⟡ On the Improper Management of Contact Framed as “Safeguarding” ⟡
Filed: 9 January 2026
Reference: SWANK / WESTMINSTER / WELFARE–EQUALITY–CONTACT
Download PDF: 2026-01-09_PC65339_01Core_Welfare_Stage2ComplaintSafeguardingDisabilityContactFailures.pdf
Summary: A formal Stage 2 complaint documenting safeguarding failures, disability discrimination, and unsuitable contact arrangements arising from supervised contact practice.
I. What Happened
On 9 January 2026, Polly Chromatic formally escalated a complaint to Stage 2 under the Local Authority complaints procedure, following unresolved concerns regarding supervised contact arrangements.
The complaint arose after:
a contact session on 31 December 2025,
a managerial response that failed to address safeguarding or equality duties,
and the continuation of arrangements producing visible emotional distress to the children and physical harm to a disabled parent.
The contact arrangements relied upon by Westminster Children’s Services, and delivered through HOPE Contact Centre, remained unchanged despite these outcomes.
II. What the Document Establishes
This document establishes, on the Local Authority’s own record:
Repeated emotional distress to children during rushed, disorganised contact endings
Failure to make reasonable adjustments for a known respiratory disability, resulting in a foreseeable asthma attack
Inappropriate reframing of disability impact as “parental choice” rather than Equality Act duty
Boundary failures, including personal medical commentary by contact staff
Continued reliance on contact arrangements producing harm, without review or modification
The record is contemporaneous, unedited, and procedural.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
SWANK logged this entry because it demonstrates a recurring institutional pattern:
“Safeguarding” invoked while welfare outcomes deteriorate
Equality duties acknowledged in principle and ignored in practice
Oversight substituted with deflection
Harm reframed as behaviour
This entry functions as:
evidentiary record,
pattern confirmation,
and policy failure exemplar.
IV. Applicable Standards & Violations
Equality Act 2010 — failure to make reasonable adjustments; discriminatory practice
Children Act 1989 — welfare principle undermined by contact-related harm
Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149) — unmet
Safeguarding standards for supervised contact — compromised by staff anxiety, rushed transitions, and unmanaged adult stress
Where supervised contact becomes a source of harm, proportionality requires review. No such review occurred.
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not parental non-compliance.
This is institutional insistence on arrangements that demonstrably fail.
Accordingly:
We do not accept the reframing of disability impact as “choice.”
We reject the normalisation of children’s distress as incidental.
We will document every instance where “support” produces harm and is allowed to continue unexamined.
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.