⟡ A Contact Session Silenced by Unnamed Risk ⟡
Or, When the State Interrupted a Mother for Asking Why
Metadata
Filed: 4 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/CONTACT/SILENCE/RISK
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Filed from: W2 6JL
Court File Name:2025-07-04_ZC25C50281_Contact_Interruption_Refusal_to_Disclose_Risk_Urgent_Clarification.pdf
I. What Happened
On 4 July 2025 at 3PM, during a supervised video call with her four children, Polly Chromatic asked a simple and lawful question:
“Do you understand why this is happening?”
Before the children could answer, Sam Brown interrupted the session and declared the question off-limits.
This occurred:
In front of the children
Without legal basis
Despite the fact that no explanation had ever been provided for the children's emergency removal
That evening, the Claimant sent an urgent letter demanding:
The legal justification for the contact interruption
A full list of medical, dental, educational, and administrative decisions made without parental consent
A written account of the alleged “risk” that justified removal
II. Why It’s Legally and Morally Indefensible
Since 23 June 2025, the Claimant has:
Received no written grounds for the Emergency Protection Order
Been denied participation in educational and medical decisions
Been routinely silenced under the guise of procedure
Now, even during contact, she is forbidden to ask why her children were taken — under threat of the call being terminated.
This is not safeguarding.
This is state-orchestrated gagging.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when a mother cannot ask her children why they are separated,
when no risk is explained,
and when basic inquiries are met with supervisory censorship —
then safeguarding is no longer about safety. It is about power.
Because silence is not neutral. It is a policy.
Because Westminster cannot:
Remove four disabled children
Cancel their asthma care
Enroll them in school
Restrict their family
And then interrupt the one person still asking questions
without that silence being noted, archived, and weaponised in return.
IV. SWANK’s Position
SWANK London Ltd. formally classifies this contact session as:
Procedurally censored
Legally ungrounded
And symbolic of the Local Authority’s larger pattern of retaliatory interference
The refusal to disclose any risk while simultaneously gagging the parent is a strategic contradiction.
It is not poor communication. It is institutional theatre.
We log this as part of a long-standing record of:
Unjustified safeguarding
Obstructive supervision
And the unlawful orchestration of emotional deprivation in procedural wrapping
This was not a contact session.
It was a rehearsed deprivation with state actors in soft lighting.