“Interim Care, Permanent Damage”
An Urgent Judicial Review to Return Four U.S. Children and Halt State-Imposed Sibling Erasure
Filed Date: 24 June 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/JR/0624-N463-URGENT
Court Filename: 2025-06-24_N463_UrgentApplication_ChildReturnAndNonSeparation
One-line Summary: Emergency judicial review filed to demand the immediate return of four unlawfully removed U.S. siblings and prevent their separation.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, without notice, service, or judicial participation by the parent, four American children were removed by Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services under an Interim Care Order of dubious origin and zero transparency.
The next day, Polly Chromatic—disabled mother and director of SWANK London Ltd.—filed an N463 urgent judicial review seeking interim relief within 24–48 hours, supported by a full N461 claim bundle, psychiatric evidence, and sworn addenda.
The relief requested includes:
Immediate return of the children
Prevention of sibling separation
Mandatory disclosure and consular notification
The state has been notified. The children have not.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Westminster and RBKC conducted a stealth removal of foreign nationals under fabricated urgency and absent threshold.
That the parent—medically nonverbal and previously litigating against these same authorities—was deliberately excluded.
That no formal service of orders or hearing documentation has occurred.
That the entire removal was timed to coincide with ongoing judicial, civil, and public actions by the mother—thus qualifying as retaliation with procedural makeup.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because you cannot invoke “child welfare” while denying their family, their doctor, and their government.
Because the state seems to have mistaken administrative opacity for immunity.
Because this filing is not merely an application—it is a procedural autopsy. A diagnostic on what happens when a local authority sees oversight, sees litigation, and chooses to escalate rather than comply.
Because when law fails in the courtroom, SWANK files it into public record.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Sections 38, 34, and 44
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6 and 8
UNCRC – Articles 3, 9, and 12
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 21, 29
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – Article 37
Administrative Law – Ultra vires, procedural illegality, irrationality
V. SWANK’s Position
This N463 application is not premature—it is overdue.
It is filed not just for the return of unlawfully removed children, but to place the entire affair under judicial cross-examination. The state’s conduct must no longer hide behind interim language and strategic service failures.
This is no longer a matter of process. It is a matter of international law, disability rights, and child integrity.
SWANK London Ltd. hereby submits this file to the public archive—not because the court asked for it, but because history will.
⟡ 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.