⟡ “You Took Them Without Consent. You Now Risk Their Medical Neglect.” ⟡
The Court Has Been Notified. The Asthma Appointments Have Been Scheduled. The Clock Is Now Theirs.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/MEDICAL-ALERT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_FamilyCourt_UrgentMedicalAsthmaAppointments.pdf
Formal medical alert filed to the Family Division regarding four U.S. citizen children with chronic eosinophilic asthma and their scheduled hospital appointments, now jeopardised by unlawful removal.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic notified the Administrative Court and Family Court Centre that all four of her unlawfully removed children suffer from chronic eosinophilic asthma and have scheduled respiratory hospital appointments at Hammersmith Hospital throughout July and August. The children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were removed on 23 June without medical planning or consent, placing them at direct risk of asthmatic crisis, neglect, and discontinuity of care.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The removal occurred with no transitional medical handover
Scheduled care plans were ignored despite known chronic respiratory conditions
Hospital appointments are non-deferrable and tied to long-term respiratory stability
Risk of acute attacks and avoidable medical deterioration is now state-induced
The Emergency Reinstatement Request pending in court must take medical urgency into account
This wasn’t just removal. It was medical disruption in breach of duty of care.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because asthma isn’t political. It’s physiological.
Because you cannot claim protection while cancelling respiratory treatment.
Because King, Prince, Honor, and Regal do not have time to wait for jurisdiction to catch up.
Because when court filings are ignored, oxygen becomes evidence.
Because this isn’t only family law now — it’s public health law, and it’s on record.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 1 – Welfare of the child not treated as paramount
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Interference with family and medical autonomy
UNCRC Articles 24 and 3 – Right to health care and best interests of the child
NHS Duty of Care – Breach in continuity of treatment for chronic conditions
Public Health Duty – State-induced risk of medical neglect post-removal
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t just poor planning. It was state-induced medical endangerment.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was asthma treatment disruption by bureaucratic negligence.
This wasn’t a neutral action. It was removal without an inhaler, without a plan, without a clue.
SWANK hereby archives this not as a plea — but as a jurisdictional warning served with medical timestamps.
The hospital knows the dates.
The court now does too.
The next breath is the State’s responsibility.
⟡ 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.