ADDENDUM: ABSENCE OF THEORY OF MIND IN SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
A Mirror Court Indictment of Projection, Bias, and Procedural Collapse
Metadata
Filed: 2 September 2025
Reference Code: SWANK–HORNAL–THEORYOFMIND
PDF Filename: 2025-09-02_SWANK_Addendum_Hornal_TheoryOfMind.pdf
Summary (1 line): Hornal’s inability to recognise others’ perspectives corrupted safeguarding with projection and bias.
I. What Happened
Kirsty Hornal conducted safeguarding not as a professional but as a projector: parental actions reinterpreted without context, children’s voices disregarded if they conflicted with her script, cultural and medical contexts erased, every interaction reframed as confirmatory of her pre-existing assumptions.
This was not safeguarding; it was narrative theatre in which only one perspective — her own — was permitted to exist.
II. What the Addendum Establishes
Projection Masquerading as Assessment
Parental conduct distorted by subjective presumption.
Silencing of Children
Children’s perspectives excluded whenever they conflicted with her narrative.
Context Erasure
Medical conditions, homeschooling structures, and cultural realities disregarded.
Bias Codified as Evidence
Pre-existing assumptions recycled as conclusions.
III. Consequences
Misrepresentation of parental behaviour.
Neglect of children’s needs and wishes.
Welfare principle inverted; s.1 Children Act 1989 ignored.
Safeguarding record corrupted into a mirror of one individual’s bias.
IV. Legal and Doctrinal Violations
Children Act 1989 – s.1 welfare principle; s.22(4) duty to ascertain wishes and feelings.
Equality Act 2010, s.149 – Public Sector Equality Duty breached.
Working Together to Safeguard Children (2023) – trauma-informed, child-centred duty abandoned.
Social Work England Professional Standards – independence, empathy, and evidence-based practice disregarded.
ECHR – Article 6 fair trial, Article 8 family life infringed.
UNCRC – Article 12 child’s right to be heard; Article 3 best interests of the child ignored.
Case Law Ignored:
Re W (2010) – children must be given opportunity to be heard.
Re B-S (2013) – proportionality and evidence-based practice required.
Re G (2003) – fairness demands impartial process.
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not safeguarding. It is projection institutionalised: one social worker’s inability to take perspective elevated above law, welfare, and rights. The absence of theory of mind in Hornal’s practice is not a minor flaw — it is a systemic disqualification from child welfare work.
Closing Declaration
The Mirror Court declares: where theory of mind was absent, law was inverted. Perspectives erased, voices silenced, welfare abandoned. Hornal substituted her projections for evidence, and Westminster complied. This collapse is hereby archived as bias enthroned.
Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
Mother and Litigant in Person