⟡ When You Report International Child Seizure and the U.S. Government Sends You a Travel Blog ⟡
Or, Why American Bureaucracy May Be the Last Form of Imperialism Left Unchallenged
Metadata
Filed: 4 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/STATEDEPT/CI/AUTOREPLY
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Filed from: W2 6JL
Court File Name:2025-07-04_ZC25C50281_Auto_Reply_CI_Office_US_Consulate.pdf
I. What Happened
On 4 July 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an urgent notice to the Office of Children’s Issues — the U.S. State Department’s designated body for handling international parental child abduction and citizen protection.
She advised that:
Four disabled U.S. citizen children were seized in the United Kingdom without medical oversight
That the seizure was not lawfully notified to their American father
That consular protection, notification, and formal remedy were being actively obstructed
The reply?
“Thank you for contacting us. This account is no longer monitored.”
Followed by a dazzling array of hyperlinks, redirect forms, and information on how to take your friend’s child on a cruise.
II. What It Really Said
This auto-response, while dense with departmental formality, contained the following translations:
“We won’t read your email.”
“Your emergency has been outsourced to hyperlinks.”
“We’re not monitoring this inbox because your child protection crisis doesn’t align with our calendar.”
“Try calling a hotline. If you’re in danger, please hold.”
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this wasn’t just negligence.
It was the diplomatic ghosting of a civil rights emergency.
Because the U.S. State Department has an obligation to its citizens, especially children removed from lawful parental care abroad.
Because the response:
Acknowledged no urgency
Assigned no case number
And offered literature, not protection
Because, quite frankly, if this had involved four white children in France, we do not believe the response would have been a travel consent template.
IV. SWANK’s Position
SWANK London Ltd. classifies this interaction as:
A failure of American consular protection
A refusal to intervene in the face of blatant safeguarding misuse
And an act of administrative abandonment via template
We now hold the U.S. Department of State jointly responsible for the delay in diplomatic intervention, and shall include this in future filings to both:
The U.S. Embassy in London
And the Office of the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues
This isn’t just bureaucracy.
This is a spreadsheet response to a seizure.