“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label Contact Order Breach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Contact Order Breach. Show all posts

R (Chromatic) v Westminster: On the Fiction of Planning and the Reality of Court Breach


🪞SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
Filed Entry: 2025-07-15
Reference Code: SWANK-CF-BREACH-AUGMENT
Court File Name: 2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_CourtOrderBreach_ContactDelay.pdf
One-Line Summary:
Westminster claims to uphold a court order while simultaneously breaching it — with a straight face and a scheduling excuse.

⟡ THE ART OF BREACH IN BUREAUCRATIC INK

Polly Chromatic v Westminster Children’s Services
On the Illusion of Compliance and the Theatre of Delay

I. What Happened

Following the Court’s 11 July 2025 directive ordering three in-person contact sessions per week, Westminster Children’s Services — personified by Ms. Kirsty Hornal — has now offered a reply so exquisitely bureaucratic in tone it belongs in an archive of procedural irony.

Her justification for not scheduling the full three sessions this week?

The absence of a “contact planning meeting.”
The centre “not being able to offer contact until next week.”
And apparently, me — the mother — only “responding last Wednesday.”

Never mind that I have followed up, requested, confirmed, and chased. Never mind that I am the mother of four children wrongfully removed. Never mind that the court order is not optional.

Ms. Hornal writes as though the planning process supersedes the order itself.

II. What This Correspondence Proves

  1. Westminster Children’s Services continues to obstruct court-ordered contact under the veil of procedural formality.

  2. The department appears more concerned with internal optics than actual legal compliance.

  3. The notion that two contacts this week are a sufficient placeholder until they “endeavour” to meet the court’s expectations next week is a legal fiction.

  4. The claim that the grandmother’s contact was never ordered at the proper frequency is a baseless reinterpretation of verbal court agreement and written submissions.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

We logged it because this is what bureaucratic defiance looks like:
soft language, vague verbs, and strategic scheduling delays to cover clear non-compliance.

Westminster claims to “recognise how important face to face contact is” while violating the court’s contact mandate — and still has the temerity to request travel receipts.

It is precisely this style of selective memory and strategic ineptitude that harms families under the guise of safeguarding.

IV. Violations

  • Breach of Contact Order issued on 11 July 2025

  • Failure to Schedule Three In-Person Sessions This Week

  • Delay of Grandparent Contact Without Legal Basis

  • Ongoing Obstruction Dressed as “Planning”

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster cannot claim to honour a court order while actively breaching it.

This is not safeguarding. This is stalling with stationary.
This is not care. It is litigative theatre with emotional collateral.

To Kirsty Hornal, the order seems like a suggestion. To the law, it is not.
To Kirsty Hornal, the delay is procedural. To my children, it is trauma.

This is why we document.

⟡

SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

⚖️ 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.
No comments:

R (Chromatic) v Westminster: On Judicial Disregard, Post-Hearing Delay, and the Bureaucracy That Thinks It’s the Court


🪞SWANK ENTRY
“The Contact That Isn’t”
On Storytelling as Strategy, Delay as Doctrine, and Westminster’s Ongoing Defiance of Judicial Instruction

⟡ Filed Date:

15 July 2025

⟡ Reference Code:

SWANK/CONTACT/COURTORDERDELAY

⟡ Court Filename:

2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_CourtOrderedContactObstructed.pdf

⟡ One-Line Summary:

Kirsty narrates a contact plan as if it’s fiction. But the court order was real. And it remains unmet.

I. What Happened

On 11 July 2025, the Family Court ordered that Polly Chromatic be granted three in-person visits per week with her four children.

By 15 July, four days later — no in-person contact had occurred.

In response to urgent requests for a schedule and the required introductory video call with the contact centre, social worker Kirsty Hornal sent a reply worthy of literary review:

  • Excuses about tuition

  • Allegations about Romeo’s “defiance”

  • No dates for physical contact

  • And a vague promise to “personally supervise” contact at an undisclosed time in the future

This isn’t compliance.
It’s public relations with a signature block.

II. What the Email Confirms

  • The court-ordered contact has not happened

  • Kirsty continues to invent logistical obstacles after the fact

  • Contact centre arrangements have not been made

  • No schedule has been confirmed

  • Westminster is framing its own placement mismanagement as a reason to deny contact

  • Romeo’s protectiveness is being reframed as behavioural disruption

  • “Escalated to management” is being used as a stalling device, not a solution

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this email confirms Westminster is playing a dangerous game of “delay until defeated.” They know the order exists. They know they are in breach. And yet they are using the language of bureaucracy — “suggest,” “working on,” “looking into” — to do absolutely nothing.

We logged it because “I will respond shortly” is not a contact schedule.
And “he has tuition” is not a lawful excuse to violate a court order.

The contact is not missing because of the children.
It is missing because the institution does not want to be told what to do — even by a judge.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Direct breach of Family Court order (11 July 2025)

  • Obstruction of mandated in-person contact

  • Failure to arrange introductory contact centre meeting

  • Fabrication of barriers instead of compliance

  • Misuse of placement struggles to justify denial of access

  • Delay tactics causing emotional harm and judicial defiance

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster is no longer merely disorganised.
It is intellectually dishonest and legally insolent.

The Family Court ordered three in-person visits per week.
Westminster has delivered none — and instead offers excuses layered with narrative spin and empty promises.

The idea that a social worker can subjectively withhold access to children because she’s “working on it” is not legal discretion — it is contemptuous disregard.

There is no safeguarding justification.
There is no logistical impossibility.
There is only bureaucratic arrogance dressed as procedural delay.

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

⚖️ 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.
No comments:

R (Chromatic) v Westminster: On the Bureaucratic Theatre of Compliance and the Legal Fiction of ‘Likely’ Contact


🪞SWANK ENTRY
“Day Four, Still Nothing”
On the Bureaucratic Mockery of Judicial Orders and the Administrative Erosion of Family Rights

⟡ Filed Date:

15 July 2025

⟡ Reference Code:

SWANK/CONTACT/ORDERBREACH-DAY4

⟡ Court Filename:

2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_ContactOrderBreach_DayFour.pdf

⟡ One-Line Summary:

Four days after the court ordered in-person contact, Westminster has still not complied.

I. What Happened

On 11 July 2025, the Family Court ordered three in-person contact sessions per week between Polly Chromatic and her four children.

It is now 15 July 2025 — Day Four since the order — and no in-person contact has taken place.

Despite repeated emails requesting a confirmed schedule, the only written response from Kirsty Hornal on 15 July at 12:59 p.m. offered the phrase:

“It is likely that the contact will be tomorrow and Thursday… I am still in negotiation with providers.”

This is not compliance.
This is not confirmation.
This is the bureaucratic theatre of noncompliance.

II. What This Confirms

  • No contact occurred Friday (11 July) when the order was made

  • No visit was scheduled for Saturday, Sunday, or Monday

  • No written confirmation has been provided for Tuesday (today)

  • The “likely” language defers responsibility without fulfilling obligation

  • There is no legal justification for this four-day delay

This marks a full week of post-hearing inaction, during which zero court-mandated visits have been honoured.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this delay is not administrative.
It is tactical, emotional, and in contempt of court authority.

We logged it because no parent should be told that their children are “likely” to appear — as if access to family is a surprise, not a constitutional entitlement.

We logged it because Polly Chromatic has followed every legal avenue with precision — and Westminster has responded with passive noncompliance.

This is not a system under strain.
This is a system stalling under scrutiny.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Breach of Court Order – Non-compliance with 11 July ruling

  • Article 8 ECHR – Interference with family life without legal cause

  • Children Act 1989 – Failure to facilitate contact per child welfare mandate

  • Procedural Delay as Obstruction – “Negotiation” used to delay mandated action

  • International Interference – Ongoing denial of contact with four U.S. citizens

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster’s response to a formal contact order has not been compliance — it has been a performance of possibility.
We do not litigate on “likely.”
We do not reunite families with “in negotiation.”

A court order is not an administrative suggestion.
It is a legal obligation.

We therefore file this on Day Four of noncompliance, and we will file Day Five tomorrow if contact still has not occurred.

Let the record show:

  • No in-person contact occurred.

  • No schedule has been confirmed.

  • And Westminster is now operating in open breach of judicial direction.

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

.⚖️ 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.
No comments: