πΆ️ State of Delusion v Sunglasses & Saturation
A Sovereign Mother Accused of Intoxication While Suffocating — And Wearing Prescription Glasses in the Sun
Filed Date: 29 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-POST-0729-VISION
Court File Name: 2025-07-29_Addendum_SunglassesUse_MedicalAccommodation.pdf
Summary: Westminster safeguarding authorities mistook steroid-induced hypoxia and prescription eyewear for signs of parental risk.
I. What Happened
On 2 November 2023, I presented to a London A&E department with severe respiratory distress, later confirmed by hospital record to involve oxygen saturation of just 44% — a near-lethal level that typically results in immediate oxygen therapy and ICU monitoring.
Instead, I was accused of being intoxicated.
No blood test.
No breathalyser.
No toxicology screen.
No CCTV review.
No investigation of clinical cause.
Just an assertion — and one so powerful it was recycled into social work lore, formal safeguarding referrals, and ultimately, used to justify the state abduction of my four children.
To be clear:
I was dying.
They said I was drunk.
II. What They Did Next
After accusing me of intoxication without evidence, they proceeded to escalate suspicion based on another item of grave concern: sunglasses.
My sunglasses are:
Prescription lenses correcting farsightedness
Polarised to reduce visual strain
Necessary due to prednisone-induced photosensitivity — a common side effect of corticosteroids used to manage severe eosinophilic asthma
I’ve had this diagnosis since 1981.
In safeguarding records, the sunglasses were presented not as medical — but as mysterious, obscuring, possibly concealing.
Thus, a visually impaired mother on steroid treatment became a “risk factor” — not because of what I did, but because of what I wore.
III. What the Complaint Establishes
This post is not about fashion.
It is about epistemic collapse in UK safeguarding culture — a system that pathologises health management while refusing to correct its own institutional misdiagnoses.
This post establishes:
That clinical inaccuracy was given more weight than medical data
That my oxygen-starved body was criminalised instead of treated
That visual aids were rebranded as behavioural red flags
That safeguarding has become an interpretive art form, governed by bias, optics, and speculation
IV. Why SWANK Logged It
Because I am not a metaphor.
Because I am not an allegation.
Because I was not intoxicated — I was suffocating.
Because my vision aid is not a risk; it is the thing that lets me see through theirs.
Because my children were taken on the basis of disproven medical claims and narrative embellishments dressed up as safeguarding logic.
Because clinical misreading is not child protection — it is administrative hallucination with legal consequences.
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not “concern.” This is medical defamation rubber-stamped by bureaucracy.
When a mother with 44% oxygen is labelled intoxicated
And her prescription sunglasses are used as a tool of suspicion
We are not in the realm of child protection —
We are in the realm of poetic malpractice.
Let the record show:
I wore sunglasses because I was medicated.
I was medicated because I was ill.
I was accused because they were wrong — and I knew it.
⚖️ 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.