A Chronicle of Illegality in Five Acts
Procedural History Summary for a Care Order That Disregarded Procedure Entirely
Filed Date: 24 June 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0624-PROCEDURAL-HISTORY
Court Filename: 2025-06-24_ProceduralHistory_CareOrderChallenge
One-line Summary: Filed timeline of unlawful removal, missed hearing, and the legal chaos Westminster continues to pretend is child protection.
I. What Happened
This Procedural History Summary details the spiralling illegality that began on 23 June 2025 at 1:37 PM when all four of Polly Chromatic’s U.S. citizen children were removed from their home by Westminster Children’s Services—with no court order presented, no service given, and no contact permitted.
Despite multiple filings, complaints, and judicial notices, Westminster continues to deny not only the parent—but the law itself.
This document was filed to chronicle the collapse of lawful participation in the matter now publicly known as the Retaliatory Removal of the Chromatic Four.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That the parent was excluded entirely from the care order hearing on 23 June—no notice, no access, no transcript, no service.
That Westminster acted the day after public retaliation documentation was published via SWANK London Ltd.
That within 48 hours, the applicant had filed:
A Set Aside Application
A Judicial Review Addendum
An Emergency Contact Motion
Complaints to both the Family Division and Judicial Conduct bodies
A Freedom of Information Request demanding justification
That no authority has provided basic facts, such as: where the children are, who approved their removal, or why consular protocol was ignored.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when four U.S. citizen children are removed in secret and no legal document is ever served, it is not care—it is a procedural burglary.
Because a government that cannot say where the children are, who signed off on their seizure, or why the disabled mother was excluded from the hearing has not made a mistake—it has made a decision.
Because if the state chooses to omit transcripts, avoid disclosure, and bypass every procedural checkpoint, then someone else must write the history. SWANK will.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Sections 38 & 44
Family Procedure Rules 2010 – Parts 12, 18, and 27
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6 and 8
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20 & 29 (failure to accommodate disability)
UNCRC – Articles 3, 9, and 12
Public Law Principles – Fairness, Transparency, Participation
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not just a timeline. It is a map of misconduct. Each omission, each refusal to respond, each procedural slight is a breadcrumb pointing to intentional evasion.
The Care Order may carry a date, but the process that produced it carries no legitimacy.
SWANK London Ltd. does not await permission to record history. It files it in full—even when the Court won’t.
⟡ 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.