Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): Hammersmith Hospital

Showing posts with label Hammersmith Hospital. Show all posts

R (Chromatic) v. WCC & The Meeting That Was a Threat [2025] SWANK 33 When access was offered with a trigger attached.

⟡ Formal Objection to Unsafe Contact Conditions and Medical Endangerment ⟡
Chromatic v. Conditional Contact & Coercive Gatekeeping [2025] SWANK 33 — “My trauma is not your administration.”

Filed: 2 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CONTACT-DISCRIMINATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-02_ZCXXXXXX_Objection_Unsafe_Contact_Conditions.pdf
Objection to Westminster’s coercive conditions on parent–child contact; psychiatric evidence and safeguarding failures cited.

Court Labels:
Case ZCXXXXXX, Contact Obstruction, Disability Discrimination, Medical Negligence, Hammersmith Hospital, Psychiatric Triggering, Trauma-Informed Care, SWANK Correspondence Archive

Search Description:
Polly Chromatic objects to unsafe, discriminatory contact terms; demands trauma-informed access and removal of known triggers.

I. What Happened
On 2 July 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal objection to Westminster Children’s Services regarding their insistence that in-person contact with her children be made conditional on attending a planning meeting with officers Samuel Brown and Kirsty Hornal. This demand ignored prior disclosure of psychiatric trauma directly linked to both individuals.

Despite the submission of a psychiatric evaluation (Dr. Irfan Rafiq, 26 Nov 2024) documenting acute disability responses to coercive dynamics, Westminster continued to frame parental access around direct verbal contact with the very agents responsible for the children’s removal. Additionally, Westminster unilaterally cancelled asthma care for the children without consulting their mother — despite known diagnoses and distress.

The objection demands trauma-informed alternatives and full withdrawal of the triggering agents from direct contact — not as a courtesy, but as a legal necessity under the Equality Act.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Contact is being weaponised through coercive gatekeeping.
Medical and psychiatric evidence has been ignored in favour of bureaucratic control.
Parental access is being conditioned on exposure to clinically recognised triggers.
Children’s ongoing medical needs (asthma) have been actively endangered.
There is a pattern of disability-based discrimination masquerading as professional procedure.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because procedural compliance that endangers health is not lawful. It is pathological.
Because conditioning access on trauma exposure isn’t logistics — it’s cruelty with stationery.
Because removing children, cancelling their medical appointments, and then demanding face-to-face interactions with no disclosure is not child welfare. It’s control theatre.
Because written communication was offered — and weaponised.
And because disability cannot be an inconvenience in your calendar. It is your legal boundary.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, §20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments
Children Act 1989, §22 – Duty to safeguard and promote welfare of the child
HRA 1998, Art. 8 – Interference with family life without proportionality
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Art. 21 – Respect for dignity in communication
NHS Constitution – Right to informed care continuity for dependants

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t planning. It was a psychological ambush disguised as a meeting.
We do not accept trauma used as a gatekeeping tool.
We do not accept care pathways that punish diagnosis.
We do not accept contact being offered only through procedural injury.
SWANK doesn’t ask for accommodations. It files formal breach notices.
You were warned. You proceeded. Now you are documented.

⟡ 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.

Re Four Children (Medical Risk, Cultural Erasure, and Contact Denial) [2025] SWANK 35 The transition from safeguarding to sanctioned harm.

⟡ Formal Record of Harm: Unlawful Isolation, Medical Endangerment & Procedural Cruelty ⟡
Chromatic v. The Architecture of Disconnection [2025] SWANK 35 — “This isn’t safeguarding. It’s engineered silence.”

Filed: 2 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/ZC25C50281/RECORD-OF-HARM
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-02_Statement_of_Harm_Contact_and_Medical_Breach_ZC25C50281.pdf
Comprehensive statement on denial of contact, cancellation of asthma care, and isolation of four U.S. citizen minors under care.

I. What Happened
On 2 July 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal legal record detailing the unlawful conditions her four children have endured since their removal on 23 June. The record includes:

Cancellation of asthma treatment appointments at Hammersmith Hospital without consultation
Absence of prescriptions or supervision protocols for children with chronic asthma
Complete severance from familial, cultural, educational, and emotional anchors
Withheld letters, unreturned belongings, blocked correspondence, and no address provided for comfort items
One week of total contact denial, despite a court-ordered minimum of two sessions per week

What had been a life of movement, joy, and relational stability was replaced with isolation, confusion, and documented medical risk.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

There has been a clear breach of medical duty to children with complex health needs.
Contact denial has caused active emotional deterioration, psychological distress, and cultural dislocation.
Public officials have overridden continuity of care without justification — and without documentation.
The children’s rights as U.S. citizens, as asthmatic patients, and as subjects of judicial protection are actively being ignored.
“Safeguarding” has become the pretext through which disconnection and harm are being delivered with bureaucratic elegance.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because what has been inflicted here is not removal. It is deletion.
Because children should not be punished for procedural panic or reputational cleanup.
Because asthma is not a narrative — it is a condition with inhalers, triggers, and protocols.
Because four children had their care systems dismantled in a week — without anyone calling that “harm.”
Because a safeguarding framework that erases family life is not lawful. It is performative abuse.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, §§22, 10 – Duty to maintain continuity and involve parents in health and care
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3, 6, 8 – Protection from degrading treatment, family life, and due process
UNCRC, Articles 3, 9, 24 – Best interests of the child, right to contact with parents, highest attainable health
Equality Act 2010, §149 – Failure to consider protected characteristics and health vulnerabilities
NHS Constitution – Right to continuity of medical care and patient involvement in planning

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was architecture — designed to break continuity, connection, and compliance.
We do not accept silent children as a system's success.
We do not accept contact blocked by omission and care denied by calendar.
We do not accept cultural erasure disguised as procedural logistics.
This was not care. It was disappearance.
And SWANK has now formally filed the harm you hoped would remain informal.

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Chronic Asthma Care Disrupted by Emergency Removal Without Medical Transition

⟡ “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 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.

When Innocence is Reprimanded by Ignorance.

🖋️ SWANK Dispatch | 14 December 2024
UNWARRANTED WARNINGS: DO NOT INSTRUCT MY CHILD TO SMOKE

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Medical Advocacy · Institutional Assumptions · Cultural Misprofiling · Parental Sovereignty · SWANK Parental Defense

The Message

On 14 December 2024, Polly Chromatic wrote to Kirsty Hornal and Sarah Newman, with Laura Savage copied and Nannette Nicholson Bcc’d:

“I don’t appreciate Regal’s doctor at Hammersmith Hospital telling Regal not to smoke or use vapes when this wasn’t even in his consciousness prior to her telling him that.”
“There’s no need to reprimand my kids for things they have never thought about.”
“My kids are not like British children. My children don’t have any consciousness of the disgusting things humans do and I don’t want them exposed to it or treated like they would do such ignorant things.”
“My children don’t need to be treated like trash to behave like British children.”

This is not just a complaint. It is a declaration of parental sovereignty.
To instruct a child not to smoke when they’ve never considered smoking is not guidance—it is verbal contamination.

Disability Statement

Please Note: I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.

📍 Documented by:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Projections Rejected.

You Measured His Height. Then You Questioned His Upbringing.

⟡ A Hospital Told My Teenage Son to “Go Out More.” I Told Them to Stay in Their Lane. ⟡
“Your job is to measure his chest, not his maturity.”

Filed: 14 December 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS-HH/EMAILS-14
📎 Download PDF – 2024-12-14_SWANK_EmailObjection_NHSHammersmith_RomeoHealthMisconduct_CulturalBoundaryBreach.pdf
Formal objection to NHS Hammersmith staff after inappropriate commentary was made to Romeo, then 15, regarding his social life, implying parental control and overprotection.

I. What Happened

On 14 December 2024, a parent submitted a formal objection after an NHS clinician at Hammersmith Hospital made inappropriate personal commentary during a routine appointment with her teenage son Regal, then aged 15.

During the interaction:

The clinician commented that Regal should “go out more”
Implied that his mother might be “overprotective”
Made this statement in front of the parent, with no clinical context or justification
Violated the cultural, familial, and legal boundaries of the family unit under the guise of casual rapport

The parent immediately responded in writing, clarifying that such remarks are inappropriate, unprofessional, and outside the remit of medical care.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That NHS staff delivered unsolicited and judgmental commentary on the child’s personal life and parenting
That such remarks were made in a clinical setting, without invitation or relevance to the child’s treatment
That cultural, religious, and parental boundaries were dismissed or mocked
That NHS safeguarding teams had already attempted to challenge parental authority — this comment reinforced that trajectory
That the remark constituted a micro-aggression disguised as casual conversation

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when a healthcare worker implies your teenage son should be going out more,
they’re not offering care —
they’re testing your authority.

Because when a parent is already under scrutiny, and a hospital staff member inserts coded judgment into an exam room,
that’s not support. That’s subtle retaliation.

Because parenting is not a diagnosis.
And cultural difference is not a deficit.
So we wrote it down — and filed it properly.

IV. Violations

NHS Code of Conduct – Respect and Professional Boundaries
Inappropriate commentary to a minor regarding private family matters
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8
Intrusion into private and family life without cause
Equality Act 2010 – Section 19 (Indirect Discrimination)
Dismissal of culturally-informed parenting practices in favour of anglocentric norms
Children Act 1989 – Parental Responsibility
Undermining lawful parental authority without cause

V. SWANK’s Position

We brought him to an appointment.
They turned it into a referendum.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
It was cultural condescension in a white coat.

You want to know how much fresh air my son gets?
We’ll send you a link to his medical record — not your opinion.

And the next time you want to “encourage independence,”
try respecting ours.

⟡ 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.

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

R (Chromatic) v. WCC & The Meeting That Was a Threat [2025] SWANK 33 When access was offered with a trigger attached.

Re Four Children (Medical Risk, Cultural Erasure, and Contact Denial) [2025] SWANK 35 The transition from safeguarding to sanctioned harm.

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Chronic Asthma Care Disrupted by Emergency Removal Without Medical Transition

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

When Innocence is Reprimanded by Ignorance.

The Message

Disability Statement

You Measured His Height. Then You Questioned His Upbringing.

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position