🪞SWANK ENTRY
“Provisional Contact II: Administrative Theatre and the Deliberate Dilution of Maternal Rights”
On Monday Excuses, Tuesday Delays, and the Bureaucratic Unravelling of Article 8
⟡ Filed Date:
15 July 2025
⟡ Reference Code:
SWANK/CONTACT/KH-DELAY02
⟡ PDF Filename:
2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_KirstyHornal_ContactDelay02.pdf
⟡ 1-Line Summary:
Kirsty Hornal responded with excuses and speculation — again. Still no confirmed contact for mother, grandmother, or father.
I. What Happened
On 14 July 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a simple, lawful, and timely request:
– A Monday video call with her children at 10:00 a.m.
– A video introduction to the contact centre
– Confirmation of future contact for herself, her mother, and the children's father
Kirsty Hornal responded — not with confirmation, but with a litany of deferrals, emotional justifications, and a tone designed to portray administrative chaos as noble coordination.
Romeo, we are told, is too mature. The foster carer is overwhelmed. The centre is being considered. The email thread must be “monitored.” In short: a flood of words, and no plan.
II. What the Delay Confirms
There is no confirmed weekly schedule
There are no confirmed dates or times for in-person or video contact
The grandmother and father remain excluded from all planning
The children’s routines are being manipulated to reduce availability
The Local Authority believes it can replace contact with anecdotes
Worse still, the response attempts to pathologise Romeo’s emotional intelligence as a behavioural problem. His protective instincts as a big brother — under traumatic and unjust separation — are weaponised to justify limiting access.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is not planning.
This is bureaucratic theatre, written in the language of professional delay.
We logged it because Westminster is attempting to blur the distinction between contact and distraction — offering activity schedules and verbal sympathy in place of fixed parental access.
We logged it because Article 8 rights are not postponed by youth workers, educational enrichment, or emotionally manipulative narratives. They are enforceable. Immediate. Non-discretionary.
IV. Violations Documented
Article 8 ECHR – Failure to facilitate contact with consistency and legal necessity
Parental Alienation – Substituting routine overreach and reactivity for lawful connection
Disability Disregard – No clear schedule provided for health-managed planning
Procedural Undermining – Using anecdotal issues to delay compliance
Emotional Misuse – Treating Romeo’s justified protectiveness as an interference
V. SWANK’s Position
Contact is not a luxury to be slotted between youth work and tuition.
Contact is not something that waits on provider negotiations or foster carer mood.
We reject the infantilising tone and disorganised theatrics offered in place of a lawful framework.
Let it be recorded:
Romeo’s strength is not a disruption
Honor and King’s right to consistency is not optional
The U.S. grandmother and the children’s father must not be erased from this framework
Polly Chromatic has made repeated requests in good faith.
Westminster has responded with emotional noise and administrative dust.
We file this entry not because Kirsty Hornal failed to answer — but because she answered with everything but the law.
⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.
⚖️ 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.