⟡ “They Took Them Together. Then They Tore Them Apart. I Filed to Stop the Splitting — But the Court Asked What I Was Trying to Say.” ⟡
This Wasn’t an Addendum. It Was a Protective Command — Filed While the State Was Still Pretending It Didn’t Understand.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/HIGHCOURT/ADDENDUM-NONSEPARATION-CHILDRETURN
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Addendum_JR_NonSeparationRequest.pdf
Formal addendum to an emergency Judicial Review submission requesting immediate direction from the Administrative Court to prevent the separation of four disabled U.S. citizen siblings after unlawful removal by Westminster.
I. What Happened
At 01:20 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic filed an urgent addendum to her Judicial Review and Emergency Reinstatement claim, entitled:
“Request to Prevent Sibling Separation.”
The document was sent to the Administrative Court and cc'ed to her archive and Embassy monitors. It requested:
Formal inclusion of the addendum into the emergency Judicial Review
Judicial direction preventing the separation of the four siblings
Acknowledgement that such separation constitutes unnecessary harm
At 16:43 the same day, the Administrative Court responded by claiming the content was unclear and suggesting the parent contact Citizens Advice.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The court was properly notified of the request to prevent harm to U.S. citizen minors
The addendum clearly identified the legal breach, named the children, and cited medical and emotional harm
The court’s reply ignored the urgency and failed to engage with the content
A disability-aware, time-sensitive submission was treated as a bureaucratic oddity
The parent was told to contact general advisers, despite already filing under emergency protocols
This wasn’t confusion. It was avoidance performed in email form.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because you don’t need a law degree to know that siblings belong together.
Because asking the court to stop irreversible emotional harm is not “unclear” — it’s jurisdictional triage.
Because legal suppression doesn’t require refusal — just professional indifference.
Because children torn apart without medical or safeguarding basis are not in care — they’re in evidence.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 22C – Duty to keep siblings together
UNCRC Article 9 – State must not separate children from family or each other without necessity
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Family life breached through enforced sibling separation
UNCRPD Article 7 – Failure to protect disabled children from discriminatory treatment
Public Law Outline – Ignored procedural standards during removal and placement
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t an application error. It was a jurisdictional cry for dignity — misrouted by procedural deflection.
This wasn’t too vague. It was too direct — and they didn’t want to answer.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was fragmentation disguised as legal routine.
SWANK hereby logs this addendum and response as a case study in court-acknowledged inaction.
They were taken as a unit.
They were split in silence.
And the archive wrote down what the court refused to read.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
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.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And fragmentation deserves jurisdiction.
© 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.