In Re: Nutritional Deprivation and Discriminatory Restriction in Foster Placement by Shopna

---

🪞 SWANK London Ltd.

Asthma Is Not a Behavioural Problem
Documenting Nutritional Neglect, Xenophobic Humiliation, and Medical Endangerment in Foster Care

---

Filed:
2 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-LOI-0825-SHOPNAABUSE
Filename: 2025-08-02_SWANK_LOI_ShopnaFosterAbuse_PoliceReport.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Police report filed against foster carer “Shopna” details medical neglect, cultural humiliation, and targeted abuse of disabled U.S. citizen children in UK state care.

---

I. WHAT HAPPENED

Between 23 June 2025 and 2 August 2025, four children — all U.S. citizens with eosinophilic asthma — were placed into the care of a foster carer named Shopna by Westminster Children’s Services. The police report now filed against her includes testimony and documentation from Regal, aged 16, and his younger siblings.

The children report:

• Being told “you can’t eat because you’re 10”

• Bans on water bottles and pencils upstairs

• Derogatory remarks such as “you’re from America”

• Restriction of emotional and private expression

• Deliberate sabotage of asthma management through dehydration, stress, and movement suppression

All four children were homeschooled, medically vulnerable, and accustomed to a structured, loving environment. They were not removed due to risk of harm — but rather following a disproven medical allegation (now subject to NHS resolution).

What followed was not protection. It was calculated degradation.

---

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

The Shopna Police Report confirms:

• Medical Negligence: Refusing water to asthmatic children is not discipline — it is bodily endangerment.

• Nutritional Abuse: Denying food to a child on the basis of age is not structure — it is psychological violence.

• Xenophobic Mockery: Saying “you’re from America” to dismiss or punish a child is not neutral — it is racialised othering.

• Suppression of Dignity: Banning pencils and privacy denies children the right to expression, education, and processing trauma.

• Patterned Control: These behaviours are not incidental. They reflect an entrenched culture of institutional dehumanisation.

This is no longer anecdote. It is archive.

---

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because the authorities failed to act.

Because Westminster knowingly placed U.S. citizen children in a home that banned writing, hydration, and dignity — and called it “care.”

Because the family submitted journal entries to court, the police, Social Work England, and international bodies — and yet the foster placement continued.

Because when safeguarding is weaponised, justice must be documented with velvet teeth.

---

IV. VIOLATIONS

• Children Act 1989, s.1(3)(a): Welfare and developmental needs

• Children and Families Act 2014, s.19: Duty to promote physical and emotional well-being

• Equality Act 2010, s.20–21: Disability-related neglect, failure to accommodate

• Article 8, ECHR: Private and family life

• Articles 12 & 13, UNCRC: Freedom of expression, right to be heard

• Protection from Harassment Act 1997

• Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000: Discriminatory public service provision

---

V. SWANK’S POSITION

We do not redact the voices of children because the state finds them inconvenient.

We do not remove our velvet gloves because the carers had government badges.

We do not mislabel chronic asthma as misbehaviour.
We do not permit racism to be repackaged as “rules.”
We do not tolerate abuse masked as British childcare.

This was not a misunderstanding. It was a programme.

We file it now — in gold, in fury, in defiance — as an affidavit of failure and a testament to resistance.

Filed in honour of Regal, Kingdom, Prerogative and Heir —
and the paper they weren’t allowed to hold.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

---

⚖️ 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.

Chromatic v Westminster – On the Administrative Refusal to Acknowledge Disability Despite Voluminous Written Notification

---

⟡ “Perhaps They Misplaced the Diagnosis. All Twenty of Them.” ⟡
How Many Written Notifications Does It Take to Trigger Reasonable Adjustments?

Filed: 30 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/DIS-FAIL-0125
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-15_SWANK_DisabilityNotices_WrittenDeclarations_MultipleAuthorities.pdf
1-line summary: Master record of formal disability disclosures submitted to Westminster and affiliated agencies from Jan 2024–Jan 2025.

---

I. What Happened

Between January 2024 and January 2025, Polly Chromatic, a disabled mother of four disabled children, sent over a dozen formal notifications to Westminster Children’s Services, their agents, NHS practitioners, and social care affiliates. These letters made explicit written reference to:

• Her diagnosed muscle tension dysphonia

• Chronic and severe eosinophilic asthma

• Her children’s shared respiratory vulnerabilities

• Medical trauma following a sewer gas exposure incident

• The family’s reliance on written communication and educational accommodation

Despite these repeated and timestamped efforts, not a single social worker or institutional actor took consistent steps to document, acknowledge, or adapt to the family’s medical status.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Procedural breaches of the Equality Act 2010, including failure to enact reasonable adjustments for known disability

• Neglect of statutory duties under the Children Act 1989 regarding disabled children's needs

• Retaliatory disregard for prior medical documentation, especially when communication occurred via email or Google Drive

• Willful minimisation of disability status, later leveraged to justify hostile interventions

• Medical discrimination under the guise of safeguarding concern — a direct contradiction to fact

This is not just administrative forgetfulness. It is targeted negligence with documented warnings.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because silence is not the same as absence.

Because when a mother writes, informs, documents, attaches, shares, and re-sends — and the institution still pretends it was never told — that is not procedural lag. That is evidentiary defiance.

SWANK logged this to expose the illusion of ignorance often used to justify state aggression. These disability declarations prove that Westminster Children’s Services was fully informed, repeatedly, and in writing. Their failure to respond was not accidental. It was strategic.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989 – Sections 17 and 20 (disabled children’s welfare and parental participation)

• Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20 and 149 (reasonable adjustments and public sector equality duty)

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 ECHR (family life), Article 14 (non-discrimination)

• Data Protection Act 2018 – Refusal to process known medical status appropriately

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This isn’t paperwork. It’s premeditation.

Every time Westminster social workers claimed Polly Chromatic "failed to engage" or "refused to speak," they already possessed clear evidence explaining why: medical injury, vocal trauma, and legal preference for written record.

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was evidence suppression.

And now the record speaks louder than the voice they silenced.

---

⟡ 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.

---

Surveillance Disguised as Delivery: Westminster’s Unauthorised Mail Slot Breach

---

⟡ The Knock That Wasn’t Just a Knock ⟡
"Surveillance, Styled as Logistics – A Grey Package Performance"

Filed: 15 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/INTIMIDATION-ENTRY-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025.06.15_IntimidationEntry_GreyPackageSurveillanceIncident.pdf
A doorbell surveillance record of unannounced contact after jurisdictional withdrawal — no delivery left, but the message was made clear.

---

I. What Happened

On the morning of Saturday, 15 June 2025, a man with a grey plastic-wrapped parcel and a helmet arrived at the door of a Westminster flat — uninvited, unannounced, and undescribed. He knocked repeatedly, rang the bell, audibly called out “Hello?”, and then — with no legal authority, consent, or notice — opened the internal mail chute to look inside the family’s private residence.

All four children were present.
No calling card was left.
No agency was named.
No item was delivered.

And yet, the camera rolled.

This act occurred just days after a jurisdictional audit was filed and Westminster Children’s Services were explicitly instructed to cease all contact following refusal of safeguarding jurisdiction. The visit did not come from a named individual. It did not resemble a delivery. It resembled an observation.

---

II. What the Incident Establishes

• Unlawful boundary breach – using the private mail slot as an entry point for surveillance.
• Staged mimicry of procedural visits – invoking the posture of delivery without leaving anything behind.
• Psychological intimidation of minors – exploiting their presence for impact.
• Improper weekend timing – further removing it from procedural legitimacy.
• Absence of lawful pretext – no statutory grounds, no emergency basis, no identification.

Even if it was a delivery, it performed like a threat. This wasn’t miscommunication. It was choreography.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because real concern does not peek through mail chutes.
Because legitimate care doesn’t require visual access without consent.
Because safeguarding theatre has a signature — and it’s almost always deniable.

This was not delivery.
This was not safeguarding.
This was a performance.

And SWANK London Ltd. does not permit uncredited theatre on our stage.

---

IV. Violations

This event is archived under the following breaches:

• Children Act 1989 – Emotional harm caused by unauthorised contact.
• Article 8, ECHR – Breach of private family life and home.
• Equality Act 2010 – Procedural intimidation against a disabled parent.
• UK GDPR – Attempted non-consensual visual inspection/data collection.
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – Contact after formal withdrawal.
• Safeguarding Standards – Unlawful contact without basis or consent.

If it was care, it was care performed unlawfully.
If it was mail, it was mail disguised as surveillance.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not interpret grey plastic sleeves as neutral.
We do not consider door-slot peering as passive.
We do not consent to unmarked visitation in the name of care.

This is now formally logged as an intimidation tactic, procedurally outside lawful safeguarding, and stylistically indistinguishable from a threat.

—

📹 Watch the Full Footage Here:
https://youtu.be/p1kxGrFfEww?si=wBvlnF0zRylpMzD5

---

⟡ 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.

They Weren’t Fighting Until You Got Involved.

⟡ Two Sons. One Door. No Help. ⟡

When the State Withdraws, the Injured Mother Becomes the Crisis Unit

Filed: 13 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/DOMESTIC/SIBLING-ESCALATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025.06.13_SiblingEscalation_UnaidedProtection_StatutoryAbsence.pdf
No safeguarding record exists for this event — not because it was irrelevant, but because it indicts those who were supposed to care and didn’t.

I. What Happened

On Friday 13 June 2025, two adolescent boys — aged 13 and 16 — began play-fighting over a bag of crisps. The moment shifted, as these moments do, into something more dangerous. Within seconds: a chokehold, retaliatory strikes, and a domestic scene no social worker would ever log — because no social worker was there.

The mother, disabled and alone, intervened physically.
She was injured.
She succeeded.

She called no agency. She called no line. She called Krystyna, the porter.
Krystyna came.
That was the only institutional presence: a building staff member.
Not a department. Not a service. Not a “team.”

There was no emergency call because the emergency had already been addressed — not through intervention, but through absence.

II. What the Incident Establishes

• This mother de-escalated sibling violence with no assistance
• Her injury was the only price the system demanded
• The emotional context was not “family dysfunction,” but exhaustion by institutional incursion
• The root cause was jurisdictional erosion, not neglect
• No threshold for safeguarding was crossed — unless that threshold is “being abandoned repeatedly”

This was not a red flag.
It was a white flag.
And no one responded.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because surveillance is only triggered when a mother fails — not when she bleeds and succeeds.
Because statutory presence evaporates the moment it would require liability.
Because this is the kind of incident that will never be referenced by Children’s Services — not because it’s minor, but because it’s inconvenient.

SWANK records what institutions redact.
SWANK files what the state cannot afford to remember.

This family was not at risk.
They were over-targeted, under-supported, and left to hold their own line.

IV. What the Law Says (But Did Not Do)

• Children Act 1989 – Duty to provide support and safeguarding.
• Equality Act 2010 – Obligation to accommodate written-only communication.
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Right to private life without coercive neglect.
• Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) – Duty to intervene pre-crisis.
• UNCRC, Article 19 – Protection from institutional harm, not just parental.

V. SWANK’s Position

We reject the narrative that absence is benign.
We reject the rebranding of abandonment as empowerment.
We reject the selective memory of services that track every email but log no injuries unless they can be used against the parent.

This was not a family in crisis.
This was a state in dereliction.
And the archive now reflects exactly that.

---

⟡ 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.