“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label Parental Authority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parental Authority. Show all posts

Chromatic v The Custodians of Cancelled Care: On the Airborne Neglect of Medically Vulnerable Children


🌬️ THE AIR THEY DARE TO BLOCK

On the Mandatory Asthma Appointments They Must Honour, or Be Liable for Breach of Safeguarding and Breath

Filed by: SWANK London Ltd
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Date: 1 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/MEDICAL/ASTHMA-RISK/01
PDF Filename: 2025-07-01_Letter_MedicalAsthmaAppointmentsNotificationv1.pdf
Summary: A formal demand for respiratory compliance, directed to Westminster’s safeguarding machinery, naming the risk, the rights, and the appointments they dare not miss.

I. What Happened

In the aftermath of an unlawful child removal and amidst a crescendo of criminal referrals, a mother filed a simple letterto the local authority.

It was not a request.
It was a calendar-shaped liability trigger.

This letter, submitted on 1 July 2025, formally notified Westminster Children’s Services that each of the four children removed under the EPO of 23 June 2025 had pre-scheduled NHS asthma appointments — all of which remained legally and clinically mandatory.

Failure to attend would not just be negligent.
It would be documented medical harm.

II. What the Letter Establishes

This is not a logistical memo.
This is evidentiary pre-emption.

It establishes:

  • Legal notice of medical risk, grounded in confirmed asthma diagnoses

  • Parental authority and clinical rights under the Children Act 1989

  • Procedural warning against unauthorized cancellation or interference

  • Archival positioning for future accountability if harm occurs

  • A deadline — with date, case number, and SWANK signature

In short: this letter is what real safeguarding looks like.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because if Westminster dares to claim medical concern while ignoring scheduled appointments,
If they obstruct asthma care for children already harmed by sewage exposure,
If they pretend to protect while refusing to transport,
If they ignore respiratory calendars because the mother dared to sue —
Then they are not a public authority.

They are a procedural hazard with a badge.

This letter is logged because every cancelled breath will now be counted.

IV. Violations (If Ignored)

  • Children Act 1989, Section 17 & 22 – Duty to promote health and consult parental authority

  • Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination by failure to accommodate medical needs

  • ECHR, Article 8 – Interference with medical and family life

  • Safeguarding Standards – Risk of foreseeable medical neglect

  • Common Law Duty of Care – Clear breach through omission or obstruction

V. SWANK’s Position

You do not remove children under false pretense, ignore medical diagnoses, and then expect silence.
This document is not a scheduling aid — it is a pre-litigation artefact.

Let the record show:

The mother notified.
The calendar was served.
The liability was fixed.
And now, the air they breathe is legally protected.

⚖️ 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.

No comments:

Chromatic (Polly) v Westminster – On the Intellectual Miscalculation of Four Minor Citizens and Their Mother’s Legal Vocabulary


❖ Sorry, Westminster — My Children Are Too Smart for You

A Legal-Aesthetic Dispatch from the Mirror Court

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Filed Date: 17 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-PST-WESTSMART
Court File Name: 2025-07-17_SWANK_Post_WestminsterChildrenTooSmart.pdf
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Summary: My children were not raised to obey suppression. They were raised to question it.

I. What Happened

After forcibly removing my four U.S. citizen children under an Emergency Protection Order, Westminster Children’s Services imposed surveillance, suppression, and censorship — assuming they had captured four docile subjects. What they did not anticipate was that these children had been home educated to think, not to obey.

Regal (16) asks legal questions they cannot answer.
Prerogative (13) quotes his own rights aloud.
Kingdom (10) knows this is wrong.
Heir (8) looks around and wonders why the adults are behaving so poorly.

Westminster social workers may have assumed they were dealing with compliant children raised by a disoriented mother. What they found instead was a home of intellect, conviction, compassion, and reason — interrupted by bureaucracy too mediocre to understand it.

II. What This Post Establishes

This is not just about a policy disagreement. It is about misjudging brilliance as threat, and agency as disorder.
Westminster did not protect my children — they punished them for being confident, expressive, and curious. They have confused parental love with noncompliance, and confused legal structure with lawful authority. They mistake control for care.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the assumption that children must submit to arbitrary restrictions — and that mothers must stay silent — is the very foundation of every safeguarding failure we are now dismantling.

Because social workers who cannot answer questions invent control instead.

Because my children have rights, and they have the vocabulary to name them.

IV. Violations Documented

  • UNCRC Article 12: Failure to give weight to children’s views

  • Article 8 ECHR: Interference with family life

  • Article 2, Protocol 1 ECHR: Denial of meaningful education

  • Gillick Competence: Ignoring Romeo’s legal capacity to engage

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster, you are not failing because you lack power — you are failing because you underestimated mine. And worse, you underestimated my children.

They are more intelligent, aware, compassionate, and legally grounded than the structure you are attempting to contain them in.

Your mistake was thinking they would forget.
They won’t.
Neither will I.

Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Mother and Director, SWANK London Ltd
W2 6JL
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

⚖️ 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.
No comments: