“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom & Heir – On the Emotional Harm of Institutional Restriction and the Suppression of Child Expression under EPO Custody


⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Filed Date: 16 July 2025
Reference Code: ADD-WISHES-071625
Court File Name: 2025-07-16_Addendum_ChildrenWishes_EmotionalDistress.pdf
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Summary: A formal statement outlining the children’s own words, observed distress, and emotional impact of post-EPO restrictions.

“Voices Unheard: The Suppression of Emotional Truth in Safeguarding Custody – A Post-EPO Catalogue of Neglect”

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four U.S. citizen children — Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — were removed from their mother’s care under an Emergency Protection Order. Since then, they have been subjected to an arrangement marked by restriction, surveillance, digital deprivation, and emotional erosion.

This addendum captures the words they dared to say aloud — before they were shushed, redirected, or digitally silenced.

II. What the Children Said

Regal (Age 16):

“I feel like I’m in prison.”
“I should be allowed to have a say.”
He objected to the confiscation of his iPhone, the restriction on movement, and the unjustified silencing around court matters. He is being taken out with a carer for ten hours a day and forcibly separated from his siblings.

Prerogative (Age 13):

“I’m not allowed to go outside.”
He appeared flat, disconnected, and visibly aware of the loss of educational and emotional freedom.

Kingdom (Age 10) and Heir (Age 8):
Both children appeared withdrawn. Heir barely spoke. Kingdom nodded quietly when restrictions were mentioned.

Heir: “I want to go home and do fun things again.”

These are not vague complaints. They are explicit indicators of harm, backed by consistent behavioural signs.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the Local Authority has failed to uphold even the most basic principles of child consultation, psychological wellbeing, or legal proportionality.
Because Regal is Gillick competent and Prerogative is entitled to sunlight.
Because no safeguarding plan should feel like punishment.
Because silence is not a sign of stability — it’s a symptom of distress.

IV. Legal Violations Noted

  • Children Act 1989, Section 22(4)(a) – Consultation with children on decisions affecting them

  • UNCRC Articles 9, 12, and 13 – Family unity, expression, and consultation

  • ECHR Articles 8 and 10 – Family/private life and free expression

  • Gillick Competence Doctrine – Ignored for Regal, age 16

  • Article 2, Protocol 1 ECHR – Right to consistent educational access

V. SWANK’s Position

These conditions are developmentally inappropriate, emotionally harmful, and procedurally unsound.
The Local Authority has created a regime of isolation that violates every framework they pretend to uphold.

The children have spoken. And SWANK will ensure the court listens.
This is not safeguarding. This is punishment without cause.
It is the lawful duty of the court to restore not just access — but dignity.

⚖️ SWANK Legal-Aesthetic Footer

This archive is not anonymous. It is authored, indexed, and sworn.
Filed in velvet dissent, and structured in evidentiary sorrow.
Not a blog. A legal record.

🖋 Polly Chromatic
Mother and 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.

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.