R (Chromatic) v Westminster: On the Misapplication of Section 17 and the Withdrawal of Support

---

Very Very Snobby Post No. 632.A

“We Were Statutorily Entitled to Help. They Gave Us Harm.”

---

Metadata

Filed Date: 13 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A33-STAT632
Court File Name: 2025-07-13_Addendum_LocalAuthorityDuties_BreachOfSupport
Summary:
The Local Authority had a duty to provide support under s.17 of the Children Act 1989. Instead, it surveilled, punished, and abducted.

---

I. What Happened

Under Part III of the Children Act 1989, every local authority is placed under a general statutory duty to provide services to children in need and their families.

The law is not subtle.

It requires:

• The promotion of emotional and physical wellbeing

• Proactive family support, not surveillance

• Coordination across agencies to ensure stability

None of this occurred in the case of Polly Chromatic and her four American children.

There was:

• No s.17 assessment

• No plan of support

• No inter-agency collaboration

There was only:

• Institutional escalation

• Fabricated risk

• Retaliation dressed up as concern

Instead of lawful help, the state offered harm — premeditated, performative, and punishable.

---

II. What the Law Says

Section 17(1) imposes a statutory duty to:

(a) safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need;
(b) promote their upbringing by their families, so far as consistent with their welfare.

A child qualifies as “in need” under s.17(10) if:

• Their development is impaired without services

• Their health is suffering

• Or they are disabled

All four children qualified.
So did their mother.

Instead of complying, Westminster actively obstructed support:

• Denied assessments

• Rejected documentation

• Coordinated defamation across agencies

• Abused its discretion to manufacture grounds for removal

They didn’t just fail to comply with s.17.
They inverted it.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the law does not permit Local Authorities to rewrite their duties into discretionary whims.
Because support is a right, not a narrative twist.
Because Section 17 was not cited — because they knew they couldn’t meet it.

When I referenced legal precedent, they responded with removal.
When I sent them actual legal text, they fabricated chaos.

This is no longer about error. It’s about pattern.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989, s.17(1), s.17(10) – No services provided, no assessment conducted

• Children Act 2004 – Breach of expanded coordination duties

• Equality Act 2010 – Disability discrimination, refusal of adjustment

• ECHR Article 8 – Family life violated without necessity or support

• UNCRPD Article 23 – Family integrity and disability rights undermined

• DfE Guidance – Partnership duties erased in favour of post-justification

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We did not request sympathy. We required compliance.

This family was never assessed.
This family was never supported.
This family was punished for having needs — and punished again for knowing the law.

Section 17 is not symbolic.
It is statutory.
It is clear.

And this post is now part of the official SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue, to be entered into the Master Retaliation Timeline, the Local Authority Statutory Failure Index, and — if needed — the Court of Law That Actually Reads Things™.

To every authority who thinks silence can’t be cited:

Try again. We keep receipts — and legislation.

---

✒️ Filed with legal cognition and saturated contempt,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

---

⚖️ 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.