⟡ Addendum: Babysitting as Retaliation While Procedural Destruction is Logged ⟡
Filed: 26 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCCS/PLO-BABYSITTING
Download PDF: 2025-09-26_PLOCore_Addendum_BabysittingRetaliation.pdf
Summary: Westminster reduces safeguarding to babysitting while the mother converts absence into evidentiary destruction of their case.
I. What Happened
• Westminster Children’s Services removed four U.S. citizen children into state custody.
• Instead of cultural enrichment, medical care, or educational continuity, the Authority offers little more than occupancy management — babysitting by another name.
• The mother, meanwhile, exploited this imposed absence to expand her evidentiary catalogue: Equality Act notices, addenda, regulator complaints, and judicial filings.
II. What the Document Establishes
• Supervision without substance: Westminster’s involvement is hollow, producing no measurable welfare benefit.
• Financial waste: Public funds spent on babysitting rather than safeguarding.
• Retaliatory motive: Removal coincided with oversight complaints, showing process misuse.
• Strategic backfire: The Authority hoped to weaken the mother; instead, she built case law-grade documentation.
• Cultural regression: The children’s inheritance of orchestras and museums traded for administrative holding patterns.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To document that safeguarding has been degraded into bureaucratic theatre.
• To expose the irony: they mind the children; she minds the law.
• To preserve a record of how retaliation not only failed but produced its own evidentiary collapse.
IV. Applicable Standards & Violations
• Children Act 1989, s.1 – welfare requires continuity and enrichment, not idle occupation.
• ECHR, Article 8 – interference cannot be justified by mere babysitting.
• Equality Act 2010 – refusal to adjust for asthma-sensitive, stability-based routines.
• UNCRC, Articles 3, 8, 31 – best interests, identity, and cultural rights violated.
• Bromley, Family Law (p.640) – safeguarding without consent or proportionality is misuse; here it is reduced to babysitting.
• Merris Amos, Human Rights Law – proportionality demands welfare gain; hollow interventions at public expense fail.
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not safeguarding. This is administrative babysitting masquerading as child protection.
Westminster’s removal has not weakened the mother — it has strengthened her. Each day of custody without substance is another day the evidentiary archive grows.
They purchased a babysitting shift; she produced case law.
SWANK London Ltd. therefore records: from culture to clutter, orchestras to office blocks, safeguarding to babysitting — this theatre collapses under its own script, exposed by Bromley and Human Rights authority alike.