⟡ Formal Objection to Unsafe Contact Conditions and Medical Endangerment ⟡
Chromatic v. Conditional Contact & Coercive Gatekeeping [2025] SWANK 33 — “My trauma is not your administration.”
Filed: 2 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CONTACT-DISCRIMINATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-02_ZCXXXXXX_Objection_Unsafe_Contact_Conditions.pdf
Objection to Westminster’s coercive conditions on parent–child contact; psychiatric evidence and safeguarding failures cited.
Court Labels:
Case ZCXXXXXX, Contact Obstruction, Disability Discrimination, Medical Negligence, Hammersmith Hospital, Psychiatric Triggering, Trauma-Informed Care, SWANK Correspondence Archive
Search Description:
Polly Chromatic objects to unsafe, discriminatory contact terms; demands trauma-informed access and removal of known triggers.
I. What Happened
On 2 July 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal objection to Westminster Children’s Services regarding their insistence that in-person contact with her children be made conditional on attending a planning meeting with officers Samuel Brown and Kirsty Hornal. This demand ignored prior disclosure of psychiatric trauma directly linked to both individuals.
Despite the submission of a psychiatric evaluation (Dr. Irfan Rafiq, 26 Nov 2024) documenting acute disability responses to coercive dynamics, Westminster continued to frame parental access around direct verbal contact with the very agents responsible for the children’s removal. Additionally, Westminster unilaterally cancelled asthma care for the children without consulting their mother — despite known diagnoses and distress.
The objection demands trauma-informed alternatives and full withdrawal of the triggering agents from direct contact — not as a courtesy, but as a legal necessity under the Equality Act.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Contact is being weaponised through coercive gatekeeping.
Medical and psychiatric evidence has been ignored in favour of bureaucratic control.
Parental access is being conditioned on exposure to clinically recognised triggers.
Children’s ongoing medical needs (asthma) have been actively endangered.
There is a pattern of disability-based discrimination masquerading as professional procedure.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because procedural compliance that endangers health is not lawful. It is pathological.
Because conditioning access on trauma exposure isn’t logistics — it’s cruelty with stationery.
Because removing children, cancelling their medical appointments, and then demanding face-to-face interactions with no disclosure is not child welfare. It’s control theatre.
Because written communication was offered — and weaponised.
And because disability cannot be an inconvenience in your calendar. It is your legal boundary.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, §20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments
Children Act 1989, §22 – Duty to safeguard and promote welfare of the child
HRA 1998, Art. 8 – Interference with family life without proportionality
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Art. 21 – Respect for dignity in communication
NHS Constitution – Right to informed care continuity for dependants
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t planning. It was a psychological ambush disguised as a meeting.
We do not accept trauma used as a gatekeeping tool.
We do not accept care pathways that punish diagnosis.
We do not accept contact being offered only through procedural injury.
SWANK doesn’t ask for accommodations. It files formal breach notices.
You were warned. You proceeded. Now you are documented.
⟡ 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.