🪞 SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
They Called It Voluntary
The Section 20 Illusion and the Legal Fiction of Parental Consent
—
📌 Filed by: Polly Chromatic – Director, SWANK London Ltd.
📅 Filed date: 13 July 2025
🗂 Reference Code: SWANK-A12-S20MISUSE
📄 Court File Name: 2025-07-13_Addendum_S20Misuse_ConsentObstructed
📝 One-Line Summary:
When accommodation is no longer lawful, but merely performed.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, Westminster Children’s Services removed Polly Chromatic’s four American children. Not through lawful court process — but through the camouflage of Section 20 accommodation. The problem? No one asked her permission. And when she objected, they ignored it.
This was not accommodation. It was orchestrated disappearance.
The textbook — Bromley’s Family Law, p. 638 — says it plainly:
No accommodation is lawful if a parent with PR objects.
That parent may remove the child at any time.
Polly objected.
Polly tried to remove them.
They were taken anyway.
And all of it was arranged via backroom solicitor communication — no notice, no service, no transparency. This was not safeguarding. It was narrative engineering.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
This post documents a systematic obstruction of lawful rights under Section 20(7) and 20(8), including:
❌ Failure to obtain lawful consent for accommodation
❌ Prevention of consent withdrawal, despite clear PR
❌ False presentation of voluntary process
❌ Exclusion of Romeo’s age-based autonomy (16 years old)
❌ Exploitation of hospitalisation and disability to stage exclusion
The result? An Interim Care Order procured without service, on the false foundation of a withdrawn cooperation that never legally existed.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the law is clear — and was ignored.
Because Section 20 does not permit the quiet override of parental status.
Because Baroness Hale has stated, again and again, that true consent must be informed, uncoerced, and revocable — or it is meaningless.
And because this was not just a breach of statute. It was a bureaucratic farce disguised as lawful family intervention.
Polly Chromatic was not just excluded from the process. She was strategically erased from it — through procedural illusion and institutional choreography.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, s.20(1)(c), s.20(7), s.20(8) – Consent not obtained, objections ignored
ECHR Article 8 – Right to family life infringed without necessity or law
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 5, 9, 12 – Parental involvement and child wishes ignored
Equality Act 2010 – Use of parental disability to justify removal or sidestep procedural obligations
V. SWANK’s Position
We reject Westminster’s presentation of this removal as voluntary.
We reject the scripted cooperation narrative built upon silencing, erasure, and unlawfully obtained accommodation.
We reject the continued performance of safeguarding authority where no authority was lawfully executed.
This entry is formally filed into the SWANK Evidentiary Archive — not only as a record of what occurred, but as a refutation of the fiction that parental consent was ever requested, respected, or lawfully overridden.
⚖️ 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.