“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 Public Law Abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Law Abuse. Show all posts

In re Fabricated Compliance: On the Misuse of Section 20 Where the Parent Had Not Consented and the Law Had Not Been Followed


🪞SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

They Called It Voluntary – I Called It Coercion

The Myth of Agreement: How Section 20 Was Falsely Invoked to Justify State Overreach in the Case of a Disabled Mother Who Explicitly Refused Cooperation

Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Filed date: 13 July 2025
Reference code: SWANK-A37-S20FALSECONSENT
Court File Name: 2025-07-13_Addendum_S20FalseConsent_PlainMisuse
Summary: Bromley’s textbook confirms what Westminster ignored: no written agreement, no parental incapacity, no lawful threshold. Just fabricated compliance.

I. What Happened

On multiple occasions, Polly Chromatic made it abundantly clear that she would not cooperate with Westminster Children’s Services due to ongoing institutional harm — including environmental illness, procedural abuse, and retaliatory false referrals. Despite this, Westminster proceeded to remove her four children, claiming implied agreement under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989.

There was no such agreement.
There was no consent — written or verbal.
There was no abandonment.

There was full parental responsibility, full-time care, and a very clear written refusal to cooperate, which was ignored. Worse still, Polly’s solicitor was used to convey the illusion of consent to the court — an act of procedural sabotage masquerading as advocacy.

II. What the Legal Precedent Actually Says

Citing Bromley’s Family Law (p. 640):

“Section 20 does not give local authorities parental responsibility.”
“Voluntary accommodation must be based on written agreement, informed consent, and lawful information sharing.”
It is only appropriate where:
– No one holds parental responsibility
– The child has been abandoned
– Or the parent lacks capacity due to a diagnosable issue

None of these applied.
Polly was:

  • Present

  • Caring

  • Documenting

  • Litigating

She explicitly refused. There was no ambiguity. Only defiance — by the state, not the parent.

And as the Supreme Court confirmed in Williams v Hackney LBC [2018] UKSC 37:

“Parental agreement must be real and voluntary. The local authority has no power to provide accommodation if a parent with parental responsibility objects.”

In Coventry City Council v C [2013], the court ruled:

“The absence of proper explanation or clarity vitiates consent.”

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this was not a misunderstanding — it was a coordinated bypass of lawful scrutiny.

Westminster fabricated parental compliance and used it to bypass the procedural thresholds that would have revealed the illegitimacy of their intervention. This textbook page alone invalidates every narrative Westminster has offered.

Polly’s solicitor was co-opted.
Polly’s objections were ignored.
The court was misled.

This is not safeguarding — it is statutorily enabled removal theatre.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989

    • s.20(1)(c): No legal threshold

    • s.20(7): Parental objection ignored

    • s.20(8): Removal without consent

  • Equality Act 2010 – Disability used to discredit procedural entitlement

  • Article 8, ECHR – Family life interfered with via procedural collusion

  • Article 6, ECHR – Right to fair process breached by solicitor-state coordination

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) – Articles 5, 9, 12 violated

  • Williams v Hackney LBC [2018] UKSC 37 – Parental consent must be real

  • Coventry City Council v C [2013] – Misrepresentation voids accommodation

V. SWANK’s Position

This entry stands as a formal record that:

  • No Section 20 agreement was made

  • No consent was ever given

  • No lawful accommodation occurred

What occurred was collusion.
What occurred was manipulation.
What occurred was the systematic abuse of legislative language.

And the precedent is not only clear — Polly Chromatic emailed it to them in advance.

They ignored the law.
They ignored the objections.
They ignored everything — except their narrative.

⚖️ 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: