On Judicial Deafness and the Necessity of the Child’s Own Voice

---

⟡ C2 Application – Children’s Right to be Heard ⟡

Filed: 22 September 2025 — 08:00 hours sharp
Reference: SWANK/C2/WISHES-FEELINGS/2025

Download PDF: 2025-09-21_C2_AllChildren_WishesAndFeelings.pdf

Summary: Application ensuring Romeo, Prince, King, and Honor Bonneannée’s direct wishes and feelings are preserved before the Court, unfiltered by Local Authority distortion.

---

I. What Happened

• On 21 September 2025, the Applicant Mother (Polly Chromatic) lodged a C2 Application in the Central Family Court (ZC25C50281).
• Application made as next friend on behalf of her four children: Regal (16), Prerogative (13), Kingdom (11), Heir (8).
• Documents include: C2 form, continuation sheets, letters/evidence of wishes, witness statements, and disability note.
• Core request: that the children’s voices be placed directly before the Court, pursuant to Children Act 1989, Article 12 UNCRC, and Article 8 ECHR.

---

II. What the Document Establishes

• Statutory right of the child to be heard under s.10 Children Act 1989.
• Welfare paramountcy requires authentic, unfiltered evidence of children’s wishes.
• Local Authority’s suppression of voices = breach of Articles 6 & 8 ECHR.
• Demonstrates structural retaliation: children’s authentic words displaced by institutional narrative.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To preserve unmediated testimony of four children, all clinically vulnerable, all repeatedly silenced by Westminster.
• To ensure judicial record cannot ignore Article 12 UNCRC duties.
• To highlight discrepancy: Local Authority “report-writing” v. children’s authentic voices.

---

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Children Act 1989, ss.1, 10 — welfare paramountcy, child’s right to apply.
• Article 12 UNCRC — child’s right to express views freely.
• Article 8 ECHR — respect for family life, requiring real participation.
• Equality Act 2010 — adjustments required for both mother and children’s disabilities.
• Bromley’s Family Law — consent and participation must be genuine, not manufactured.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “parental coaching.” This is the unfiltered voice of the child — lawful, insistent, and undeniable.

We do not accept that Westminster speaks for the children.
We reject CAFCASS’s lazy filtration.
We document their voices as evidence, not sentiment.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡

Every child’s sentence is jurisdictional. Every line preserves Article 12. Because the voice of the child is law — and silencing it is contempt.

---

⚖️ 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.