Chromatic v. Del [2025] – On the Inadmissibility of Starvation as Parenting

---

🪞SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

Filed 5 August 2025

Reference: 2025-08-07_SWANK_Letter_WestminsterFosterer_DelNeglectSafeguarding.pdf
PDF Title: Del LOI Official.pdf
1-Line Summary:
A state-paid foster carer reportedly told a 10-year-old child he “can’t eat because he’s 10.” We filed a criminal prosecution.

---

I. What Happened

Between 23 June and 2 August 2025, a foster carer known only as Del—contracted by Westminster Children’s Services—subjected King Bonneannee (age 10) to a regime of punitive, degrading, and medically negligent restrictions. He was reportedly told he “couldn’t eat because he’s 10,” denied access to water bottles and drawing materials, and humiliated with culturally mocking statements referencing his American identity. These reports emerged in Romeo Bonneannee’s handwritten journal, dated 1 August, and were corroborated by police report TAA-38016-25-0101-IR.

All four children—King, Prince, Romeo, and Honor—were witnesses to this treatment. King, diagnosed with eosinophilic asthma, required consistent hydration, calm routine, and emotional support. Instead, he received deprivation and coercive control under the Local Authority’s supposedly protective arm.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This is not a "disruption of placement" — it is a criminal prosecution. We have filed an LOI with Westminster Magistrates’ Court alleging:

• Child Cruelty (s.1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933)

• Disability Discrimination (s.15 Equality Act 2010)

• Neglect of Medically Vulnerable Child

• Harassment and Coercive Control (s.76 Serious Crime Act 2015)

• Institutional and Cultural Discrimination

• Suppression of Welfare Disclosures

The filing was supported by:

• Romeo’s journal

• Medical documents

• Police filings

• Ongoing family court records

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because we do not tolerate hunger-based discipline as a governance model.
Because we do not accept asthma negligence as "behaviour management."
Because no foster carer under state contract should deprive children of food, hydration, or dignity without criminal accountability.
And because nobody—not even someone with an address in Dagenham and a social work referral from Westminster—gets to emotionally harm our children without notice.

---

IV. Violations

Human Rights:

• Article 3 (Freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment)

• Article 8 (Respect for private and family life)

Statutory Law:

• Children and Young Persons Act 1933

• Equality Act 2010

• Children Act 1989 (welfare duties)

• Serious Crime Act 2015

Procedural Doctrine Breaches:

• Foster placement approval standards

• Medical accommodations for known conditions

• Safe disclosure protocol

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We filed this LOI on 7 August 2025 with Westminster Magistrates’ Court and simultaneously submitted it to the Central Family Court as part of ongoing litigation in Case No: ZC25C50281. There will be no informal correction. There will be no private warnings. There will be no delay. Del will answer in court.

As always, the Archive remains active.
The Court of Mirror holds its glare.
Let no one think they escape observation.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.

⟡ The Day I Reported a Social Worker for Coercive Control ⟡

---

⟡ The Day I Reported a Social Worker for Coercive Control ⟡
“She said it was voluntary — right before she escalated it to court.”

Filed: 16 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/POLICE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-16_SWANK_PoliceReport_KirstyHornal_CoerciveControlNegligence.pdf
Metropolitan Police report submitted against social worker Kirsty Hornal citing coercive control, medical negligence, and record falsification.

---

I. What Happened

On 16 April 2025, a formal police report was submitted by a disabled parent against Kirsty Hornal, a senior social worker at Westminster Children’s Services.

The report details a pattern of:

• Coercive control

• Procedural retaliation following complaints

• Forced verbal interaction despite known respiratory disability

• Misuse and falsification of records to justify unnecessary safeguarding escalation

• Negligent exposure to harm during periods of illness, including after a sewer gas leak

The time frame covers 1 May 2024 to 16 April 2025 — a full year of systemic disregard, culminating in an unlawful PLO threat delivered shortly after this complaint was made.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That Kirsty Hornal used her position to retaliate against a parent who asserted legal boundaries

• That medical evidence was routinely dismissed or used manipulatively

• That home visits were conducted during illness, despite being medically harmful

• That procedural steps were taken after a police report — not before

• That Westminster leveraged escalation to neutralise legal exposure, not to protect children

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when a social worker is reported to police, and the only institutional response is escalation, we are no longer dealing with child protection — we are documenting institutional retaliation.

This report was filed not because of a single action, but because of an organised pattern:

• Ignoring medical limitations

• Misrepresenting facts in records

• Exerting pressure while claiming “voluntariness”

• Retaliating after a complaint

• Escalating to PLO after a police report

This is not frontline error.
This is administrative coercion in slow motion.

---

IV. Violations

• Serious Misconduct – Police Referral (Single Online Home)
  Submitted under risk to life, health, and liberty

• Equality Act 2010 – Section 20
  Repeated breach of reasonable adjustments (respiratory disability)

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6, 8, 14
  Discrimination, interference with private life, denial of justice

• Children Act 1989 / 2004
  Safeguarding law used in bad faith after retaliation

• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  Pattern of unwanted contact after lawful refusal

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not an oversight.
This was retaliation wrapped in a visit.

This was not safeguarding.
This was state coercion weaponised against disability.

When complaints are followed by PLO letters —
When disability is met with surveillance —
When records are edited but reality is not —

We document. You escalate.
We archive. You deny.
We file. And now, we publish.

---

⟡ 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.