Filename:

2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_ContactBreach_NoticeToWestminster.pdf

⟡ One-Line Summary:

Polly Chromatic formally notifies Westminster of their failure to comply with the 11 July court order mandating in-person visits.

---

I. What Happened

At 13:58 on 15 July 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a direct legal notice to Westminster Children’s Services confirming what their behaviour already proved: that they are in active breach of a binding Family Court order.

The court’s 11 July directive required three in-person contacts per week. As of Day Four, no visits have occurred, no written confirmation has been offered, and the only correspondence received continues to rely on evasive phrases such as:

“It is likely that the contact will be tomorrow and Thursday…”

This is not implementation. This is linguistic camouflage for procedural defiance.

---

II. What the Email Established

• The court order was referenced with precision

• The failure to comply was clearly described

• A formal record of noncompliance as of Day Four was created

• A clear timeline was offered: if confirmation is not received, the matter will proceed to urgent judicial escalation

• Westminster was given the opportunity to correct its course before the matter is entered into court record

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this email functions as more than just a warning — it is a cornerstone document. It proves that:

• Westminster was fully informed of its obligations

• Polly Chromatic made every effort to elicit compliance without conflict

• Delays were not due to confusion, but to obstruction

• The escalation to court was not impulsive, but inevitable

This is not a parent lashing out. This is a litigant holding the line — and writing it down.

---

IV. Violations Identified

• Breach of Family Court Order (11 July 2025)

• Failure to provide contact or confirm arrangements

• Emotional harm and parental alienation by delay

• Violation of Article 8 ECHR

• Procedural evasion by design, not circumstance

---

V. SWANK’s Position

There is no mistaking the nature of this breach.
It is not logistical. It is tactical.
It is not unfortunate. It is calculated.

The law was clear. The order was issued. The parent complied. The state did not.

We file this email not as a plea, but as a formal architectural block in the ongoing legal record that will build into a structure too large for Westminster to escape.

---

⟡ 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.