🪞In re: The White Rabbit v. Article 8
Or, The Curious Case of the Mother Who Documented Too Much
Filed: 8 August 2025
Reference: SWANK-WONDERLAND/FAMILYCOURT/FALLDOWN
Filename: 2025-08-08_SWANK_SatiricalDocket_WhiteRabbit_v_Article8.pdf
Summary: A stylised summary of live Family Court events, in which facts are optional, logic is suspended, and motherhood is criminalised by narrative.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic, a disabled American mother of four, fell through the floorboards of procedural reality after lawfully reporting safeguarding misuse, discrimination, and civil violations.
She expected justice.
She found:
A White Rabbit waving an expired risk assessment last seen in 2022,
A Mad Hatter diagnosing ‘non-compliance’ for using words longer than four syllables,
And a Red Queen shouting “She never engages!” while sipping tea made from misfiled evidence.
Her real offence?
Too coherent.
Too well-read.
Too unwilling to collapse for their convenience.
So they drafted a hallucination in which sunglasses were drugs, silence was guilt, and literacy was a threat.
II. What This Case Allegedly Concerns
Children allergic to disarray,
A mother with an archive,
And a legal system terrified of a well-written witness statement.
In the absence of risk, they manufactured one.
In the absence of failure, they commissioned a narrative.
And then they whispered:
“Let’s remove the children… just in case she’s right.”
III. Procedural Rules in Wonderland Court
Contact is allowed — until it’s loving.
Article 8 is acknowledged — then hidden under a procedural teacup.
Evidence is required — unless it helps the mother.
Psychiatric assessments are ordered — for clarity of mind.
Children’s wishes are respected — until they involve home.
IV. Who’s Really on Trial?
Not the carers who “lose” children’s devices,
Not the social workers who coach trauma,
Not the Authority that weaponised safeguarding to silence civil claims.
No. The true defendant is Article 8 — for being annoyingly unambiguous about family life, parental rights, and the illegality of State-sponsored retaliation.
V. SWANK’s Position
Polly Chromatic walked into court with documents.
With proof.
With dates, statutes, and a mirror.
The system blinked.
And when it blinked, it missed:
Four children forcibly removed from their asthma-safe home.
A safeguarding fiction penned by committee.
And the moment the Court stopped acting in the name of children — and started defending its own narrative.
The tea is cold. The masks are slipping.
And Wonderland is now on record.