“Separated Without Cause, Reunited by Law?”
A Judicial Review Addendum on the Impermissible Splitting of an American Sibling Group
Filed Date: 24 June 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/JR/0624-NONSEPARATION
Court Filename: 2025-06-24_Addendum_JR_NonSeparationRequest_Copy
One-line Summary: A formal judicial plea to prevent the institutional separation of four U.S. citizen siblings unlawfully taken into UK care.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, four disabled U.S. citizen children—Regal (16), Prerogative (13), Kingdom (10), and Heir (8)—were removed without warning by Westminster Children’s Services in a procedurally unlawful operation.
This addendum, filed one day later, responds to immediate concerns that the children—who were raised as a bonded sibling unit with joint medical routines and a shared care plan—might now be separated into fragmented placements without legal mandate or therapeutic rationale.
There is no care order that directs separation. There is no conflict between siblings. There is only silence—and the growing risk that this sibling group will be scattered across institutional placements, severing their primary protective relationships.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That all four children were removed as a group, from a non-hazardous home, with no safeguarding history requiring sibling separation.
That each child is a known asthma patient under shared NHS management, making coordinated medical care essential.
That no lawful order has been issued to justify or explain separate placements.
That separation would constitute an institutional infliction of trauma layered on top of an already unlawful seizure.
That U.S. consular protections, disability oversight, and safeguarding ethics have all been ignored in equal measure.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because sibling groups are not administrative collateral—they are families.
Because Westminster Children’s Services appears prepared to dismantle a bonded, medically fragile sibling group without judicial scrutiny or ethical justification.
Because the harm of separation is not abstract—it is compounded, irreversible, and entirely preventable.
Because this is not “child protection.” It is child fragmentation as a policy convenience.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Sibling preservation principles
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (right to family life)
Equality Act 2010 – Discriminatory disruption of coordinated disability care
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – Articles 3, 9, 23
Best Practice Guidelines – “Sibling Togetherness” standard in Looked After Children guidance
V. SWANK’s Position
These children are not case numbers. They are bonded siblings, medical patients, U.S. citizens, and trauma survivors of a system that cannot—or will not—justify its actions.
This addendum is more than a legal formality. It is a declaration of protected unity: that this sibling group shall not be broken apart by bureaucrats playing at crisis management.
Let it be known: any separation carried out in the absence of lawful instruction and psychological justification shall be filed, named, and preserved—as state-induced relational harm.
SWANK London Ltd. files this for the record. And for the children.
⟡ 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.