⟡ “I Filed for Emergency Contact. They Said I Should Have Opened the Envelope.” ⟡
This Isn’t a Plea. It’s a Jurisdictional Demand — Delivered in Written-Only Format, Because That’s What the Law Requires.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/EMERGENCY-CARE-CONTACT-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Application_FamilyCourt_EmergencyContactAndCare_Reinstatement.pdf
Formal emergency application submitted to the Family Court requesting immediate contact and/or reinstatement of care for four disabled U.S. citizen children removed under an unnotified EPO issued on 23 June 2025.
I. What Happened
At 05:41 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a written-only Emergency Application for Contact and Reinstatement of Care, citing statutory rights under the Children Act 1989, Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, and Family Procedure Rules. The application was sent to the Family Division, cc’ing her solicitor, Alan Mullem — who dismissed the application as “without merit” and complained of “overnight email volume.” The removal of all four children occurred without a hearing, access accommodations, or medical transition. All children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — are U.S. citizens. The mother remains excluded from participation due to ignored disability access needs.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Four U.S. citizen children were removed without the mother’s participation or accommodation
EPO proceedings occurred without notice or access to respond
Solicitor failed to advise or act in accordance with disability-based communication directives
Application seeks reinstatement or, at minimum, immediate contact and disclosure
All filings were submitted in accordance with law, disability law, and public record protocol
This wasn’t a delay in parenting. It was state-induced erasure now met with statutory invocation.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when the removal is unlawful, the return must be urgent.
Because “you didn’t open the envelope” is not a defence to jurisdictional misconduct.
Because four children didn’t vanish — they were archived, timestamped, and legally documented.
Because written-only access isn’t optional — it’s medical. And the court was told.
Because we filed not in anger — but in evidence.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 34(2) – Contact rights denied without fair hearing
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Access denied despite medically verified disability
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Interference with private and family life
Family Procedure Rules, Part 18 – Failure to provide pathway for urgent redress
UNCRPD Article 13 – Legal participation obstructed due to communication exclusion
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t an application “without merit.” It was a legal intervention filed in lieu of consent.
This wasn’t overnight spam. It was court-eligible evidence sent by a silenced mother in a disabled state.
This wasn’t disorder. It was jurisdictional symmetry — filed properly, cc’ed carefully, ignored willfully.
SWANK hereby archives this Emergency Application as a legal demand for reinstatement, access, and dignity.
The envelope was not the issue. The EPO was.
The merit was not missing. The hearing was.
⟡ 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.