⟡ “Interim Care Orders Were Granted for My Children — and I Wasn’t Told the Hearing Was Happening.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Just Exclusion. It Was Judicial Vanishing in Plain Sight — Logged With Jurisdictional Malice.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/ICO-NOTICE-VIOLATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Mullem_LackOfNoticeForICOHearing.pdf
Formal inquiry submitted by Polly Chromatic to her solicitor, demanding immediate clarification for her exclusion from a same-day hearing in which Interim Care Orders were granted for four U.S. citizen children.
I. What Happened
At 15:20 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic learned — retroactively — that Interim Care Orders (ICOs) had been granted for her children: Kingdom, Prerogative, Heir, and Regal.
She sent an immediate written demand to solicitor Alan Mullem with three urgent questions:
Why was she not given notice of the ICO hearing?
Was he informed in advance — and if so, why didn’t he inform her?
Does the court record offer any lawful justification for excluding a known disabled U.S. citizen parent?
The email was also cc’ed to the U.S. Embassy.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The parent was completely excluded from a major hearing involving custody of her children
No notice, no representation, no participation was permitted
The hearing proceeded without addressing known disability access needs
The solicitor failed to notify or advocate — and has not confirmed attendance or awareness
The Embassy was forced to monitor a process that occurred without the parent entirely
This wasn’t child protection. It was administrative deletion masquerading as jurisdiction.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because removal by Emergency Protection Order is violent enough — but granting ICOs without notice is judicial erasure.
Because disabled litigants aren’t invisible unless the court needs them to be.
Because if your name isn’t called in a hearing that removes your children, it is not a hearing — it’s a performance.
Because what was missing from that courtroom was not just a mother — it was a constitution, a treaty, and a file.
IV. Violations
Family Procedure Rules, Rule 3.1 – Duty to ensure parties are notified of all hearings
Children Act 1989, Section 38 – ICOs cannot be granted without fair process
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate known written-access requirement
UNCRPD Article 13 – Exclusion of disabled litigant from justice
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No notification to U.S. Embassy during proceedings involving American citizens
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Denial of right to a fair hearing
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a court hearing. It was a bureaucratic ambush disguised in procedural robes.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was institutional cowardice performed on mute.
This wasn’t lawful. It was an act of exclusion so violent, it now exists as diplomatic evidence.
SWANK hereby archives this message not just as a demand — but as a declaration of legal blackout, filed and timestamped by the parent who was erased from her own life’s jurisdictional crisis.
⟡ 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 exclusion deserves exposure.
© 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.