“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 Education Act 1996. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education Act 1996. Show all posts

Chromatic v Westminster (Disregard of Homeschooling; Omission as Distortion; Welfare Principle Breach)


ADDENDUM: DISREGARD OF STRUCTURED HOMESCHOOLING BY WESTMINSTER CHILDREN’S SERVICES

A Mirror Court Indictment of Omission, Misrepresentation, and Educational Neglect by Proxy

Metadata

I. What Happened

My children followed a structured homeschooling programme: lesson plans, academic progression, tailored educational activities. Yet Ms. Hornal ignored every aspect of this, erasing an established educational record to insinuate neglect.

II. What the Addendum Establishes

Omission as Distortion
Failure to mention homeschooling created a false narrative of neglect.

Educational Evidence Ignored
Curriculum, stability, and medical-need accommodations excluded.

Bias Entrenched
A deliberate silence weaponised to misrepresent lawful parental provision.

III. Consequences

  • Children’s educational provision misrepresented.

  • False narratives of inadequacy circulated in safeguarding records.

  • Genuine academic progress erased, undermining the children’s confidence.

  • Rights to education and welfare breached under domestic and international law.

IV. Legal and Doctrinal Violations

  • Children Act 1989, s.1 – welfare principle breached.

  • Education Act 1996, s.7 – parental duty fulfilled, ignored in reporting.

  • Equality Act 2010, s.149 – PSED breached by disregarding health-linked education provision.

  • UNCRC, Articles 28 & 29 – right to education and development of talents ignored.

  • Social Work England Standards – accurate records and recognition of family strengths omitted.

Case Law Ignored:

  • Re G (2012) – education must reflect welfare and best interests.

  • Re W (2010) – children’s views must be considered directly.

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not oversight. It was deliberate omission masquerading as neutrality — homeschooling erased to fabricate neglect. Westminster converted silence into distortion, abandoning accuracy for narrative convenience.

Closing Declaration

The Mirror Court declares: educational provision was not absent, but its recognition was. Structured homeschooling was erased to conjure neglect. Where children’s progress was real, Westminster wrote it out. Omission is distortion, and this distortion is hereby archived.

Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
Mother and Litigant in Person

⚖️ 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:

In the Matter of Interference, Instruction, and the Irreplaceable Educator


🪞The Abolition of a Lawful Classroom

In re: Curriculum v. Carers

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Filed Date: 14 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A11-EDUINTERFERE
Court File Name: 2025-07-14_Addendum_EducationInterference.pdf
Summary: Formal addendum asserting educational sabotage by Westminster Children’s Services and demanding the reinstatement of lawful, thriving home instruction.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic was home educating her four children lawfully under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 — not as an act of defiance, but as a life’s ambition.

Her curriculum wasn’t makeshift. It was curated. Grounded in resilience, fieldwork, cross-disciplinary learning, and intellectual dignity. It was lawful, enriching, and documented — a model of ethical instruction.

Then Westminster arrived.

With no court order, no educational assessment, and no consultation, they dismantled the children's structured learning and replaced it with what can only be described as temporary, generic tutoring. A downgrade disguised as support.

The result?
Chaos. Confusion. And the unmistakable stink of assumption-based governance.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  1. Polly was delivering a fully legal and effective educational program, personally and consistently.

  2. Westminster imposed unauthorised educational substitution, grounded not in need but in bureaucratic arrogance.

  3. The children’s academic, emotional, and relational stability has suffered.

  4. The local authority has ignored the law — and the child.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because educational disruption without legal basis is not child protection — it is state interference by proxy.
Because a curriculum is not a care plan, and replacing lived pedagogy with unvetted “support” is not neutral — it is cultural erasure.
Because this was not a safeguarding decision. It was a power grab wrapped in policy-speak.

IV. Violations

  • Education Act 1996, s.7 – Parental right to suitable education

  • Children Act 1989, s.20 – No parental responsibility acquired; consultation required

  • ECHR, Article 8 – Family life and educational autonomy

  • UNCRC, Article 29 – Education must reflect the child’s values and developmental identity

As Bromley’s Family Law (2021, p. 640) confirms:

“Where educational provision has been previously suitable and consistent, it is not for the local authority to substitute its judgment without legal cause or evidentiary foundation.”

V. SWANK’s Position

We reject Westminster’s attempt to rebrand destruction as protection.
We reject their amateur hour pedagogy.
We reject their institutional theatre of “support” that destabilises while pretending to serve.

The mother was not failing. The system was.
And now, the system wants to make her children forget what learning felt like — and replace it with worksheets and surveillance.

We demand immediate reinstatement of parental educational authority.
We declare this a matter of educational negligence and civil overreach.
And we file this for the record. Because we educate. And we document.

Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
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: