“Thank You For Your Email. This Message Is Apathy.”
Where Justice is Automated, and Silence is Considered Sufficient
Filed Date: 3 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/CFC/0703-AUTOREPLY-10
Court Filename: 2025-07-03_AutomaticResponse_CFC_Privatelaw_10
One-line Summary: The Central Family Court’s only reply to urgent litigation is an auto-generated shrug, sent without irony.
I. What Happened
On 3 July 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted urgent filings to the Central Family Court regarding active proceedings in Case No: ZC25C50281. The stakes involved four U.S. citizen children removed under contest and subject to emergency relief requests, judicial review, and accompanying civil litigation.
In response, the court replied—not with acknowledgment of substance, not with case updates, not with statutory timelines—but with a standardised, unresponsive, bureaucratic deflection. A full-length automatic reply was generated, offering hyperlinks, irrelevant telephone numbers, formatting rules, and the comforting instruction that “we might take longer to answer your email.”
The reply includes an assurance that "attachments over 50 pages will be deleted", a revelation as subtle as it is grotesque when dealing with multi-document bundles involving international child welfare.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That a parent in active litigation must wait ten working days for a real reply, even as contact is denied, relief is pending, and hearings loom.
That the Central Family Court treats email as a compliance test, not a communication tool.
That urgent matters affecting disabled U.S. citizens are met with template language warning that large bundles will be discarded without notice.
That automated correspondence has replaced procedural empathy, and that legal urgency now relies on whether your PDF is small enough to survive digital triage.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the threshold for “family justice” in 2025 appears to be whether you have access to a PDF compressor.
Because institutions that claim to safeguard children cannot hide behind automated messages, especially when those children have been forcibly removed without notice or lawful disclosure.
Because this is not a minor filing—it is a national-level human rights case, involving state abduction, medical interference, and international law violations—and the court’s default reply is, in essence, “We’ll get to it if you formatted it right.”
Because automation without discretion is not administration—it is neglect.
IV. Violations
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Right to a fair and timely hearing
Children Act 1989 – Duty to safeguard and promote welfare
Family Procedure Rules 2010 – Duty of prompt communication and service
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 3, 9, and 12
Ministry of Justice Protocol on Litigants in Person – Reasonable assistance and access
V. SWANK’s Position
Central Family Court has chosen to meet the gravity of state-enforced separation, transatlantic legal conflict, and procedural abuse with an automatic message. No reply, no clarity, no urgency—only hyperlinks and disclaimers.
Let it be known: where their reply ends, our documentation begins.
SWANK London Ltd. has filed the court’s silence. And yes—we formatted it properly.
⟡ 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.