⟡ “They Called It a Care Order. This Is What Actually Happened.” ⟡
Filed because the judge didn’t ask. Logged because the system pretended it already knew.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0624-PROCEDURAL-HISTORY
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_ProceduralHistory_CareOrderChallenge.pdf
Timeline of judicial exclusion, disability discrimination, secret hearings, and the removal of four U.S. citizen children without lawful access.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, four children were taken without warning, explanation, or visible court order.
The mother, Polly Chromatic, was given no notice of any hearing.
She is nonverbal. No accommodations were made. No documents were shown. No contact was offered.
But instead of collapsing, she filed.
This is her procedural history — because the system refused to keep one.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Secret hearing authorising removal
Exclusion of disabled litigant known to be nonverbal
Denial of participation in violation of FPR, Equality Act, and Article 6
No transcript, no judgment, no service
Four American children removed during an active Judicial Review
Every remedy since initiated by the mother — not the court
This isn't a family court. It's a court against the family.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because they will pretend the timeline was “complex” or “confidential.”
Because they’ve already forgotten that the mother was never in the room.
Because the truth doesn’t belong in their minutes. It belongs in an archive.
SWANK logged it because they didn’t.
SWANK published it because they won’t.
And because if you remove children in silence — this is the sound of the record catching up.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 34 – denial of contact
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – family life
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to provide access
FPR Rules – procedural breaches of notice and participation
Judicial transparency principles – absence of transcript, judgment, disclosure
V. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept exclusion as procedure.
We do not accept that silence is protection.
We do not accept that a care order can be granted while the mother files alone, unheard, unseen.
We do not accept any court that allows the state to take children without even logging who filed what — or when.
So we logged it. In velvet. In archive. In print.
⟡ 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.