“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label family court misconduct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family court misconduct. Show all posts

In re: Dignity in the Face of Dysfunction — Chromatic v Bureaucratic Theatre


🪞 SWANK Addendum
A Personal Statement of Position by Polly Chromatic
Filed into: The Court of Record-Keeping and Reason

Filed Date: 30 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-ADDENDUM-ZC25C50281-STATEMENT
PDF Filename: 2025-07-30_Addendum_StatementOfPosition_PollyChromatic.pdf
1-Line Summary: A velvet rebuke of institutional cruelty, filed with composure sharper than the misconduct it archives.

I. The Statement of Position

Let the Court be advised:

I am not grateful for this experience.
But I am very skilled at documenting it.

While the misconduct of Westminster Children’s Services has gifted me a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to showcase institutional cruelty in a footnoted anthology of legal horror — it did so at the cost of my children’s joy, health, and security.

And I do not consider that an acceptable trade.

My children — who were thriving, laughing, learning, and living in rhythm with both their academic routines and their medical needs — have been dismantled in the name of a safeguarding narrative built not on evidence, but on aesthetic projection and bureaucratic ego.

I have archived every email, every contradiction, and every procedural betrayal.
But what I cannot retrieve — and what no exhibit can resurrect — is the quiet, joyful time my children lost under the weight of state delusion.

I have a lot more documentation ... in the thousands.  If I post 100 a day it will take a year to post it all.

I'm the only one documenting the ignorance and pure waste of money and time that we call social work.

Thank you for the opportunity. I study systems. I'm researching them right back and doing it better than they are.  

Don't worry.  I'm not going away and no one can outlast me because I have clarity, something Westminster clearly doesn't have.  

II. A Formal Request to the Court

I do not plead.
I file.

I ask the Court to recognise the following, not as sentiment but as structural truth:

  • That my children were harmed by process, not protected by it.

  • That retaliation has replaced reasoning in many of the decisions imposed on our family.

  • That my integrity under pressure should not be reframed as resistance — it is resilience, and it is legally admissible.

This ordeal made me stronger.
But strength was not the point.
My children’s peace was.

And they deserved better than to become case notes in a safeguarding drama with no script and no author — only actors, all miscast.

⚖️ 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.

No comments:

Re Chromatic v The Institution – On the Weaponisation of the Emergency Protection Order

The Protection Order as Punishment: A Velvet Submission on Institutional Misuse

When a Civil Claimant Becomes a Safeguarding Target

Metadata

  • Filed: 11 July 2025

  • Reference Code: SWANK-FAMCOURT-0711

  • Document Title: 2025-07-11_SWANK_HearingStatement_EPO_RetaliationChallenge

  • Summary: SWANK founder Polly Chromatic appears before the Central Family Court to challenge an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) issued in apparent retaliation for legal filings against Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, all four of my children — dual U.S. citizens — were removed from our home under an Emergency Protection Order.

There was no medical event.
No safeguarding incident.
No allegation raised.

There was only one trigger: I had sued the state.

This is not a hearing about welfare.
It is a hearing about what happens when a litigant files too well, too publicly, and too precisely.

II. Why This Was Logged

This hearing statement, now published, is part of SWANK London Ltd.’s official evidentiary archive. It establishes:

  • That Guy’s and St Thomas’ falsely reported intoxication while my oxygen was at 44%

  • That Westminster ignored clinical disabilities and refused all written communication

  • That I filed:

    • An N1 civil claim (March & May 2025)

    • A cease and desist and audit demand (mid-June 2025)

    • A criminal referral (21 June 2025)

  • And that my children were taken two days later

The timeline alone reads like an indictment.

III. What the Statement Proves

That safeguarding was not applied — it was deployed.
Not to protect, but to punish.
Not to assess risk — but to neutralise a plaintiff.

The EPO did not follow a concern. It followed:

  • A police report against a social worker

  • A blog post

  • A legal filing

  • A criminal referral

And it was served not by notice — but by a man who stalked my building, shoved documents through my door, and refused to speak to reception.

IV. What the Statement Demands

Filed before the court and now published before the world, the statement requests:

  • Immediate return of all four children

  • Removal of Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown from all further involvement

  • Suspension of Westminster and RBKC from safeguarding authority

  • Disclosure of all documentation

  • Acknowledgement that this was not protection — it was retaliation

V. SWANK’s Position

This was never about protection.
It was about power.

And it is now part of the record — not just in court, but here, where you are reading it.

Because this archive does what no courtroom will admit:

It names what they redact.
It publishes what they hide.
It documents what they deny.

The hearing is underway.
The evidence is public.
And the velvet archive never blinks.

⟡ 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: