⟡ C2 Application – Children’s Right to be Heard ⟡
Filed: 22 September 2025 — 08:00 hours sharp
Reference: SWANK/C2/WISHES-FEELINGS/2025
Download PDF: 2025-09-21_C2_AllChildren_WishesAndFeelings.pdf
Summary: Application ensuring Romeo, Prince, King, and Honor Bonneannée’s direct wishes and feelings are preserved before the Court, unfiltered by Local Authority distortion.
I. What Happened
• On 21 September 2025, the Applicant Mother (Polly Chromatic) lodged a C2 Application in the Central Family Court (ZC25C50281).
• Application made as next friend on behalf of her four children: Regal (16), Prerogative (13), Kingdom (11), Heir (8).
• Documents include: C2 form, continuation sheets, letters/evidence of wishes, witness statements, and disability note.
• Core request: that the children’s voices be placed directly before the Court, pursuant to Children Act 1989, Article 12 UNCRC, and Article 8 ECHR.
II. What the Document Establishes
• Statutory right of the child to be heard under s.10 Children Act 1989.
• Welfare paramountcy requires authentic, unfiltered evidence of children’s wishes.
• Local Authority’s suppression of voices = breach of Articles 6 & 8 ECHR.
• Demonstrates structural retaliation: children’s authentic words displaced by institutional narrative.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To preserve unmediated testimony of four children, all clinically vulnerable, all repeatedly silenced by Westminster.
• To ensure judicial record cannot ignore Article 12 UNCRC duties.
• To highlight discrepancy: Local Authority “report-writing” v. children’s authentic voices.
IV. Applicable Standards & Violations
• Children Act 1989, ss.1, 10 — welfare paramountcy, child’s right to apply.
• Article 12 UNCRC — child’s right to express views freely.
• Article 8 ECHR — respect for family life, requiring real participation.
• Equality Act 2010 — adjustments required for both mother and children’s disabilities.
• Bromley’s Family Law — consent and participation must be genuine, not manufactured.
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not “parental coaching.” This is the unfiltered voice of the child — lawful, insistent, and undeniable.
We do not accept that Westminster speaks for the children.
We reject CAFCASS’s lazy filtration.
We document their voices as evidence, not sentiment.
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every child’s sentence is jurisdictional. Every line preserves Article 12. Because the voice of the child is law — and silencing it is contempt.