“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 Delayed Compliance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Delayed Compliance. 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: