⟡ SECTION 10 POSITION STATEMENT – CHILD ARRANGEMENTS ⟡
Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/CENTRALFAMILYCOURT/SECTION10-CHILD-ARRANGEMENTS
Download PDF: 2025-06-26_Core_PC-149_CFC_Section10PositionStatementChildArrangements.pdf
Summary: A formal Position Statement submitted under Section 10 of the Children Act 1989, establishing the lawful eligibility of multiple applicants — mother, father, grandmother, and carer — to apply for residence and contact orders concerning four U.S. citizen children wrongfully removed from their lawful home.
I. What Happened
Following the Emergency Protection Order of 23 June 2025, the mother filed a C100 Application (24 June 2025) supported by C2 applications for permission to apply by additional parties.
On 26 June 2025, this Position Statement was formally sent to the Central Family Court (addressed to the Family Division, RCJ, and multiple oversight recipients including the U.S. Embassy, CAFCASS, Social Work England, and Westminster Legal Services) to clarify jurisdictional and eligibility matters.
It asserted the children’s right to family continuity and the eligibility of the following applicants under Section 10(4)(b), (9), and (10) of the Children Act 1989:
Polly Chromatic (the mother and lawful primary carer)
The father – a dual citizen of the U.K. and Turks & Caicos Islands
The maternal grandmother – a U.S. citizen domiciled in Illinois, USA
Krystyna – a trusted U.K.-based adult with an established caregiving relationship
Each applicant was presented as a lawful, welfare-based alternative to the ongoing misuse of public care powers.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That the mother retains automatic parental responsibility and a lawful right to seek contact and residence orders.
• That the father, though resident abroad, holds shared parental authority and supports reunification.
• That the grandmother and carer are eligible for permission to apply under Section 10(9), given the strength and continuity of their relationships.
• That Westminster’s current restrictions obstruct lawful family participation and violate welfare principles.
• That the Family Court now possesses a complete jurisdictional map of eligible relatives and carers under domestic and international law.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To preserve the jurisdictional integrity of the children’s family network.
• To demonstrate that Westminster’s “lack of viable carers” narrative is procedurally fraudulent.
• To affirm that family reconstruction is not a request — it is a right.
• Because the law itself recognises what bureaucracy refuses: that family is not optional.
IV. Applicable Law & Authorities
• Children Act 1989, s.10(4)(b), (9), (10) – eligibility and permission to apply clarified.
• Family Procedure Rules, Part 12 – procedural entitlement for contact and residence applications.
• Article 8 ECHR – right to family life and ongoing parental relationship.
• UNCRC Articles 7, 8, 9, 18 – family unity and respect for parental responsibility.
• Bromley Family Law (15th ed.) – affirms judicial preference for placement within family networks.
• Amos Human Rights Law (2nd ed.) – state interference in familial continuity constitutes rights abuse.
V. Judicial Request
The statement requested:
Formal confirmation that all four applicants be added to the case record.
That permission be granted for non-parental applicants.
That an urgent directions hearing be scheduled to address immediate contact and reunification.
That all correspondence henceforth be directed to the mother as litigant in person, via her registered service address:
Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2
Email: director@swanklondon.com
VI. SWANK’s Position
“Eligibility is not charity.
It is competence meeting law.”
SWANK asserts that this Position Statement constitutes the first formal act of jurisdictional reclamation following Westminster’s unlawful seizure of the children.
It translates personal authority into procedural authority — converting the family network into an organised legal architecture.
The State’s fiction of isolation is hereby replaced with fact: the family exists, and it is lawful.
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because eligibility deserves eloquence.
And family deserves record.