⟡ “You Took Four Disabled American Children. You Ignored the Diagnosis. You Breached the Law.” ⟡
Retaliation Is Not a Safeguarding Strategy. Especially When It’s Documented — and Filed.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/EHRC/COMPLAINT-DISABILITY-RETALIATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Complaint_EHRC_DisabilityDiscriminationAndSafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
Formal complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission documenting institutional retaliation, disability discrimination, and family separation without lawful basis.
I. What Happened
In the early hours of 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission detailing Westminster Children’s Services’ removal of her four U.S. citizen children on 23 June 2025. No warrant was presented. No hearing occurred. No accommodations were made for her diagnosed disabilities: muscle dysphonia, asthma, and PTSD caused by state harassment. The complaint includes psychiatric records, live litigation references, and archive links. One child — Regal, age 16 — was removed without legal basis, triggering international concern.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Removal occurred without prior notice, judicial order, or medical plan
The mother was denied communication accommodations despite clear documentation
Four disabled children, all U.S. citizens, were placed at immediate health and legal risk
The act followed the public filing of a Judicial Review and criminal referral
This was not a safeguarding response — it was retribution for legal exposure
This wasn’t oversight. It was administrative revenge dressed in procedural language.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when retaliation targets the disabled, it becomes a matter of public record — and international accountability.
Because the archive exists to expose institutional choreography, not to forgive it.
Because this removal wasn’t lawful — it was reactive punishment for a parent who documented too well.
Because Regal’s asthma treatment wasn’t paused — it was erased.
Because “family life” means nothing if institutions can unmake it on a Tuesday, without telling anyone.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 and 29 – Refusal of adjustments; discrimination in public services
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 8 and 14 – Breach of family life; non-discrimination
Children Act 1989, Section 31 – Absence of threshold criteria for removal
UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of justice to a disabled parent
UNCRC Articles 9, 24 – Family separation without hearing; disruption of medical treatment
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a child welfare act. It was a disabled whistleblower takedown — carried out via children.
This wasn’t state failure. It was state force in the service of silence.
This wasn’t procedural. It was predatory.
SWANK has filed this complaint not merely for accountability — but for jurisdictional rupture.
We are not asking if this was lawful.
We are stating: it was documented — and unlawful.
This is not an appeal. It is a record. And now, it's a citation.
⟡ 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.