🪞Filed by Four Voices and One Mother Who Refused to Be Silenced
Filed Date: 22 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-C2-JOINDER-ALL
PDF Filename: 2025-07-22_SWANK_Addendum_ChildrenAsParties_ProceduralJoinder.pdf
1-Line Summary: All four children have formally joined proceedings — and the Local Authority can no longer ignore their voices.
I. What Happened
After weeks of restricted contact, communication blockades, and institutional stonewalling, all four children of Polly Chromatic — Romeo, Prince, King, and Honor — have now submitted C2 applications to the Central Family Court. Each application demands procedural recognition and directly challenges the prevailing narrative of passive childhood.
Each child’s filing includes:
A written Position Statement
A formal rejection of solicitor imposition
A procedural intermediary confirmation via SWANK London Ltd.
A joint addendum against unjust sibling separation
This is what it looks like when children lawfully rebel.
II. What the Filing Establishes
That children are not ornamental case subjects — they are parties with rights
That Romeo (16) and Prince (13) are competent and assertive
That King (10) and Honor (8) have formed articulate views, already in writing
That the Local Authority's attempts to obscure, erase, or substitute their voices are legally unsustainable
This is not an application for kindness.
It is a demand for procedural compliance.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the system that silences children under the guise of “concern” must be named and filed against.
Because the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Human Rights Act, and domestic welfare law all say the same thing:
A child who is capable of forming views has the right to express those views freely — and be heard.
Because this is what it looks like when children file back.
IV. Violations
🚫 Article 12 UNCRC – obstruction of procedural participation
🚫 Article 8 ECHR – interference with family life and private voice
🚫 Children Act 1989, s.1(3) – failure to consider children’s wishes and feelings
🚫 Procedural interference – attempting to impose solicitors against express will
🚫 Institutional gaslighting – painting lawful resistance as parental influence
These are not errors.
They are tactics. And they have now been formally resisted.
V. SWANK’s Position
We are not asking to be included.
We have joined.
We are not appealing to benevolence.
We are invoking law.
We are not grateful for procedural table scraps.
We are demanding the entire mechanism of fairness.
The children are not confused.
The system is.
Filed to the Mirror Court — a ceremonial order of annotated vengeance and procedural velvet.
✒️ Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
📍 Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
⚖️ 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.