Threshold? I Hardly Think So.
A Polite Reminder That Emergency State Intervention Requires a Legal Basis
Filed Date: 3 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/ICO/0703-THRESHOLD-REQUEST
Court Filename: 2025-07-03_UrgentRequest_StatutoryThresholdDisclosure
One-line Summary: Formal demand for the statutory threshold used to justify the 23 June Interim Care Order—still unanswered.
I. What Happened
On 3 July 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal letter to Westminster Children’s Services, reminding them—again—that it is unlawful to remove children without establishing and disclosing the statutory threshold required under Section 38 of the Children Act 1989.
This letter was not the first request. It followed two previous communications (dated 20 April and 27 June 2025), both of which were conveniently ignored. The most recent letter demanded a written reply by 10 July 2025 outlining:
The exact threshold being claimed.
The evidence allegedly supporting that threshold.
The internal assessments or legal reasoning being relied upon.
Still—no answer. No threshold. No disclosure. No explanation. Just removal, silence, and continued procedural opacity.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Westminster obtained and maintained an Interim Care Order on 23 June 2025 without ever disclosing the basis for it.
That the parent is being denied the ability to respond meaningfully, in violation of procedural fairness.
That prior written requests for clarity were ignored, placing Westminster in direct breach of their own statutory duties.
That this omission is not accidental—it is now part of a documented pattern of retaliatory procedural evasion.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because it is not sufficient for public authorities to invoke ‘concern’ and claim emergency power without naming what, precisely, the concern is—or who authorised it—and how it meets legal tests.
Because removing four U.S. citizen children without disclosing the statutory threshold defies both British and international law, and because this silence serves a convenient purpose: to circumvent scrutiny while presenting an illusion of compliance.
Because when a litigant asks for the legal basis of their children’s removal and receives nothing, SWANK London Ltd. files it. Publicly. Repeatedly. And without deletion.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 38 – Threshold Criteria
Family Procedure Rules 2010 – Duty of Disclosure
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (Right to Fair Trial)
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Articles 3 and 9
Administrative Law – Breach of Procedural Legitimate Expectation
V. SWANK’s Position
If you remove someone’s children, you’d better have a legal reason. And you’d better say what it is. That is not only a matter of due process, it is the entire moral premise of the Family Court.
SWANK London Ltd. has now requested this information three times. Should Westminster fail again, the absence of lawful justification will be taken as confirmation that none exists—and filed accordingly.
Silence will not save you.
Would you like a PDF version of this snobby post to upload to SWANK?⟡ 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.