❖ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue
Filed Date: 17 July 2025
Reference Code: ADD-WELFARE-071725
Court File Name: 2025-07-17_Addendum_EmotionalHarm_LossOfAgencyOpportunity.pdf
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Summary: Testimony of escalating psychological harm, denial of educational and cultural rights, and unlawful isolation of four U.S. citizen children under Westminster’s care.
✦ Statement of Violation:
“This Is Not Contact. This Is Controlled Silencing.”
Addendum – Emotional Harm, Loss of Agency, and Opportunity Denial
A formal statement from Polly Chromatic, documenting the serious emotional decline and cultural erasure experienced by her children — Regal (16), Prerogative (13), Kingdom (10), and Heir (8) — since their unlawful removal under an Emergency Protection Order issued by Westminster Children’s Services.
I. What the Addendum Establishes
This filing presents:
Evidence that Regal has been forcibly silenced despite his age, maturity, and legal competence.
That all four children were withdrawn from Kids London Modelling Agency, disrupting creative, educational, and financial opportunities.
That grooming and cultural care has been neglected — with Heir’s hair repeatedly left unbrushed and verbal promises of braiding ignored.
That devices used for emotional, educational, and familial support (e.g., Regal’s iPhone) have been arbitrarily confiscated.
That the children are “confused, isolated, and afraid,” reporting themselves to feel like “hostages” of a system that makes no effort to explain their removal.
II. Why SWANK Logged It
Because Regal is Gillick competent yet gagged.
Because Westminster’s “intervention” has become indistinguishable from emotional abuse.
Because no lawful order permits this level of restriction.
Because this is not safeguarding — it is institutional harm in disguise.
III. Applicable Violations
Children Act 1989, Sections 17, 22 (welfare duties, familial connection)
Article 8 ECHR (respect for private and family life)
UNCRC Articles 9, 28, 29 (contact, education, dignity)
Public Law Principles (necessity, proportionality, non-retaliation)
IV. SWANK’s Position
This is not contact, it is coercion.
This is not protection, it is psychological siege.
This is not temporary, it is worsening.
And it is doing irreversible damage to children who were loved, thriving, and lawfully educated at home.
⚖️ SWANK Concludes:
There is no justification for:
Denying children access to lawful cultural representation
Confiscating emotional and educational property
Enforcing surveillance-heavy communication
Punishing a mother and her children for asserting legal rights
The children are suffering, the harm is escalating, and the clock of trauma is ticking. If the court fails to intervene, it permits this abuse by omission.
⚖️ 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.