⟡ APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF CUSTODY ⟡
"Jurisdictionally Void, Procedurally Absent, and Morally Reprehensible"
Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/JURIS/0625-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Application_ReinstatementOfCustody.pdf
This document requests immediate custody reinstatement due to unlawful removal and regulatory collapse.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, four U.S. citizen children were removed from their home without service of a valid court order, advance notice, or procedural safeguard. No Interim Supervision Order was lawfully served. The applicant, Polly Chromatic, was denied participation in any hearing beforehand. Social worker contact resumed despite active Judicial Review proceedings.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
There was no judicial process consistent with Family Procedure Rules
The children were removed absent legal clarity or authority
Retaliatory safeguarding occurred in response to SWANK filings and public record activity
Regulatory bodies failed to intervene, despite notice
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the Family Court cannot allow the removal of children based on informal threats, bureaucratic backchannels, or retrospective justification. Because constitutional, international, and domestic norms require due process — and it was conspicuously denied. Because a mother should not need to sue for recognition of her legal parenthood in the face of state silence.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Unlawful interference with family life
Family Procedure Rules – Breach of notice, participation, and hearing rights
Article 8, ECHR – Right to family life
Vienna Convention – U.S. consular notification failure
V. SWANK’s Position
This removal was not child protection.
It was system protection.
It was not lawful.
It was not procedural.
It was not humane.
The Family Court is asked to either reinstate custody immediately or compel Westminster Council to justify their actions in a hearing held on record — not behind locked doors.
⟡ 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.