⟡ “My Children Were Taken. I Asked My Doctor for a Letter. That, Too, Will Now Be Filed.” ⟡
When Clinical Reality Meets Institutional Fantasy, Only One Side Brings Medical Records.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/CLINICAL-IMPACT-LETTER-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_NHS_ClinicalLetter_ChildRemovalMentalHealthImpact.pdf
Formal written request to NHS consultant Philip Reid for a clinical support letter confirming psychological deterioration and disability impact following the state-forced removal of four children.
I. What Happened
In the early hours of 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a written clinical request to Dr. Philip Reid (NHS) regarding the acute medical consequences of her children’s removal by Westminster Children’s Services. The children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were taken without notice, accommodations, or medical coordination on 23 June 2025. This letter formally requests medical acknowledgment of exacerbated PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and Eosinophilic Asthma, alongside the clinical impact of forced separation.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The removal of children caused immediate clinical deterioration
Ongoing legal proceedings require medical confirmation of harm
Communication access needs (written-only directives) remain active and violated
Emotional stability is now conditioned on reunification
The NHS is requested to confirm what the archive has already documented: this removal is not only legal — it is medical
This wasn’t parenting under strain. It was clinical harm triggered by institutional force.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because clinical collapse is not a footnote — it’s a jurisdictional event.
Because this isn’t a health scare. It’s health sabotage with paperwork.
Because medical records don’t lie, even when social workers do.
Because if the NHS responds, it confirms state harm.
And if it doesn’t, that silence will be filed next.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate known medical and communication disabilities
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3, 6, 8 – Inhumane treatment, denial of access, violation of private/family life
UNCRPD Articles 13 & 25 – Denial of accessible healthcare and protective intervention for disabled litigants
NHS Duty of Care – Emotional and respiratory health jeopardised by state actions without coordination
Family Procedure Rules – Exclusion of medical context in family intervention planning
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a parental reaction. It was a medical emergency caused by legal misconduct.
This wasn’t a family matter. It was a collapse in breathing, voice, and psychological integrity.
This wasn’t a request for help. It was a request for documentation — because we already knew the answer.
SWANK hereby logs this letter as a formal evidentiary request.
Not because the court demanded it.
But because our lungs did.
⟡ 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.