"You Can't Remove Children Without Saying Why"
A Third Formal Request for a Threshold That Still Doesn’t Exist
Filed Date: 3 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/ICO/THRESHOLD-REQUEST
Court Filename: 2025-07-03_Letter_Westminster_ICOThresholdDisclosureRequest
One-line Summary: Westminster was again asked to provide the statutory threshold for removing U.S. children—and again, did not reply.
I. What Happened
On 3 July 2025, SWANK London Ltd. issued its third formal letter to Westminster Children’s Services, demanding disclosure of the statutory threshold allegedly relied upon to justify the Interim Care Order (ICO) issued on 23 June 2025.
Addressed to Kirsty Hornal, Sam Brown, Sarah Newman, and Westminster Legal Services, the letter repeats a simple, lawful query: What is the legal basis for taking the children?
This follows two previous ignored requests dated 20 April and 27 June 2025. No statutory citation, no supporting documentation, and no lawful explanation has ever been provided. Not even the basic Section 38 threshold under the Children Act 1989 has been identified.
Meanwhile, the children remain separated from their mother. The local authority remains silent. And the silence has been deafening.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Westminster has unlawfully withheld the legal rationale for a severe state intervention, despite three written requests.
That the procedural burden has been inverted: the parent must chase the authority for the justification of its own actions.
That this conduct, in context, appears not just negligent—but strategically evasive.
That institutional retaliation is disguised as safeguarding, and papered over with non-response.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because removing four American children without stating the threshold is not "intervention"—it is seizure without process.
Because this was not a formality—it was a statutory demand. And Westminster's refusal to answer reveals everything about the fragility of their position.
Because legal thresholds are not optional. They are not administrative flair. They are the only thing separating a lawful order from an unlawful act.
And because every unanswered letter becomes its own kind of evidence.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 38 – Threshold for Interim Care Orders
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Right to a Fair Trial
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to make disability-related communication adjustments
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Article 9 (Separation from Parents)
Family Procedure Rules 2010 – Duty to disclose legal basis and grounds
V. SWANK’s Position
Westminster has made a choice: to act without explanation, to enforce without authority, and to retreat behind silence when questioned. That is not safeguarding. It is institutional misconduct in procedural drag.
This letter is the third—and final—courtesy request. What comes next will not be a letter. It will be judicial escalation, regulatory submission, and evidentiary publication.
And yes, it will be archived. Publicly. Indelibly. Professionally.
⟡ 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 retaliation deserves an archive. © 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.