⟡ “They Removed Four Children With Asthma. I Told the Court Their Hospital Dates. Silence Is Now State-Endorsed Risk.” ⟡
This Isn’t a Reminder. It’s a Clinical Intervention Filed as Judicial Evidence.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/MEDICAL-ALERT-ASTHMA-NOTICE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Notice_FamilyCourt_AsthmaAppointments_ChildrenRemoved.pdf
Formal notice sent to the Family Division confirming scheduled asthma treatment for four removed U.S. citizen children — and the complete lack of transition planning by Westminster.
I. What Happened
At 05:32 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic formally notified the Family Division of upcoming respiratory appointments for her four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — all of whom were removed from their home on 23 June under an Emergency Protection Order. The children are all patients under specialist asthma care at Hammersmith Hospital. Appointments are as follows:
King – 30 July 2025
Prince – 4 August 2025
Honor – 11 August 2025
Regal – 13 August 2025
The removal occurred without medical continuity, transition coordination, or post-removal communication regarding health care.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Removal occurred with full knowledge of chronic medical needs
No transfer of care or continuation plan was provided to the parent
The local authority failed to safeguard respiratory stability
Missed hospital care may now result in preventable clinical deterioration
The Family Court was formally warned — in writing, under disability accommodation protocols
This wasn’t bureaucratic delay. It was institutionally scripted medical neglect.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because asthma is not discretionary.
Because no child should miss specialist hospital care because of institutional silence.
Because failure to plan is not neutrality — it is harm by omission.
Because these appointments were booked long before the removal — and ignored immediately after.
Because when the system deletes your children, we file your calendar.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 1 – Welfare of the child not treated as paramount
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Disruption of family and medical autonomy
UNCRC Article 24 – Right to the highest attainable standard of health
NHS Duty of Care – Continuity of treatment breached post-removal
Public Law Duty – Failure to safeguard known medical risk factors during emergency intervention
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a procedural oversight. It was a timeline of preventable harm endorsed by silence.
This wasn’t protection. It was pulmonary disruption in the name of bureaucracy.
This wasn’t a delay. It was evidence that time itself is now complicit.
SWANK has logged this notice as a formal alert to the judiciary, the council, and the court of public record.
You may ignore the appointments.
But the children’s lungs won’t.
⟡ 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.