“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 Re G [2003]). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Re G [2003]). Show all posts

Chromatic v Westminster (Absence of Theory of Mind; Projection; Procedural Unsafety; Welfare Principle Breach)


ADDENDUM: ABSENCE OF THEORY OF MIND IN SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

A Mirror Court Indictment of Projection, Bias, and Procedural Collapse

Metadata

  • Filed: 2 September 2025

  • Reference Code: SWANK–HORNAL–THEORYOFMIND

  • PDF Filename: 2025-09-02_SWANK_Addendum_Hornal_TheoryOfMind.pdf

  • Summary (1 line): Hornal’s inability to recognise others’ perspectives corrupted safeguarding with projection and bias.

I. What Happened

Kirsty Hornal conducted safeguarding not as a professional but as a projector: parental actions reinterpreted without context, children’s voices disregarded if they conflicted with her script, cultural and medical contexts erased, every interaction reframed as confirmatory of her pre-existing assumptions.

This was not safeguarding; it was narrative theatre in which only one perspective — her own — was permitted to exist.

II. What the Addendum Establishes

Projection Masquerading as Assessment
Parental conduct distorted by subjective presumption.

Silencing of Children
Children’s perspectives excluded whenever they conflicted with her narrative.

Context Erasure
Medical conditions, homeschooling structures, and cultural realities disregarded.

Bias Codified as Evidence
Pre-existing assumptions recycled as conclusions.

III. Consequences

  • Misrepresentation of parental behaviour.

  • Neglect of children’s needs and wishes.

  • Welfare principle inverted; s.1 Children Act 1989 ignored.

  • Safeguarding record corrupted into a mirror of one individual’s bias.

IV. Legal and Doctrinal Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – s.1 welfare principle; s.22(4) duty to ascertain wishes and feelings.

  • Equality Act 2010, s.149 – Public Sector Equality Duty breached.

  • Working Together to Safeguard Children (2023) – trauma-informed, child-centred duty abandoned.

  • Social Work England Professional Standards – independence, empathy, and evidence-based practice disregarded.

  • ECHR – Article 6 fair trial, Article 8 family life infringed.

  • UNCRC – Article 12 child’s right to be heard; Article 3 best interests of the child ignored.

Case Law Ignored:

  • Re W (2010) – children must be given opportunity to be heard.

  • Re B-S (2013) – proportionality and evidence-based practice required.

  • Re G (2003) – fairness demands impartial process.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding. It is projection institutionalised: one social worker’s inability to take perspective elevated above law, welfare, and rights. The absence of theory of mind in Hornal’s practice is not a minor flaw — it is a systemic disqualification from child welfare work.

Closing Declaration

The Mirror Court declares: where theory of mind was absent, law was inverted. Perspectives erased, voices silenced, welfare abandoned. Hornal substituted her projections for evidence, and Westminster complied. This collapse is hereby archived as bias enthroned.

Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
Mother and Litigant in Person

⚖️ 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: