“Judicial Review Has Been Filed. The Children Are American. The Silence Is Over.”
Formal Notice to the Administrative Court: Retaliatory Safeguarding Now Under Legal Siege
Filed Date: 24 June 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/ADMINCOURT/0624-JR-REMOVALNOTICE
Court Filename: 2025-06-24_Letter_to_AdminCourt_JRSubmission_USChildrenRemovalNotice
One-line Summary: Judicial Review notice served to the Administrative Court, U.S. Embassy, and Family Court confirming unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children on 23 June 2025 is under legal challenge.
I. What Happened
At 4:03 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted this formal notice to the Administrative Court, notifying them that a Judicial Review claim had been filed, accompanied by an emergency relief application and a detailed evidentiary archive.
This submission declared that four U.S. citizen children had been forcibly removed by Westminster on 23 June without lawful threshold, medical justification, consular notice, or service—while their mother had an active civil claim and known disability access protections in place.
The bundle included everything:
• Judicial Review Claim
• Emergency Relief Request
• Psychiatric Assessment
• Retaliatory Removal Addendum
• Sibling Non-Separation Addendum
• Full administrative evidence trail
All also filed at www.swanklondon.com—because unlike the Family Court, SWANK doesn’t lose its paperwork.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Westminster executed a removal without a hearing, court order presentation, or safeguarding threshold met.
That the parent, a disabled U.S. citizen, had an active N1 civil claim at the time of removal—making the event a clear act of procedural retaliation.
That children with joint medical plans and no risk profile were taken by force, then hidden.
That this is not simply a family matter—it is now a matter of constitutional, international, and consular consequence.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because if you remove four foreign children without notice and call it safeguarding, someone needs to call it what it really is: state-sanctioned abduction in procedural costume.
Because when the court claims it didn’t know, you show them the filing timestamp.
Because administrative courts do not get to deliberate while pretending nothing has been served, and consulates do not get to delay when children have already been seized.
Because a parent who cannot speak was ignored, so SWANK spoke instead—loud, legal, and downloadable.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Sections 38 & 44
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6 & 8
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 29
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – Article 37
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – Articles 3, 9, 12
Judicial Review Principles – Procedural impropriety, irrationality, breach of legitimate expectation
V. SWANK’s Position
This notice is more than a courtesy—it is a procedural stake in the ground.
The court now knows. The Embassy now knows. The Family Court has been served. The state cannot act in silence while pretending no one has filed in opposition. The retaliation is no longer undocumented. The challenge is no longer private.
SWANK London Ltd. hereby affirms: This was a diplomatic event, not a domestic blip.