On the Restriction of Bikes, Braids, and Breathing
SWANK London Ltd. v. Westminster Children’s Services
Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference: SWL-CF-0707-CALLLOG-01
PDF Filename: 2025-07-07_SWANK_Addendum_MonitoredCallFindings.pdf
Summary: Children reveal institutional interference with medical, educational, cultural, and physical freedoms during a contact session monitored by named defendant.
I. What Happened
On 7 July 2025, during a supervised contact call between Polly Chromatic and her four U.S. citizen children, monitored by social worker Kirsty Hornal, the children disclosed:
Romeo (16) was told by Kirsty he is no longer allowed to ride a bike
Romeo said he missed a previous call because no one informed him
He must now ask social workers for permission to go to the gym
All four children had recently been ill, though currently breathing “okay”
Medical appointments at Hammersmith Hospital were cancelled without notice
They have been registered at a new GP and are being moved to a new dentist and school without parental consultation
Romeo and Honor asked to have their hair braided but were told they need maternal permission, which social workers are otherwise circumventing
Despite this, the children engaged warmly in flag card activities, Honor shared her drawings, and Polly reassured them that hearings were imminent and legal filings were ongoing.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The Local Authority continues to act in ways that disrupt identity, suppress autonomy, and undermine medical and cultural continuity
Kirsty Hornal, who is a named civil defendant and subject of multiple police reports, continues to monitor and limit contact
The children’s disclosure of illness, restricted movement, silencing, and surveillance reflects both procedural collapse and emotional harm
III. Why SWANK Logged It
This call is a primary-source event, revealing in real time the extent to which safeguarding powers are being exercised not for protection, but for control.
SWANK London Ltd. files this as evidence of:
Procedural Retaliation
Cultural Suppression
Disabled Medical Rights Interference
Emotional Neglect and Surveillance Trauma
IV. Violations
Article 8 – ECHR: Right to family life
Children Act 1989: Parental Responsibility breaches
Equality Act 2010: Cultural expression and disability accommodation ignored
UNCRC Article 12 & 24: Children not consulted in decisions about their lives or health
V. SWANK’s Position
The continued use of monitored video calls by conflicted parties, coupled with the Local Authority’s covert assumption of parental powers, constitutes both legal usurpation and institutional intimidation.
SWANK views the restriction of a teenage boy’s bike use, and the denial of gym, grooming, and medical continuity, as a regime of child inconvenience, not child protection.
We assert that the children’s disclosure of illness, frustration, and lost routines under monitored conditions validates the mother’s immediate return application and Judicial Review.
They miss their home. They want their hair braided. They want to breathe without permission.
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.