Showing posts with label Judicial Review. Show all posts

In the Matter of Evidentiary Integrity and the International Rights of Four American Children (Polly Chromatic v. Westminster et al)

SWANK London Ltd. – Press Statement

Subject: Public Documentation of Safeguarding Misconduct, Disability Discrimination, and Judicial Retaliation in the United Kingdom

Issued by:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
director@swanklondon.com
www.swanklondon.com

Filed: 21 July 2025

Statement

SWANK London Ltd. confirms that a substantial evidentiary archive is now live and publicly accessible, documenting over a decade of unlawful safeguarding practices, disability-based discrimination, and procedural retaliation by multiple UK institutions — including Westminster City Council, the Metropolitan Police, NHS Trusts, and Family Court agents.

This documentation includes legal filings, court submissions, medical evidence, police reports, and contemporaneous logs of contact restriction, identity erasure, and harm to four U.S. citizen children diagnosed with eosinophilic asthma. These children were unlawfully removed from their mother on 23 June 2025 under an Emergency Protection Order based on false medical claims, later disproven by NHS Resolution.

Polly Chromatic, acting as a Litigant in Person and Procedural Intermediary, has submitted Judicial Reviews, N1 civil claims, and formal police reports against numerous professionals now under scrutiny. Multiple regulatory complaints are underway, including with Social Work England, CAFCASS, Ofsted, the Information Commissioner’s Office, and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

The SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue is an independent public archive created to preserve this legal record in real time. It exists not for spectacle, but for survival — and to protect children and disabled parents from systemic harm, unlawful seizure, and evidentiary distortion.

We welcome ethical, trauma-informed reporting and are prepared to provide indexed briefings to interested journalists or legal correspondents upon request.

Please direct inquiries to:
Polly Chromatic – director@swanklondon.com

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.

Chromatic v. Elgin Crescent & Co (Sewage Damage, Voice Loss, and Safeguarding Disgrace)

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue

The Flat That Tried to Kill Us: Sewage, Surveillance, and Section 20 Pressure

Filed Date: 14 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A11-ELGIN-CHAT
Court File Name: 2025-07-14_Addendum_ElginCrescent_HousingHazard_WhatsAppEvidence
1-line Summary: WhatsApp chat with landlord confirms sewage-related housing hazard, illness, displacement, and ignored safety warnings.

I. What Happened

This document contains a WhatsApp transcript between Polly Chromatic and Elad Katz, landlord agent for the hazardous tenancy at 37E Elgin Crescent, W11 2JD. The messages span June to December 2023 and chronicle a months-long pattern of:

Neglected repairs
Exposure to cracked sewer pipes
Repeated illness of Polly and her four children
Admissions by the agent that Thames Water and communal building managers were involved
Polly's inability to remain in the home due to severe asthma attacks, lost voice, and dizziness
Eventual forced hotel displacement
And—finally—Elad’s departure, handing the case to Chestertons.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This transcript provides real-time, contemporaneous evidence that:

The housing was medically unsafe.
The landlord and agent were repeatedly informed of health risks.
The situation required Thames Water intervention.
The family was displaced due to environmental illness.
Polly explicitly stated that she could not speak due to the damage caused by the flat, months prior to her documented voice impairment diagnosis.
These issues predated Westminster’s safeguarding escalation—rendering the subsequent retaliatory EPO both procedurally and morally perverse.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

SWANK London Ltd. is formally recording this chat to refute Westminster Children’s Services' insinuation that the family’s housing concerns were unfounded or secondary. The cause of medical trauma, silence, and displacement is clearly established here. This chat is a pre-safeguarding snapshot of the actual origin of institutional harm—before the narrative was weaponised against the mother.

IV. Violations

Article 8, ECHR – Violation of the right to home and family life
Children Act 1989 – Breach of duty to support a family in environmental danger
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate Polly’s disability
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Denial of health-related accommodation
Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 – Failure to act on known sewer contamination
Human Rights Act 1998 – Institutional complicity in the outcome of her vocal and physical impairment

V. SWANK’s Position

This document confirms the mother repeatedly raised concerns about illness and uninhabitable conditions prior to any social work intervention. Westminster’s failure to acknowledge the timeline of causality constitutes gross negligence and undermines the lawfulness of the children’s removal. The WhatsApp chat is not “informal” — it is a formal timeline of institutional breach, and it will be submitted in every forum necessary to restore this family’s rights.

Re: Westminster’s Failure to Activate Statutory Safeguards for a Disabled Parent Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989

🪞 SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

When ‘Help’ Becomes Harm: How Section 20 Accommodation Was Rewritten as Retaliatory Removal

📌 Filed by: Polly Chromatic
📅 Filed Date: 13 July 2025
🗂 Reference Code: SWANK-A15-S20
📄 Court File Name: 2025-07-13_Addendum_Section20_DisabilityMisuse
📝 One-line Summary:
The statutory support duty under Section 20 was never activated — because Westminster preferred retaliation over relief.

I. What Happened

Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 is a statute of assistance. It permits local authorities to offer accommodation where needed, especially when disability — of the child or parent — is a key factor. But in this case, Westminster did not offer Section 20 support. They weaponised its absence.

Despite my known disabilities — eosinophilic asthma, muscle dysphonia, and PTSD — no lawful, voluntary accommodation offer was made. What I received instead was:

Surveillance disguised as assessment
Threats masquerading as care
And eventual removal, under the guise of urgency, despite no lawful threshold being met

There was no partnership.
There was only punishment for documenting my needs.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

As cited in The Law on Child Care and Family Services, Section 20 provides:

“Accommodation may be provided because of the disability of the child as well as the disability of the parent.”

Further, the law states:

The authority does not acquire parental responsibility
Wishes of the child must be considered
Accommodation must promote welfare — not override it

Yet in my case:

No children were consulted
No disability-specific support was offered
No consent was documented or obtained
No safeguarding rationale was met

Instead, Westminster manufactured justification and ignored every procedural expectation tied to Section 20 — acting as though its purpose was to remove, rather than relieve.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because statutory silence is often the loudest form of institutional abuse.

Because refusing to activate legal support mechanisms — and then penalising the parent for asking about them — is retaliatory omission masquerading as due process.

Because I was not punished for non-participation — I was punished for participation: for emailing, asking, citing, and filing. For invoking the very statutes they now pretend don’t exist.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, s.20(1)(c), s.20(4), s.20(5) – Failure to provide lawful support or engage consent
Equality Act 2010, s.20–21 – Discriminatory failure to accommodate a disabled parent
Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 8 – Interference in family life without necessity or proportionality
Care Act 2014, s.1 – Failure to promote wellbeing and autonomy of a disabled carer
UN CRPD – Violations of Article 23 (respect for home and the family)

V. SWANK’s Position

What Westminster Children’s Services conducted was not accommodation.
It was administrative vanishing under legal pretext.

Section 20, in all its legislative clarity, was never activated lawfully — because lawful use would have meant supporting, not seizing. But I was not a quiet parent. I was a visible one. And so, instead of engaging me, they orchestrated around me.

There is no white paper, no paragraph in Bromley, no judgment from Lady Hale that grants social workers the right to rewrite statute in the name of internal convenience. And yet — they did exactly that.

This post is now filed as formal record and rebuke.

Re: The Fiction of Parental Absence and the Judicial Pretence of Non-Childhood — A SWANK Rebuttal to the Manipulation of Section 20

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue

Children Under 18 Are Still Children — Unless You’re Westminster
On the Fiction of Non-Childhood and the Fabrication of Parental Absence in Emergency Orders

Filed Date:
13 July 2025

Reference Code:
SWANK-C17-S20

Court File Name:
2025-07-13_Addendum_ChildrenStillChildren_S20Misuse

One-Line Summary:
Westminster social workers ignored statutory child status to bypass proper accommodation duties and due process.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Westminster Children’s Services coordinated an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) to seize four children — all U.S. citizens, all under the age of 18, all legally residing with their mother, Polly Chromatic.

Despite their legal status as children under Section 105(1) of the Children Act 1989, the local authority treated them as if they were:
– Unaccompanied
– Parentless
– Administratively disposable

Instead of offering lawful support or conducting a legitimate risk assessment, Westminster escalated without transparency — removing the children not based on harm, but on convenience. Their presence with a legally present, rights-aware mother posed a problem for the narrative. And so, in true procedural theatre, Westminster simply pretended she wasn’t there.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

According to Bromley’s Family Law and decades of settled case law:

“A child is defined by law, not by administrative convenience.”

Yet Westminster:

Ignored s.105(1) and the settled definition of childhood
Avoided Section 20 procedures requiring consent and partnership
Failed to acknowledge the mother’s active presence and lawful parental status
Proceeded with removals as if the children had no legal parent available to care for them

This wasn’t child protection. It was child fiction.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the Children Act 1989 doesn’t stop applying just because the local authority doesn’t like the mother.
Because parental presence — especially by a documented, vocal, and disabled U.S. citizen — cannot be legislatively erased for expediency.
Because pretending a child isn’t a child, or a parent isn’t a parent, to bypass procedural safeguards is administrative fraud dressed up in safeguarding vocabulary.

Polly Chromatic cited Southwark, Croydon, and Lambeth. She emailed legal precedents. She knew the law. Westminster ignored her.

So now SWANK logs it.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 s.105(1) – Legal misclassification of child status
Children Act 1989 s.20 – Circumvention of accommodation safeguards
Children Act 1989 s.17 – Failure to offer services prior to removal
Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination based on parental disability
ECHR Article 8 – Violation of the right to family life without legal cause
Common Law Principles – Procedural unfairness, bad faith, and abuse of power

V. SWANK’s Position

The removal of Polly Chromatic’s children was not a lawful act.
It was an administrative fantasy — engineered by professionals who believed that erasing a mother from the record would simplify the paperwork.

The law does not permit this.
The Children Act does not authorise it.
And now, Bromley condemns it — with page 636 filed, highlighted, and cited.

Let it be known:
A child does not lose their rights because the parent knows theirs.
And the state cannot substitute convenience for consent, nor fiction for fact.

SWANK v Westminster: In Re The Removal That Triggered a Judicial Reckoning

“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.

⟡ 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.

SWANK v Westminster: In Re The Urgency of Undoing State Fabrication

“Interim Care, Permanent Damage”

An Urgent Judicial Review to Return Four U.S. Children and Halt State-Imposed Sibling Erasure

Filed Date: 24 June 2025

Reference Code: SWANK/JR/0624-N463-URGENT
Court Filename: 2025-06-24_N463_UrgentApplication_ChildReturnAndNonSeparation
One-line Summary: Emergency judicial review filed to demand the immediate return of four unlawfully removed U.S. siblings and prevent their separation.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, without notice, service, or judicial participation by the parent, four American children were removed by Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services under an Interim Care Order of dubious origin and zero transparency.

The next day, Polly Chromatic—disabled mother and director of SWANK London Ltd.—filed an N463 urgent judicial review seeking interim relief within 24–48 hours, supported by a full N461 claim bundle, psychiatric evidence, and sworn addenda.

The relief requested includes:

Immediate return of the children
Prevention of sibling separation
Mandatory disclosure and consular notification

The state has been notified. The children have not.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That Westminster and RBKC conducted a stealth removal of foreign nationals under fabricated urgency and absent threshold.
That the parent—medically nonverbal and previously litigating against these same authorities—was deliberately excluded.
That no formal service of orders or hearing documentation has occurred.
That the entire removal was timed to coincide with ongoing judicial, civil, and public actions by the mother—thus qualifying as retaliation with procedural makeup.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot invoke “child welfare” while denying their family, their doctor, and their government.

Because the state seems to have mistaken administrative opacity for immunity.

Because this filing is not merely an application—it is a procedural autopsy. A diagnostic on what happens when a local authority sees oversight, sees litigation, and chooses to escalate rather than comply.

Because when law fails in the courtroom, SWANK files it into public record.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – Sections 38, 34, and 44
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6 and 8
UNCRC – Articles 3, 9, and 12
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 21, 29
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – Article 37
Administrative Law – Ultra vires, procedural illegality, irrationality

V. SWANK’s Position

This N463 application is not premature—it is overdue.

It is filed not just for the return of unlawfully removed children, but to place the entire affair under judicial cross-examination. The state’s conduct must no longer hide behind interim language and strategic service failures.

This is no longer a matter of process. It is a matter of international law, disability rights, and child integrity.

SWANK London Ltd. hereby submits this file to the public archive—not because the court asked for it, but because history will.

Chromatic v Westminster: In Re The Court That Had Been Told

“Judicially Noted, Publicly Filed, Politely Unignorable.”

On the Formal Notification That Westminster’s Removal Is Now a Matter of Public Law

Filed Date: 24 June 2025

Reference Code: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0624-JR-NOTICE-CFC
Court Filename: 2025-06-24_Notice_FamilyCourt_JudicialReview_RetaliatoryRemoval
One-line Summary: Judicial Review bundle submitted to Central Family Court for notice, confirming that the EPO and child removal are now formally under challenge in the Administrative Court.

I. What Happened

At precisely 5:23 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic served formal judicial notice to Central Family Court that a Judicial Review had been filed regarding the Emergency Protection Order (EPO) used to remove her four U.S. citizen children.

This notice was not a suggestion. It was an evidentiary correction: the Family Court could no longer pretend the removal was ordinary or uncontested.

The email attached all materials submitted to the Administrative Court between 17–24 June, including the full Judicial Review bundle, psychiatric disability documentation, a discharge request under Section 44(10), and two addenda addressing retaliatory motives and sibling separation.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That the Emergency Protection Order (EPO) is now under active Judicial Review for illegality, retaliatory motive, and disability-based exclusion.
That the Family Court must recalibrate its assumptions regarding Westminster’s actions and procedures.
That any orders made without acknowledging this judicial development would constitute wilful blindness.
That four American children were removed under public challenge, and the court is now on formal record that its own proceedings are tainted by ongoing constitutional scrutiny.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no one should have to file a Judicial Review and then beg the court to notice it.

Because public law litigation does not pause for family court inertia.

Because the Family Court cannot build orders on foundations already subject to demolition proceedings in the High Court.

And because when judges claim they “weren’t aware,” SWANK replies: “You were emailed. At dawn. With receipts.”

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – Section 44 procedural safeguards
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (Fair trial), Article 8 (Family life)
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20 & 29 (Disability discrimination in legal access)
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Articles 9 & 12
Public Law – Failure to disclose, serve, and provide accessible participation

V. SWANK’s Position

This judicial notice functions as a formal boundary line. The court has now been put on written notice that what it calls an “EPO” is under active challenge as a retaliatory act cloaked in statutory language.

To proceed blindly, to issue contact orders or care directions without reference to the Judicial Review, would be not just a legal error—it would be an institutional humiliation.

SWANK London Ltd. therefore declares: the Family Court is now officially on record. Let no one plead ignorance again.

In Re: The Lawfulness of Inaction Or, How the ICO and Two Boroughs Were Told They Are Now the Subject of Jurisdiction, Not Its Agents

⟡ The Archive Challenges the Lawfulness of Everything ⟡

Or, When the ICO Was Asked to Explain Its Silence, and the Councils Their Crimes

Metadata

Filed: 4 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/JR/ICO/RBKC/WEST
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Filed from: W2 6JL
Court File Name:
2025-07-04_ZC25C50281_JudicialReviewSubmission_ICO_LawfulnessChallenge.pdf

I. What Happened

On 4 July 2025, Polly Chromatic filed a formal Judicial Review application targeting the Information Commissioner’s Office, Westminster City Council, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

The claim?
Lawlessness by silence. Maladministration by design. Complicity by omission.

Specifically, this submission challenges:

The lawfulness of the ICO’s inaction on urgent data protection complaints
The coordinated misuse of safeguarding law following disability disclosures
And the lack of legal basis for the removal of four U.S. citizen children

This was not a petition.
It was an indictment wrapped in procedural velvet.

II. Why It Matters

This submission alleges:

Breach of Article 8 (Right to family life)
Disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010
Data protection failures under UK GDPR
Procedural abuse under the Children Act and JR protocols

It asserts that the very regulators charged with oversight became accessories by inaction — particularly the ICO, who received multiple notices, failed to act, and thereby enabled retaliatory safeguarding actions.

Let us be clear:
The ICO’s delay is not neutral. It is administratively violent.

III. What the Document Contains

Full Statement of Grounds
Chronology of misconduct
Named references to Kirsty Hornal, Sam Brown, Sarah Newman, and ICO handling officers
A demand for injunctive relief, investigative inquiry, and public accountability

This is no narrow complaint.
This is a jurisdictional intervention — against the machinery of deflection.

IV. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is where the archive ceases to whisper and begins to command.

Because a mother whose children were stolen in legal daylight, and whose complaints were ignored by the ICO, has now turned the table:

She is no longer the petitioner.
She is the litigant-archivist, moving jurisdiction like a scalpel.

Because judicial review is not just about challenging decisions —
it is about challenging the right to pretend they were lawful in the first place.

V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this submission as:

A defining moment of procedural escalation
A document that renders denial no longer credible
A formal declaration that non-response is no longer an option

This is not just a court document.
This is an institutional challenge to the performance of oversight itself.

The ICO may redact. The Councils may redact.
But the archive remembers everything.

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v Westminster & RBKC Children’s Services — Institutional Retaliation, Procedural Misconduct, and Unlawful Child Removal (2025) EWFC ZC25C50281

Hearing Statement for the Honourable Court — 11 July 2025

Case No: ZCXXXXXXX

Polly Chromatic, Litigant in Person and Director of SWANK London Ltd.

Preliminary Exordium:

May it please the Honourable Court,

I, Polly Chromatic, custodian and advocate of four remarkably gifted progeny, each endowed with dual citizenship of the United States of America and Her Majesty’s United Kingdom — Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — do present myself today, armed with erudition and indefatigable resolve.

My academic repertoire spans the rigorous fields of Computer Science, Psychology, and Human Development, crowned with several additional scholarly accolades. Such a constellation of expertise informs both my professional engagement in ethical Artificial Intelligence — a discipline steeped in the highest principles of probity, fairness, and human dignity — and my scrupulous devotion to nurturing my children’s intellectual and moral fabric.

I am also the Director of SWANK London Ltd., a bastion of institutional accountability and archival diligence, from whence I orchestrate my crusade for justice whilst maintaining a vigilant presence within my household.

My consort, domiciled in the Turks and Caicos Islands, remains a collaborative partner in the stewardship of our children’s upbringing despite our physical separation.

I. Procedural Context and Foundational Background

The onset of RBKC Children’s Services’ intervention coincided most regrettably with my family’s displacement caused by grievous sewer gas poisoning — an environmental calamity that marred our prior abode and occasioned prolonged residence in a transient hotel. On the very day of our relocation to a new domicile, the local authority precipitously escalated the matter to a Child Protection Plan, under the specious pretext of my temporarily diminished capacity for verbal discourse, despite my repeated entreaties for written communication — all summarily dismissed.

Westminster Children’s Services later usurped responsibility, demoting the case to a Child in Need plan by October 2024, subsequent to a parade of six social workers whose assessments proved void of tangible safeguarding concerns.

Kirsty Hornal entered the fray in October 2024, bringing with her a relentless insistence on verbal communication notwithstanding my persistent respiratory afflictions — sequelae of said poisoning.

II. Institutional Accountability and Procedural Dissonance

From the genesis of Westminster Children’s Services’ involvement in February 2024, I have tirelessly demanded clarity, transparency, and lawful basis for their prolonged intervention. Yet, rather than ameliorating our plight, these agents have exacerbated my family’s injuries.

Despite my documented health challenges — including debilitating asthma exacerbated by the aforementioned toxic exposure — my entreaties for accommodation were met with scorn and allegations of mental instability and harassment.

To shield my family, I have resorted to formal legal recourse, filing:

A police report against Ms. Hornal (13 February 2025);
An N1 claim implicating Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services (3 March 2025);
A Judicial Review contesting procedural impropriety (28 April 2025);
A criminal referral for malfeasance against Ms. Hornal and Mr. Brown (21 June 2025).

Yet, obstruction persists, and the paternal figure of my children remains unjustly excluded, a travesty of procedural fairness.

III. Retaliation, Disregard, and Communication Abjection

Ms. Hornal’s last domicile visitation occurred on 13 February 2025. Thereafter, a nefarious Public Law Outline letter, dated 15 April 2025, levied baseless allegations of narcotic misuse against me, demanding an intrusive hair follicle analysis — a profound departure from her erstwhile commendations of my children’s scholarly accomplishments.

Scheduled judicial dialogue set for 2 May 2025 was summarily aborted, whilst Ms. Hornal’s vexatious insistence on invasive visits continued unabated, despite my protestations regarding the deleterious health consequences.

Threats of supervision orders emerged mid-June, accompanied by further procedural chicanery and, most alarmingly, episodes of stalking by an unidentified male subsequent to my public disclosures on SWANK London Ltd., prompting yet another police report.

IV. Breach of Duty of Care and Ethical Obligation

My earnest desire is singular: to nurture and educate my children in a secure and loving environment. Yet, the intransigence and caprice of Ms. Hornal have consigned me to untenable predicaments, accused both of disengagement and mental instability when prioritizing my children’s wellbeing.

Our household endures the scars of egregious environmental harm, including the fatality of our cherished pet and my own vocal and respiratory impairments.

Westminster Children’s Services has egregiously disregarded these vulnerabilities, further imperiling my family’s health through negligent conduct and retaliatory removal.

Such acts constitute not mere neglect but a flagrant dereliction of duty and moral turpitude, precipitating profound suffering.

V. Institutional Retaliation and the Subversion of Safeguarding

Following my initiation of legal claims, Westminster Children’s Services hastened to deploy an Emergency Protection Order, wielded as a sword against my family.

Ms. Hornal and Mr. Brown have compounded injury by excluding the paternal presence, cancelling indispensable medical appointments, unilaterally altering healthcare provisions, and orchestrating vexatious child care arrangements for my children through collusion with erstwhile legal counsel, Alan Mullem.

My establishment of SWANK London Ltd. serves as a bulwark against these injustices, safeguarding the dignity and rights of my family.

Bereft of lawful cause, my children languish in isolation, denied normalcy and denied the joys of childhood pursuits — from acting and modelling opportunities to wholesome outdoor recreations and familial laughter.

The egregious dismissal of their medical needs foreshadows imminent health crises, including asthma exacerbations.

These punitive measures constitute an affront to genuine safeguarding and inflict grievous developmental and emotional wounds.

VI. Ethical Parenting and Philosophical Convictions

My household stands as a citadel of principled living, where rigorous standards of health, education, respect, and justice prevail.

My pedagogic ethos is profoundly holistic, nurturing every facet of my children’s being—intellectual, emotional, physical, ethical, and spiritual—with bespoke and strength-focused approaches that cultivate inquisitiveness and critical acumen.

Their education is a tapestry of rigorous scholarship—spanning the sciences, mathematics, humanities—and lived experience, infused with ethical reflection and global conscientiousness.

I champion resilience, emotional intelligence, and leadership, preparing my progeny to navigate and enrich a complex, interconnected world.

VII. Entreaty for Judicial Relief

In light of the foregoing, I most respectfully implore this Honourable Court to:

Immediately restore my children to my care forthwith, without deferral for ongoing proceedings;
Excise Ms. Hornal and Mr. Brown, along with Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services, from this matter, given manifest conflicts and improprieties;
Mandate a rigorous and transparent inquiry into the practices of Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services, in view of the systemic failings and retaliatory conduct;
Command full disclosure of all safeguarding and medical documentation pertinent to this case;
Ensure future involvement is entrusted solely to culturally competent, impartial professionals, upholding the highest standards of equity and justice.

VIII. Peroration

This grievous saga of unlawful removal, procedural dereliction, and retaliatory malfeasance has inflicted profound harm upon my family’s health, wellbeing, and dignity.

I beseech this Court to uphold justice and restore the sanctity of my family unit with all due haste.

I thank the Court for its attention and solemn duty.

SWANK v Westminster: In Re The Voluntary Return They Should Have Begged to Accept

“You Took Them Without Law. Return Them Without Excuse.”

A Formal Demand for the Voluntary Return of Four U.S. Citizen Children, Now Under Judicial Review

Filed Date: 24 June 2025

Reference Code: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/0624-VOLUNTARYRETURN-DEMAND
Court Filename: 2025-06-24_Letter_to_Westminster_UrgentReturnRequest_JRNotification
One-line Summary: Westminster formally requested to return four American children in light of active Judicial Review, emergency relief filings, and disproven safeguarding claims.

I. What Happened

At 3:46 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a direct and devastatingly clear message to Westminster Children’s Services:

You removed four U.S. citizen children without lawful notice, threshold, or service.
A Judicial Review is now active.
An Emergency Relief Request is pending.
A consular notice has been served.
Return the children voluntarily—or escalate this into an international scandal.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That Westminster has been formally notified of active judicial proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the 23 June removal.
That all four children are medically vulnerable, scheduled for critical asthma appointments, and currently severed from their coordinated care.
That the removal occurred in the context of disability discrimination, procedural failure, and an unacknowledged civil claim.
That the local authority has no legal footing left, and voluntary return is the last available act of procedural dignity.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because if you take someone’s American children without notice, under the guise of “emergency,” and are then offered a diplomatic exit—but refuse it—you’re not safeguarding.
You’re playing legal chicken with a High Court engine in your rearview mirror.

Because SWANK does not whisper. It files. It timestamps. And it delivers judicial carnage with gold-lettered elegance.

Because this return request is not a favour. It is a final warning.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – Section 44 procedural thresholds
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (Family life), Article 6 (Due process)
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 21, and 29
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – Articles 3, 9, and 23
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – Article 37
Public Law Doctrine – Abuse of Power, Illegitimate Purpose

V. SWANK’s Position

This letter is the last chance Westminster has to end the unlawful removal of foreign nationals without public disgrace.

Return the children. Keep them together. Cease retaliation. Or be prepared to explain to the High Court, the U.S. Embassy, and the international human rights community why you acted outside the law and kept going after being notified.

There is still time for resolution. But there is no more time for ignorance.

SWANK London Ltd. does not ask twice.

Chromatic v Westminster: In Re Removal by Retaliation, Not Law

Retaliation, Rebranded as Removal

A Judicial Review Addendum on the Political Utility of Emergency Orders

Filed Date: 23 June 2025

Reference Code: SWANK/JR/0623-RETALIATION-ADDENDUM
Court Filename: 2025-06-23_Addendum_Judicial_Review_Removal_Retaliation
One-line Summary: Addendum to Judicial Review documenting the retaliatory and unlawful seizure of four U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

On 22 June 2025, four American children were forcibly removed from their home by Metropolitan Police officers and Westminster social workers. No lawful notice was served. No legal representation was present. No safeguarding assessment had justified the event. The mother—Polly Chromatic—was medically nonverbal and entirely excluded.

This addendum was filed the following day in the High Court, supplementing an already active Judicial Review claim concerning safeguarding misconduct, public law breach, and jurisdictional overreach. It lays bare the retaliation that occurred under the camouflage of “child protection.”

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That the removal was procedurally invalid—executed without disclosure, representation, or the claimant’s participation.
That the mother’s disabilities were explicitly disregarded, in contravention of the Equality Act 2010.
That this act followed a cascade of legal filings: a Judicial Review, an N1 civil claim, and public documentation on SWANK—all of which directly preceded the removal.
That the U.S. Embassy was never notified, despite the international legal obligations triggered by the nationality of all five family members.
That this was not protection. It was retribution, dressed in bureaucratic ceremony.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because safeguarding is not supposed to operate like a police raid against a litigant.
Because removing American children from a disabled parent with active legal claims—without protocol or reply—looks very much like retaliation.
Because disability accommodations are not decorative. And consular rights are not optional.
Because this is the moment where lawful family separation crossed into geopolitical misconduct.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – Sections 38 & 44
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 29
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6 (fair trial) & 8 (family life)
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Articles 3, 9
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – Article 37
Judicial Review Principles – Natural Justice & Legitimate Expectation

V. SWANK’s Position

The timing was not incidental. The process was not lawful. The motivation was not protection. The silence that followed? Noted.

The events of 22 June mark a decisive break from any pretence of legal proportionality. The state acted with the precision of enforcement—but without the burden of evidence. The mother was silenced, the children seized, and the documents served to no one.

SWANK London Ltd. hereby confirms that this addendum is not simply a filing—it is a warning.

Chromatic v Westminster & RBKC On the Matter of Racial Safeguarding Harm and Post-Diagnosis Contact Retaliation

⟡ Ongoing Trauma, Medical Neglect, and Racial Safeguarding Harm ⟡

Filed under Velvet Retaliation & Statutory Indignation

Metadata

Filed: 8 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/N1/ADDENDUM/0725-08
Court File Name: 2025-07-08_Addendum_N1Claim_Discrimination_Trauma_MedicalNeglect.pdf
Summary:
A civil addendum evidencing medical neglect, racial erasure, and a decade-long pattern of trauma inflicted by Westminster and RBKC social workers.

I. What Happened

After over a decade of racially-coded intrusion, Westminster Children’s Services and RBKC have continued to enforce contact with social workers Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown — both named in my £88 million civil claim and public judicial filings.

Despite being furnished with psychiatric reports, cultural safeguarding requests, and documented objections, the Local Authority escalated its coercive strategies, dismissing documented trauma, dismantling homeschooling stability, and interrupting critical asthma care.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This submission establishes:

Repeated racial and disability-based failures to accommodate
Medical neglect via cancelled appointments and obstructed care
Escalating trauma to both parent and child through state-led contact
Disregard for Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and basic clinical ethics

It underscores how the continued involvement of named social workers represents not only a personal retraumatisation, but a structural act of procedural violence against a medically fragile, culturally marginalised family.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

SWANK London Ltd. logged this to record a pattern of:

Public sector racial indifference
Cultural erasure masked as safeguarding
Chronic disbelief in asthma diagnoses despite hospital corroboration
The deliberate weaponisation of social work contact to suppress legal opposition

This is not oversight. It is institutional sabotage disguised as child protection.

IV. Violations

Public Sector Equality Duty (Equality Act 2010, s.149)
Failure to accommodate known psychiatric disability
Retaliation against civil litigant and complainant
Medical interference and negligence
Procedural bias and safeguarding misuse

V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK considers the persistent use of Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown — despite formal psychiatric diagnosis, written objections, and litigation disclosures — to be an act of coercive malpractice. Both professionals should be removed from all contact with the family and struck from any case bearing judicial neutrality.

If contact must occur, it must be non-social-worker led, independent of Westminster and RBKC, and culturally appropriate. Anything less constitutes complicity in trauma propagation.

⟡ 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.

In re Chromatic v. Westminster, Regarding the Forced Removal of Four U.S. Citizen Children and the Filing That Refused to Whisper

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Emergency as Etiquette: The Injunction They Expected Not to Arrive

In re Chromatic v. Westminster, Regarding the Forced Removal of Four U.S. Citizen Children and the Filing That Refused to Whisper

📎 Metadata

Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference Code: SWL-JR-0624-INJUNCTION
Court File Name: 2025-06-24_SWANK_EmergencyInjunctionRequest_ChildrenReturn
1-line summary: Emergency Injunction Hearing Request submitted following unlawful removal of children, supported by JR, psychiatric evidence, and retaliation addendum.

I. What Happened

At precisely 00:59 on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an Emergency Injunction Hearing Request to the Administrative Court — in response to the unlawful, retaliatory, and medically endangering removal of her four children by Westminster Children’s Services.

This submission followed a Judicial Review filing already in progress, and included:

A cover letter of lethal grace
A psychiatric letter documenting disability-related communication restrictions
The full Judicial Review bundle
An addendum on retaliatory removal
A fee exemption form, because justice should not be subject to overdraft

II. What the Request Establishes

That Romeo, age 16, was removed without warrant, legal process, or consent
That his three younger siblings were removed under similarly opaque conditions
That the removals occurred after civil litigation had been filed, and are best understood as a form of legalised reprisal
That the Equality Act 2010 was violated through denial of disability accommodation, resulting in exclusion from proceedings and a forced police removal

An injunction was not a legal escalation.
It was a moral corrective.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when the institutions remove your children while pretending you’re not in litigation, you must become both litigant and historian.

Because this request is not just for relief — it is a ceremonial restoration of jurisdiction.
A declaration that you cannot lawfully remove four disabled children without triggering a judicial echo.

And because silence is not an outcome when your filing is timestamped, medically substantiated, and elegantly damning.

IV. Violations and Relief Sought

Violation of Article 8 ECHR – Family and private life
Unlawful removal under the Children Act 1989
Denial of disability rights under the Equality Act 2010
Retaliation for active litigation
Exclusion of a litigant in person during safeguarding escalation

Requested relief: Emergency injunction, immediate reinstatement of children, and court oversight of all future decisions involving safeguarding, access, or relocation.

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a desperate filing.
It was a controlled ignition — designed to trigger judicial attention with precision, clarity, and zero theatrics.

SWANK London Ltd hereby asserts that this request stands as both legal action and historical witness:
To the removal.
To the retaliation.
To the refusal of silence.

Let this be known:
We filed it.
They received it.
We archived it before they could ignore it.

In re SWANK London Ltd. v. Westminster & RBKC, On the Ritual Restoration of Legal Oxygen Following Procedural Asphyxiatio

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Judicial Review, Jurisdictional Collapse, and the Emergency of Being Correct

In re SWANK London Ltd. v. Westminster & RBKC, On the Ritual Restoration of Legal Oxygen Following Procedural Asphyxiation

📎 Metadata

Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference Code: SWL-JR-0624-REINSTATEMENT
Court File Name: 2025-06-24_SWANK_JudicialReview_EmergencyReinstatement_WestminsterRBKC
1-line summary: Judicial Review filed challenging unlawful child removal, with emergency reinstatement request and psychiatric support evidence.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025 at 00:22, Polly Chromatic, acting in her capacity as Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a Judicial Review application against Westminster City Council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

This submission included:

A live Emergency Reinstatement Request
Medical documentation from Dr. Rafiq
An addendum on retaliatory removal
A fee exemption and full bundle of evidence supporting active litigation and procedural sabotage

The claim was sent to the Administrative Court with the tone of someone who already knew she was right.

II. What the Filing Establishes

That four disabled U.S. citizen children were removed without lawful threshold
That the applicant was denied communication accommodations, violating the Equality Act 2010
That retaliatory actions took place after the filing of civil and oversight complaints
That an evidentiary archive, criminal referrals, and mental health assessments were already in place — ignored only by those who found them inconvenient

This is not a Judicial Review.
This is a resurrection.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because sometimes, the only thing left to do is file something so lucid, so well-documented, and so uncomfortably damning that the only possible responses are:

Silence
Panic
Settlement
Reinstatement

SWANK logged this to ensure that no authority may one day claim, “We didn’t know.”
You knew.
You received.
You filed the wrong reply — or none at all.

IV. Violations and Relief Sought

Unlawful removal of minors without procedural basis
Failure to accommodate known disabilities of parent
Disregard for U.S. citizenship and consular protections
Safeguarding procedures used as legal reprisal post-complaint

Requested relief includes emergency reinstatement, jurisdictional recognition of disability, and a court-led correction of retaliatory error.

V. SWANK’s Position

This Judicial Review does not request justice.
It demands a forensic reckoning.
It demands that the court acknowledge what Westminster and RBKC tried to bury in process — that this removal was procedural theatre, staged to punish, silence, and isolate.

There are no more warnings.
There are no more unanswered emails.
There is only the record.

And it has been filed.

⟡ 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.

In the Matter of Flag Cards, Braided Hair, and the Right to Ride One’s Bike: Contact Observations Under Procedural Surveillance

On the Restriction of Bikes, Braids, and Breathing
SWANK London Ltd. v. Westminster Children’s Services

Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference: SWL-CF-0707-CALLLOG-01
PDF Filename: 2025-07-07_SWANK_Addendum_MonitoredCallFindings.pdf
Summary: Children reveal institutional interference with medical, educational, cultural, and physical freedoms during a contact session monitored by named defendant.

I. What Happened

On 7 July 2025, during a supervised contact call between Polly Chromatic and her four U.S. citizen children, monitored by social worker Kirsty Hornal, the children disclosed:

Romeo (16) was told by Kirsty he is no longer allowed to ride a bike
Romeo said he missed a previous call because no one informed him
He must now ask social workers for permission to go to the gym
All four children had recently been ill, though currently breathing “okay”
Medical appointments at Hammersmith Hospital were cancelled without notice
They have been registered at a new GP and are being moved to a new dentist and school without parental consultation
Romeo and Honor asked to have their hair braided but were told they need maternal permission, which social workers are otherwise circumventing

Despite this, the children engaged warmly in flag card activities, Honor shared her drawings, and Polly reassured them that hearings were imminent and legal filings were ongoing.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

The Local Authority continues to act in ways that disrupt identity, suppress autonomy, and undermine medical and cultural continuity
Kirsty Hornal, who is a named civil defendant and subject of multiple police reports, continues to monitor and limit contact
The children’s disclosure of illness, restricted movement, silencing, and surveillance reflects both procedural collapse and emotional harm

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This call is a primary-source event, revealing in real time the extent to which safeguarding powers are being exercised not for protection, but for control.

SWANK London Ltd. files this as evidence of:

Procedural Retaliation
Cultural Suppression
Disabled Medical Rights Interference
Emotional Neglect and Surveillance Trauma

IV. Violations

Article 8 – ECHR: Right to family life
Children Act 1989: Parental Responsibility breaches
Equality Act 2010: Cultural expression and disability accommodation ignored
UNCRC Article 12 & 24: Children not consulted in decisions about their lives or health

V. SWANK’s Position

The continued use of monitored video calls by conflicted parties, coupled with the Local Authority’s covert assumption of parental powers, constitutes both legal usurpation and institutional intimidation.

SWANK views the restriction of a teenage boy’s bike use, and the denial of gym, grooming, and medical continuity, as a regime of child inconvenience, not child protection.

We assert that the children’s disclosure of illness, frustration, and lost routines under monitored conditions validates the mother’s immediate return application and Judicial Review.

They miss their home. They want their hair braided. They want to breathe without permission.

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.

In re: Negotiation, Retaliation, and the Conditions of Civil Withdrawal — An Uninvited Letter from the Lawsuit They Ignored

⟡ Terms of Lawful Disengagement and Child Return

A Public Resolution Notice from SWANK London Ltd

⚖️ Filed: 2025-07-04

Reference Code: SWK-NG-UNADDRESSED-2306
One-line summary:
A formal public notice offering terms of lawful resolution in relation to an £88 million civil claim naming 23 defendants, including senior Westminster staff.

I. What This Is

This is a public notice. It is not a private letter.
It is not addressed to any one party.
It is a published opportunity for lawful resolution and disengagement, issued by the harmed party prior to further escalation of an active £88 million civil claim filed in the High Court of Justice.

That claim names 23 individual and institutional defendants, including — but not limited to — Kirsty Hornal, Sam Brown, and Sarah Newman, in their professional capacities. The N1 action cites institutional retaliation, disability discrimination, unlawful safeguarding, and medical neglect.

If you are reading this and believe it applies to you, then it likely does.

II. The Conditions Offered

The following non-negotiable minimum terms are set forth:

Immediate restoration of written-only communication, in accordance with prior disability adjustment notices and statutory equality duties.
Immediate return of all four children to their family of origin, or transfer to a vetted family member or trusted carer (father, maternal grandmother, or designated adult), under the lawful direction of their mother.
Permanent removal of named professionals, including those cited in civil litigation, from the family’s case and all future involvement.
Complete and irrevocable disengagement from social work oversight, unless explicitly re-invited by the family at a later time.
Withdrawal of the current Interim Care Order (ICO) and closure of all related safeguarding, contact restrictions, and data obstructions.
Immediate reinstatement of all cancelled medical care, including asthma, trauma recovery, and disability-related oversight previously withheld or obstructed.
No further obstruction of civil litigation, disability rights enforcement, family law filings, or documentation activity by SWANK London Ltd.

III. What This Letter Establishes

This document is not a plea. It is a recorded offering of lawful terms.
It does not imply waiver of damages, admissions, or factual concessions.
It simply demonstrates that a path to resolution was publicly made available — and declined, if ignored.

Should these terms be accepted in writing, the claimant is prepared to consider:

Amending the N1 claim to remove specific individuals where appropriate
Temporary deferment of SWANK publication escalation
Full strategic focus on family and medical restoration

IV. Deadline to Acknowledge This Offer

A response is expected by 11 July 2025.

Failure to respond will result in:

Filing of the prepared Judicial Review application
Immediate N161 appeal of the ICO
Escalated documentation to the JCIO, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and U.S. Embassy
Continued publication of evidentiary materials through SWANK London Ltd.

V. SWANK’s Position

This document is retained and published as proof of reasonable conduct in the context of institutional aggression.

Should the named authorities or professionals continue to obstruct lawful remedy, this Notice will serve as evidence that peace was possible — and rejected.

The legal, emotional, and reputational cost of this refusal will be theirs to own, not ours to forget.

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

You Fabricated a Risk. I Filed a Complaint. You Called That Neglect. But Now the Record Belongs to Me.

⟡ “She Lied About My Parenting. I Filed a Complaint. She Called That Neglect.” ⟡
A formal rebuttal and complaint naming Kirsty Hornal for manufacturing safeguarding risk, retaliating against disability accommodation, and turning complaint into cause.

Filed: 22 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-17
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-22_SWANK_Complaint_Westminster_KirstyHornal_PLOFabrication_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
Formal submission to Westminster Children’s Services and regulatory authorities detailing disability discrimination, statutory retaliation, and factual fabrication by social worker Kirsty Hornal. Includes legal citations, psychiatric evidence, and intent to escalate to oversight bodies and court.

I. What Happened

On 14 April 2025, Westminster issued a PLO warning letter. It contained false allegations, procedural distortions, and accusations that had no evidentiary basis. This formal complaint was issued in direct response, citing misconduct, discrimination, and structural harm.

In this filing, Polly Chromatic:

Cites the Equality Act 2010 and psychiatric documentation (Dr. Rafiq, Nov 2024)
Refutes every claim: neglect, disengagement, educational failure, drug use
Confirms prior contact, medical communication boundaries, and lawful parenting history
Notes that the CIN plan was closed without request, immediately after a police report
Names the resulting escalation — PLO — as retaliatory in both form and intent

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That safeguarding procedures were activated not to protect — but to retaliate
That Kirsty Hornal misused professional authority to punish lawful complaint
That disability accommodation was repeatedly refused, misrepresented, or erased
That internal records appear inaccurate, deliberately biased, or both
That Westminster cannot plead ignorance — they were given medical reports, legal citations, and clinical proof

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the moment safeguarding becomes conditional on silence, it ceases to be lawful. And the moment an institution uses your diagnosis against you — it isn’t protection. It’s persecution.

SWANK archived this filing to:

Publicly expose the structural logic behind the PLO escalation
Name the institutional actors responsible for retaliatory statutory abuse
Formally declare the breakdown of social work neutrality in this case

This is not “parental resistance.” It’s a forensic refusal to accept rewritten facts.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 –
• Section 20: Refusal to adjust for disability
• Section 27: Retaliation following police report
• Section 149: Breach of public sector duty to eliminate discrimination
Children Act 1989 – Fabricated neglect claims caused emotional harm and statutory abuse
Human Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 8: Family life
• Article 6: Right to a fair hearing
• Article 14: Protection from discrimination
Social Work England Standards –
• 3.1: Be honest and accurate
• 5.1: Maintain factual records
• 6.4: Do not allow personal views to influence professional decisions

V. SWANK’s Position

This isn’t child protection — it’s case-building against the truth. When a social worker reads your psychiatric report and still accuses you of “non-engagement,” she isn’t confused. She’s working from a script.

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this complaint as a procedural bombshell. One that will detonate in court, in regulation, and in public record.

Underpinned by: K and T v Finland [2001] ECHR 657 — “Family Life Requires Procedural Integrity

⟡ “The Bypass — Because Procedural Boundaries Are Not Optional” ⟡

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/PROFESSIONAL/BOUNDARY-BREACH
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_Urgent_Addendum_Kirsty_Hornal_Procedural_Violation.pdf
Urgent addendum reporting deliberate circumvention of procedural instructions by a social worker under active complaint and judicial review.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.) submitted an urgent addendum to Social Work England. She reported that Kirsty Hornal, already the subject of formal complaints and a live Judicial Review, initiated direct contact with both the children’s grandmother and father.

This contact was made:

Despite explicit, written instructions requiring all communications to go exclusively through her as the parent and legal party.
In the context of an open procedural dispute over the same safeguarding measures.
While Ms. Hornal’s conduct was under regulatory scrutiny.

This act was not a neutral administrative oversight — it was an active triangulation.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Disregard for clearly communicated procedural boundaries.
Continuation of coercive engagement designed to marginalise the parent’s role.
A pattern of behaviour that undermines trust in professional neutrality.
Escalation of institutional overreach in defiance of due process.

This was not a helpful update. It was a deliberate bypass.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when professionals ignore procedural instructions, it is not harmless — it is a strategic erasure of authority.
Because consent and clarity are not inconvenient technicalities, but the core of legitimate process.
Because every unrecorded boundary violation becomes precedent for the next.
And because SWANK does not allow these patterns to evaporate unexamined.

IV. Violations

Social Work England Professional Standards — Promote rights, respect views, uphold trust.
Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 8: Right to private and family life.
Equality Act 2010 — Procedural fairness for disabled litigants.
Family Procedure Rules — Communication protocols in live proceedings.

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not professional discretion.
⟡ This was procedural contempt. ⟡
SWANK does not accept the quiet normalisation of boundary violations as standard practice.
We will document every bypass. Every time.

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v Institutional Arrogance [2025] SWANK 7

⟡ “You’re Not Allowed to Breathe or Complain” ⟡
The Origin of Procedural Retaliation in a Sewer-Filled Kingdom

Filed: 28 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/DECLARATION/0628-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-28_SWANK_Declaration_OriginOfMisuse_ProceduralRetaliation.pdf
A foundational declaration mapping the retaliatory path from environmental hazard to emergency removal.

I. What Happened

A family poisoned by sewer gas.
A mother silenced by vocal injury.
A system offended by her insistence on writing instead of speaking.

This declaration was filed to expose the causal chain leading from:

environmental and medical neglect in a Central London flat
to safeguarding notes forged in clinical error
to retaliatory social work escalation after the mother filed a £23 million civil suit against multiple UK authorities

On 23 June 2025, four U.S. citizen children were forcibly removed by police without warning.
No order served. No medication packed. No consent. No consent ever.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Misconduct and misinterpretation after a sewer gas poisoning incident in 2023
Procedural mismanagement by Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services
Disability discrimination: verbal non-compliance used as pretext for escalation
Use of surveillance-style intimidation following legal filings and blog publication
No lawful threshold met for the Emergency Protection Order (EPO) that removed the children
Linkage between the safeguarding abuse and civil litigation claims naming all responsible parties

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because “emergency protection” has become a euphemism for covering institutional liability.

Because the child protection system is being weaponised to silence whistleblowers.

Because the applicant — a disabled mother of four — was not removed from her children’s lives for endangering them, but for exposing the agencies that did.

And because every time she wrote instead of spoke, they called it “non-engagement.”

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – failure to uphold welfare paramountcy
Equality Act 2010 – disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments
Human Rights Act 1998 – breach of Article 8 (family life) and Article 6 (fair process)
Procedural law – failure to meet threshold or serve appropriate notice under EPO legislation
Public law duties – abuse of power, malicious prosecution, and institutional retaliation

V. SWANK’s Position

This declaration is not just a document.
It is a timeline of targeted persecution.

It is an indictment of the kind of state that removes children to pre-empt lawsuits,
and pressures a voiceless mother to “just speak up.”

It is a formal record of the transition from neglect by institutions to vengeance by institutions —
And a refusal to let the record remain one-sided.

The children must be returned.
The retaliation must end.
And the archive will outlive the abuse.

Re: The Refusal of Jurisdiction and the Fiction of Safeguarding [2025] SWANK JR-TIMELINE

⟡ The Timeline of Collapse: Jurisdiction Refused in Real Time ⟡
“Still Separated. Still Not Lawful.”

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/JURIS/0625-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Timeline_ContactAndResponse.pdf
Chronological log of refusals, removals, and regulatory silence following pre-litigation warnings, culminating in procedural collapse.

I. What Happened
Between 22 May and 25 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (legally: Noelle Meline-Bonneannée Simlett) issued escalating legal warnings, including jurisdictional claims, injunction threats, and audit notices. Westminster Council and associated regulatory bodies — SWE, EHRC, ICO, PHSO, Ofsted — all failed to respond.

Despite legal service of Judicial Review (JR), an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) was executed without notice or production. Four children were removed without formal authority, hearing, or disclosure. Guardian contact was made after the removal, and all filings from the Applicant — including urgent relief and alternative carer proposals — were met with complete institutional silence.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Documented refusal of jurisdiction by state actors under formal audit
No procedural reply to legal filings (JR, N461, N463, C100)
No confirmation or production of lawful authority for child removal
No safeguarding justification provided by any agency named
Active regulatory silence across EHRC, SWE, ICO, CAFCASS, Ofsted

Not one agency acted. Not one timestamp was rebutted.
What we are left with is a legal fiction dressed in child removal — and no court willing to sign its name.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
This is not simply a timeline. It is refusal protocol. It marks the collapse of administrative consent under scrutiny. When state institutions are presented with jurisdictional audits, statutory rights, and lawful redirect — and respond by doing nothing but taking children — we no longer have procedure. We have panic.
SWANK logged this not because it was dramatic, but because it was dull — dull in its cruelty, mechanical in its disregard, and exquisitely timestamped.

Every failure is recorded not for commentary — but for confrontation. Let no one say they didn’t know. They received the filings. And they took the children anyway.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – Section 31 and 38 procedural standards ignored
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (family life)
Equality Act 2010 – Disability accommodations wholly disregarded
Data Protection Act 2018 – No lawful basis for processing or contact
Family Procedure Rules – Bypassed service, hearing, and documentation

V. SWANK’s Position
This was not contact. This was conquest.
What Westminster called “safeguarding” was, in law, dispossession.
No order. No hearing. No rights. No reply.
This wasn’t a timeline. It was a countdown.

SWANK declares this matter procedurally severed and jurisdictionally offensive.
The separation was not lawful. It was institutional vanity masked as care.
We do not accept silence as discretion.
We file it as dereliction.

⟡ 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

SWANK London Ltd. – Press Statement

Statement

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue

The Flat That Tried to Kill Us: Sewage, Surveillance, and Section 20 Pressure

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

“Judicial Review Has Been Filed. The Children Are American. The Silence Is Over.”

Filed Date: 24 June 2025

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

“Interim Care, Permanent Damage”

Filed Date: 24 June 2025

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

“Judicially Noted, Publicly Filed, Politely Unignorable.”

Filed Date: 24 June 2025

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ The Archive Challenges the Lawfulness of Everything ⟡

Or, When the ICO Was Asked to Explain Its Silence, and the Councils Their Crimes

Metadata

I. What Happened

II. Why It Matters

III. What the Document Contains

IV. Why SWANK Logged It

V. SWANK’s Position

Hearing Statement for the Honourable Court — 11 July 2025

Case No: ZCXXXXXXX

Polly Chromatic, Litigant in Person and Director of SWANK London Ltd.

Preliminary Exordium:

I. Procedural Context and Foundational Background

II. Institutional Accountability and Procedural Dissonance

III. Retaliation, Disregard, and Communication Abjection

IV. Breach of Duty of Care and Ethical Obligation

V. Institutional Retaliation and the Subversion of Safeguarding

VI. Ethical Parenting and Philosophical Convictions

VII. Entreaty for Judicial Relief

VIII. Peroration

“You Took Them Without Law. Return Them Without Excuse.”

Filed Date: 24 June 2025

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

Retaliation, Rebranded as Removal

Filed Date: 23 June 2025

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ Ongoing Trauma, Medical Neglect, and Racial Safeguarding Harm ⟡

Filed under Velvet Retaliation & Statutory Indignation

Metadata

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes