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.