“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

Chromatic v Bromley Council (On the Matter of Shaming and Emotional Abuse in Placement)


⟡ The Shaming Placement ⟡

“In the Matter of Emotional Abuse by Foster Carers — An Unlawful Pattern of Shaming, Belittling, and Discriminatory Control”

Filed: 29 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/PLACEMENT/ABUSE-2025
Download PDF: 2025-09-29_Addendum_PlacementHarm_ShamePattern.pdf
Summary: Addendum documenting systematic shaming, humiliation, and discriminatory abuse within the foster placement, contrasted with the protective maternal home.

I. What Happened

On 29 September 2025, during supervised contact, the Applicant’s children disclosed multiple incidents of placement harm:

  • Kingdom (11) barred from wearing his medical alert bracelet because it contains the word “disease.”

  • Heir (8) told she cannot go trick-or-treating because “people put nails in the candy.”

  • Heir repeating insults such as “liar,” “cheater,” and “duh,” absorbed from placement environment.

  • Regal (16) demeaned by foster father with the statement he “cannot ride a bike because he is American.”

  • Foster father yelling and cursing at Regal in front of siblings, corroborated by social worker Bruce Murphy.

These are not isolated slips; they represent a deliberate pattern of humiliation and fear-based control.

II. What the Addendum Establishes

This document evidences:

  • Medical endangerment — interference with lawful safeguards for asthma management.

  • Identity-based discrimination — remarks against nationality, contrary to the Equality Act 2010.

  • Fear-mongering and intimidation — false warnings weaponised to restrict children’s lives.

  • Emotional abuse — belittling, insults, and public humiliation meeting the Children Act 1989 s.31 threshold.

  • Professional corroboration — social worker testimony of verbal aggression in placement.

  • Oversight failure — no intervention by IRO or supervising social worker despite evidence.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

SWANK records this as a paradigmatic instance of institutional negligence cloaked as safeguarding. The placement introduces risk, corrodes dignity, and normalises humiliation. Home is protective; foster care is corrosive.

This catalogue entry also establishes a jurisprudential contrast: maternal care conforms with safeguarding law, while Local Authority intervention violates it.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, s.31 & s.22C – failure to prevent emotional harm and maintain stability.

  • Children Act 2004, s.11 – failure of Bromley Council to exercise safeguarding functions.

  • Equality Act 2010 – unlawful discrimination on nationality grounds.

  • Fostering Services: National Minimum Standards (2011) – breach of Standards 4, 7, 9.

  • Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) – conduct amounting to emotional abuse.

  • ECHR Articles 3, 6, 8 – degrading treatment, obstruction of fair participation, and violation of family life.

V. SWANK’s Position

This placement is neither protective nor lawful. It is a factory of humiliation. The Court must not be misled by the Local Authority’s inertia: inaction in the face of abuse is complicity.

The only proportionate remedy under Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 and YC v United Kingdom (2012) is the immediate return of all four children, together, to their mother. No further displacement. No separation.

Filed to the SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue by:
✒️ Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd.

⚖️ 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.