“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Documented Obsessions

Showing posts with label contact disruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contact disruption. Show all posts

In the Matter of Silence Received: Chromatic v. Unread Communication, SWANK Filed First


⟡ A MOTHER FILED, BUT NO ONE READ ⟡
The Removal, the Rights Breach, and the Statement That Should Have Stopped It

Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0626-POSSTAT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_FamilyCourt_Addendum_PersonalPositionStatement.pdf
1-line summary: Position Statement documenting procedural exclusions, disability rights violations, and denial of contact.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four American children were removed from their mother under an Emergency Protection Order — without service, without grounds, and without allowing her to attend the hearing.
The removal occurred days after the mother submitted filings including a Judicial Review, a U.S. Embassy letter, and medical documentation — none of which were acknowledged by Westminster Children’s Services.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Denial of participation in the legal process (Article 6 breach)

  • Disability rights violations, including failure to accommodate written-only communication

  • Safeguarding misuse despite active medical needs and care schedules

  • Trauma and harm inflicted on both mother and children through sudden, unnotified removal

  • Pattern of institutional retaliation against legal filings

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This Position Statement was not simply personal — it was procedural, protective, and preventive.
It warned the court and agencies that forced removal would cause irreversible harm. It documented disability, dependency, and international jurisdiction. It made legal clarity impossible to ignore.

SWANK logged it to preserve this moment:
When a mother filed in time, and institutions chose not to read.

IV. Violations

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (Fair Trial)

  • Children Act 1989 – Section 10 rights of known carers

  • Equality Act 2010 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments

  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

  • Vienna Convention – Notification failure for U.S. nationals

V. SWANK’s Position

This Position Statement was the moment that made silence indefensible.
No safeguarding rationale can justify ignoring written medical records, consular protections, or disability adjustments.
Westminster chose coercion over communication.
SWANK chose record over erasure.

⟡ 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.
No comments: