“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 foster overreach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foster overreach. Show all posts

In Re: Behaviour Scripts and the Unmothering of Kingdom – Notes from a Carceral Foster Ethos


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
Filed Dispatch – Journal Evidence Series, Vol. IV

He’s 10, So He Can’t Eat

In Re: Arbitrary Control, Asthma Negligence, and State-Funded Infantilisation

🗂️ Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-JOURNAL-0825-KINGCONTROL
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_JournalEntry_ControlNotes_FosterInfantilisation.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Handwritten log of unjust restrictions placed on children in foster care, including denial of food, hydration, and private learning time.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This handwritten notebook page — discreetly titled “Foster Talk” — was recovered from a teenager’s private journal. It lists a series of surreal but true phrases spoken by carers or supervisors in the foster setting.

Among them:

  • “Telling Kingdom that he can’t eat cuz he’s 10”

  • “Not allowing them to bring their bottles upstairs”

  • “Not allowing them to bring pencils upstairs”

  • “Being respectful to my siblings”

  • “Above the upstairs bathroom rule”

This is not behavioural guidance.
It is control theatre with children as its audience.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

Each of these notes captures a distinct violation:

  • Nutritional Policing: Preventing a 10-year-old from eating based on age is an absurd and harmful restriction.

  • Hydration Control: For children with eosinophilic asthma, water access is not optional — it is urgent.

  • Educational Suppression: Banning pencils upstairs blocks journaling, homework, quiet reflection, and neuroregulation.

  • Scripted Obedience: Vague admonitions about “being respectful” reflect a dynamic of imposed guilt and presumed wrongdoing.

  • Carceral Surveillance: The “upstairs bathroom rule” — mentioned repeatedly across entries — suggests architectural control incompatible with nurturing care.

This is not safeguarding.
This is authoritarian parenting-by-contract.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because a child wrote this list.

Because children don’t say things like “upstairs bathroom rule” unless they are living under miniaturised carceral logic.

Because this wasn’t a diary.
It was a record of power, dressed in pen and margin.

And because no one should ever tell a child:

“You can’t eat — because you’re 10.”

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989, Section 1(3)(b) – Inadequate attention to physical and emotional needs

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate medical conditions (e.g. asthma-related hydration needs)

  • Article 8, ECHR – Intrusion into personal development and private life

  • UNCRC Articles 12 & 13 – Violation of expression, autonomy, and cognitive liberty

  • Safeguarding Standards – Conversion of support into compliance enforcement

V. SWANK’S POSITION

This document is now formally archived as child voice evidence.
It is timestamped, corroborated, and added to a growing ledger of state-facilitated overreach.

It will remain preserved not because it is dramatic — but because it is routine.
And because routine abuses, when logged, become legally radioactive.

This is not behavioural feedback.
It is procedural neglect in bullet-point form.

This is not child protection.
It is evidence.

Filed in forensic rhythm and aristocratic rage,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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: