“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 Parenting Contact. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parenting Contact. Show all posts

Re: Westminster Children’s Services — In the Matter of Phantom Facilitation and the Mismanagement of Parental Contact


⟡ ADDENDUM: On Contact Scheduling and Parental Communication ⟡

“Phantom Facilitation: When Contact Becomes a Burden Shifted onto Parents and Children”

Filed: 15 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/ADDENDUM-ALAIN-001
Download PDF: 2025-09-15_Addendum_Alain001.pdf
Summary: Addendum recording Westminster’s failure to structure lawful, international contact, displacing professional duties onto parents and destabilising children.

I. What Happened

• 15 Sept 2025: The Director and the children’s father exchanged WhatsApp messages on contact scheduling.
• The Director requested transparency: father to forward any Local Authority contact messages. He agreed: “Ok I heard u.”
• Father forwarded messages about proposed Tuesday midday sessions (Eastern Time) — unworkable given time zone differences.
• He then added: “Hey am not mad at u !!! U always do what u want!!!” — an emotional deflection undermining problem-solving.

II. What the Addendum Establishes

• Scheduling Difficulties — Local Authority provided impractical, unclear arrangements.
• Communication Strain — father’s frustration reveals how institutional failures cascade into parental conflict.
• Lack of Professional Structure — coordination improperly shifted onto parents.
• Impact on Children — unstructured, erratic arrangements destabilise welfare, routine, and education.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• Legal relevance: failure to structure contact breaches statutory and human rights duties.
• Oversight value: shows phantom facilitation where responsibility is displaced.
• Policy precedent: illustrates dangers of leaving parents to manage contact without professional structure.
• Historical preservation: records emotional fallout created by administrative negligence.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

Domestic Law
• Children Act 1989, Sections 1, 22(3A), 34 — welfare, education, and contact duties breached.
• Children Act 2004, Section 11 — safeguarding obligations neglected.

Human Rights
• Article 6 ECHR — procedural fairness undermined by unclear, shifting arrangements.
• Article 8 ECHR — family life interfered with through unstable contact.
• Article 14 ECHR — discrimination by ignoring international time realities for U.S. citizen children and father.
• Article 3 ECHR — degrading instability imposed on children.
• UNCRC Articles 9, 12, 18 — rights to parental contact, voice, and State support violated.

Academic & Oversight Authority
• Bromley’s Family Law — contact is a child’s right, not parental concession.
• Bromley on cooperation — State duty to facilitate, not obstruct.
• Ofsted fostering standards — contact must be prioritised and supported.
• SWE Standards & Working Together (2018) — integrity and evidence-based practice absent.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not facilitation.
This is obstruction disguised as coordination.

We do not accept phantom facilitation.
We reject burden-shifting onto parents as lawful safeguarding.
We will document the instability created when Westminster abandons structure.

⟡ 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 evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Unlicensed reproduction will be cited as panic, not authorship.

⚖️ 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: