⟡ CLARIFICATIONS IN THE FACE OF DECAY ⟡
In re: Hearing of 27 August 2025 – Westminster’s Procedural Failures on the Record
Metadata
Filed: 27 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK–ADDENDUM–2025–AUG27
Filename: 2025-08-27_SWANK_Addendum_HearingClarifications.pdf
Summary: Addendum recording clarifications placed on the record at the urgent hearing of 27 August 2025, exposing Westminster’s repeated misrepresentations.
I. What Happened
At the urgent hearing convened on 27 August 2025, nominally to discuss passports, Westminster’s procedural theatre collapsed under the weight of its own fabrications. The Court was compelled to record a series of clarifications, each one peeling back another layer of Westminster’s self-inflicted incompetence.
II. What the Addendum Establishes
The Phantom “Partner Sam”
Westminster paraded an invented “partner” as though he were a party of record.
The Claimant clarified: this individual has never been a partner, his surname and address are unknown, and multiple police reports for harassment and racist hostility already exist against him.
The Court noted the fiction.
Exclusion of the Father
The Judge expressed dissatisfaction at the father’s absence.
The Claimant confirmed: the father is Haitian, requires Kreyòl interpretation, and Westminster has consistently failed to provide it.
What Westminster called “oversight” the law calls discrimination.
The Fiction of Non-Compliance
Westminster alleged unanswered emails.
The Claimant explained she has consistently replied; Westminster has simply failed to log them.
The Judge recorded this clarification.
The Delayed Hair Strand Test
The Claimant confirmed willingness.
Westminster, after two months of inaction, scheduled nothing until compelled by the Court.
Delay lay squarely at their feet.
Medical Records
Westminster alleged withholding.
The Claimant confirmed records had long been submitted and gave express GP release authority during the hearing.
The Judge recorded that Westminster’s complaint was baseless.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because one should never miss the opportunity to document the theatre of bureaucratic farce. Westminster has not only failed to discharge its safeguarding duties; it has displayed the art of procedural decay:
Inventing phantom partners;
Excluding the Haitian father;
Fabricating “non-compliance”;
Misplacing correspondence;
Complaining about missing records already provided.
In short, Westminster has rehearsed incompetence into an art form.
IV. Violations
Articles 3, 6, 8 and 14 ECHR – degrading treatment, denial of fairness, destruction of family life, and discrimination.
Children Act 1989, Section 22(3) – duty to safeguard children ignored.
Equality Act 2010 – refusal to accommodate language needs and medical conditions.
V. SWANK’s Position
SWANK holds that the 27 August hearing confirmed what the record already suggested: Westminster’s narrative collapses the moment it is examined in open court.
The Court was forced to acknowledge, point by point, that the Local Authority’s claims were either fabricated or delayed beyond recognition.
It is hoped — though not expected — that one day Westminster will awaken to the pointlessness of its egotistical and harmful behaviour, which serves only to harm children and corrode its own credibility.
Until then, SWANK will continue to write everything down.
Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
⚖️ 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.