“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label CIN Closure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIN Closure. Show all posts

Support Was Conditional — And the Condition Was Silence


⟡ “They Didn’t Withdraw Support Because I Was Unsafe — They Withdrew Support Because I Reported Them”⟡
A formal complaint filed to Westminster and RBKC documenting how safeguarding services became retaliatory, discriminatory, and medically unsafe — not due to parental harm, but institutional exposure.

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC-RBKC/FCS-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Complaint_WestminsterRBKC_DisabilityRetaliation_FormalServiceFailure.pdf
Cross-borough complaint naming Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services for closing support after police involvement, escalating to PLO without lawful cause, and failing to accommodate disability. Anchored in medical evidence, legal citations, and procedural documentation.

I. What Happened

This is the complaint that draws the line.

After Westminster received a police report from Polly Chromatic citing disability discrimination, the borough promptly closed the CIN (Child in Need) plan — without request, milestone, or consultation. Days later, they initiated PLO escalation.

The facts:

  • Medical need for written-only contact was already documented

  • Psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Irfan Rafiq (26 Nov 2024) was on file

  • Contact attempts continued despite warnings of medical risk

  • Support was not withdrawn because it ended — it was revoked as punishment

  • The safeguarding system inverted: the harm now came from the state

This complaint formally names that inversion.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That support was conditionally provided — and withdrawn upon complaint

  • That CIN closure followed police reporting, not protective progress

  • That the safeguarding pathway was a compliance test — not a protective intervention

  • That contact formats were medically unsafe, and that written-only boundaries were repeatedly violated

  • That racial and cultural dimensions of social work practice were wholly ignored

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when an institution responds to medical evidence with coercion, it stops being a service. And when it escalates after being reported, it stops being a mistake — and starts being retaliation.

SWANK archived this complaint to:

  • Mark the exact point at which safeguarding stopped serving and started punishing

  • Show that PLO was not a reaction to risk — but a reaction to resistance

  • Provide regulatory and legal bodies with a single document that consolidates the harm

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010
    • Section 20: Denial of written-only adjustment
    • Section 27: Victimisation following police complaint
    • Section 149: Failure of public sector equality duty

  • Children Act 1989 – Closure of support and emotional harm through safeguarding misuse

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 8: Family life
    • Article 6: Fair process
    • Article 14: Discrimination based on disability

  • Social Work England Standards – Factual distortion, bias, coercion, and failure of honesty

  • UNCRPD – Right to accessible communication, freedom from state retaliation, and protection from systemic harm

V. SWANK’s Position

This complaint doesn’t just name a problem — it files the system as the risk. When you ask for support and receive surveillance, when you report harm and receive escalation, what you’re living through is not safeguarding. It’s institutional punishment — dressed up in paperwork.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

  • Immediate independent review of all CIN closures following complaint

  • Recognition of written-only communication as a medical and legal right

  • Regulatory consequences for systemic discrimination and retaliation by public bodies

⟡ 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.
No comments:

Documented Obsessions