⟡ Urgent Request for Contact, Medical Access & Personal Devices – Case ZCXXXXXX ⟡
Chromatic v. The Bureaucracy That Forgot the Children Had Lungs [2025] SWANK 37 — “You took the children. You do not get to take the inhalers too.”
Filed: 1 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/ZCXXXXXXXX/EMERGENCY-DELIVERY
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-01_ZCXXXXXXXX_Urgent_Request_Contact_Medication_Delivery_Personal_Devices.pdf
Formal request for immediate contact, asthma medication access, and return of essential personal devices post-EPO.
I. What Happened
On 1 July 2025, Polly Chromatic issued an urgent formal request to Westminster Children’s Services, seeking immediate arrangements for:
Direct video or phone contact with her four children
Delivery of essential asthma medications and medical supplies
Retrieval of the children’s personal devices — including iPads and iPhones — to restore communication, learning, and emotional stability
This request followed the Emergency Protection Order of 23 June and documented rising concern over medical noncompliance and severance of child-parent communication. A neutral third party was requested to facilitate the arrangements due to the known triggering nature of continued contact with named officers.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Children with chronic medical needs were removed with no continuity-of-care plan in place
Emotional contact has been obstructed without lawful justification or proportionality
Basic therapeutic tools (devices, photos, comfort items) have been withheld
Requests have been procedurally delayed while the children’s psychological and respiratory stability worsens
Professionals continue to insert themselves into mediation despite documented psychiatric objections
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because in 2025, children should not have to wait three working days for a rescue inhaler.
Because institutional pride is not a sufficient reason to obstruct maternal contact.
Because iPads are not luxury items — they are neurological stabilisers in digital form.
Because children are not safer without their medication, without their mother, and without a phone.
And because the inhalers, the calls, and the devices are not accessories — they are safeguards you confiscated.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, §§22, 34 – Obligation to safeguard medical continuity and facilitate contact
Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 8 – Right to maintain family connection and health-related access
Equality Act 2010, §20 – Failure to accommodate parental disability in procedural design
NICE Guidelines (NG80, NG26) – Neglect of emergency asthma protocols in children under care
UNCRC, Articles 9, 24 – Denial of contact and healthcare continuity for minors under state protection
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t just removal. It was de-equipping children of survival tools.
We do not accept a care framework that cancels asthma care without consultation.
We do not accept state custody becoming a black box of silence and lost belongings.
We do not accept contact that must be begged for in triplicate.
The medication is overdue. The contact is overdue. The decency is long expired.
SWANK has filed. Westminster has three days. After that, the archive escalates.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. 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. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 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.