⟡ Virtual Contact Session: Post-EPO Access Obstruction & Institutional Soft-Footing ⟡
Chromatic v. The Calendar That Forgot the Court Order [2025] SWANK 32 — “They scheduled chaos. We logged clarity.”
Filed: 2 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CONTACT-SUPPRESSION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-02_RE_Virtual_Contact_2_July_2025_10am.pdf
Institutional correspondence confirming limited contact, failure to consult on scheduling, and soft procedural deflection post-EPO.
I. What Happened
On 2 July 2025, Polly Chromatic, litigant-in-person and mother of four, received correspondence from Samuel Brown, Deputy Service Manager at Westminster Children’s Services. The email confirmed a virtual contact session at 10:00am, but only after the time was unilaterally chosen without any consultation regarding her availability. Polly Chromatic confirmed she would attend — explicitly noting that this did not constitute a waiver of legal rights.
The session occurred under difficult emotional conditions, with technical issues logged, and a duration arbitrarily capped at 30 minutes — despite more than a week of denied contact and the court’s direction for two supervised sessions per week. Subsequent attempts to normalise this limited access were met with institutional tone-softening and no acknowledgement of prior procedural breach.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Contact was arranged reactively, not in compliance with legal direction.
The parent was not consulted before scheduling — a recurring procedural failure.
Session length and conditions failed to meet the urgency and emotional needs of the children.
Social workers positioned the session as a generous concession rather than a statutory obligation.
Contact planning remains arbitrarily controlled, with no meaningful accommodation of medical, legal, or emotional factors.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when the court orders twice-weekly contact and none is provided for eight days, you are no longer managing risk — you are manufacturing it.
Because procedural courtesy does not erase structural delay.
Because every “soft” email is a hard-edged denial.
Because contact is not kindness. It is compliance.
And because SWANK does not negotiate rights. It logs who thought they were optional.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, §34 – Duty to promote regular contact between parent and child
Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 8 – Right to family life
Equality Act 2010, §149 – Failure to give due regard to protected characteristics and access barriers
Family Procedure Rules, Pt. 12B – Disregard for contact framework post-care order
Judicial Direction, Case No: ZC25C50281 – Non-compliance with supervised contact mandate
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t contact. It was containment.
We do not accept unilateral scheduling disguised as coordination.
We do not accept 30-minute boxes as compensation for a week of silence.
We do not accept institutions mistaking procedure for permission.
She showed up because the law said so. They treated it like a calendar courtesy.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. 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. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.