⟡ Notification of Procedural Misuse & Unlawful Emergency Removal of Four U.S. Citizen Children ⟡
Chromatic v. The Fiction of Safeguarding [2025] SWANK 28 — “When procedure is power, silence is complicity.”
Filed: 28 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/CAFCASS/EPO-ALERT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-28_Formal_Notification_Procedural_Misuse_and_Unlawful_Emergency_Removal_of_Four_Children.pdf
Formal notice to CAFCASS disputing lawful basis of child removal under EPO; U.S. consular, disability, and misconduct dimensions engaged.
I. What Happened
On 28 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, acting as mother and litigant-in-person via SWANK London Ltd, issued formal notification to CAFCASS regarding the unlawful emergency removal of her four children on 23 June 2025.
The notice identifies significant procedural concerns, including:
No formal communication with CAFCASS prior to, during, or post-removal
No clarity on whether a Guardian has been assigned
Involvement of named officers (Hornal, Brown, Westminster/RBKC) known to be under professional misconduct referrals
Known disability-related needs and U.S. citizenship protections ignored at the point of intervention
Confirmation was demanded on CAFCASS’s role, Guardian assignment (if any), and a guarantee of independence from tainted assessments.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
An Emergency Protection Order was executed without CAFCASS visibility or accountability
Four U.S. citizen minors were removed without safeguarding oversight or neutrality
A disabled mother was procedurally bypassed and her exemptions disregarded
Officers currently under formal misconduct review have remained active contributors to decisions
The institution intended to monitor safeguarding failed to monitor its own absence
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because what happened on 23 June wasn’t “emergency removal” — it was reputational self-defence.
Because CAFCASS cannot claim independence while remaining institutionally silent.
Because children should not be caught in retaliatory process theatre staged by adults with unresolved power.
Because disability isn’t a technicality. It’s jurisdictional.
And because no Guardian can be neutral if they inherit the lies of officers under referral.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, §41 – Guardian duty to represent the interests of the child
Equality Act 2010, §§20 & 149 – Failure to honour reasonable adjustments and prevent discrimination
ECHR, Art. 8 – Interference with family life without adequate procedural protection
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Art. 12 – Equal recognition before the law
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Art. 36 – Failure to engage consular safeguards for U.S. minors
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was strategic disappearance under colour of law.
We do not accept removals executed without procedural guardrails.
We do not accept “emergency” as a permanent excuse.
We do not accept CAFCASS oversight that begins after the damage.
The children were not shielded. The officers were.
SWANK has filed the record. CAFCASS now decides whether it joins the timeline — or becomes part of the problem.
⟡ 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.