“You’ve Been Notified.”
Judicial Notice Filed: The Family Court Is Now on Record That the Removal Was Retaliatory
Filed Date: 24 June 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0624-JUDICIAL-NOTICE
Court Filename: 2025-06-24_Notice_FamilyCourt_JudicialReview_RetaliatoryRemovalDeclared
One-line Summary: Official judicial notice informing the Family Court that a Judicial Review has been filed, alleging retaliatory removal and unlawful safeguarding powers.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal notice to the Family Court confirming that a Judicial Review claim was now active before the Administrative Court.
This was not merely procedural—it was declarative.
The court was informed that the Emergency Protection Order (EPO) used to justify the removal of four U.S. citizen children on 23 June 2025 is now the subject of legal challenge under public law, disability law, and international treaty obligations.
The Family Court is now judicially on notice that the matter before it is no longer domestic—it is diplomatic, constitutional, and very likely unlawful.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That a Judicial Review bundle was submitted between 17–24 June 2025, including grounds, evidence, and psychiatric confirmation of the mother’s legal exclusions.
That the EPO issued by Westminster was obtained and enforced without service, without accessible participation, and in blatant breach of Section 44 safeguards.
That a Discharge Application is pending, and the Family Court must now proceed in full knowledge that its own case may be struck down as retaliatory and ultra vires.
That all supporting documents are publicly available and timestamped via SWANK London Ltd.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the Family Court is not entitled to operate in procedural darkness while the High Court shines a light.
Because it is no longer tenable to hear arguments under the Children Act while ignoring live proceedings in the Administrative Court.
Because to ignore this filing is not neutrality—it is complicity.
And because SWANK London Ltd. will not permit judicial forgetfulness when the file is now permanent, public, and ready for international scrutiny.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Section 44 (Emergency Protection Order criteria)
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (Access to court) and Article 8 (Family life)
Equality Act 2010 – Disability discrimination and procedural exclusion
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – Article 37
Judicial Review Principles – Procedural fairness, legitimate expectation, proportionality
V. SWANK’s Position
This isn’t just a notification. It’s a legal checkpoint. From this moment forward, the Family Court cannot say it didn’t know.
If it proceeds to make orders, deny contact, or uphold the EPO without acknowledging the active Judicial Review, it will be doing so in defiance of the separation of powers.
Let the court understand: SWANK London Ltd. does not litigate in secret. It litigates in gold ink and public archive.
⟡ 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.