Moise and the March of the Misguided Assessments (A Sequel to Nothing, Filed on False Premise)
Filed Date: 20 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-RM-LOI0718
PDF Filename: 2025-07-20_SWANK_Addendum_RositaMoise_LOIAssumption.pdf
1-Line Summary: Rosita Moise coordinates assessments ordered under disproven grounds, ignoring NHS Resolution's acknowledgment of medical error.
I. What Happened
On 18 July 2025, Rosita Moise — Senior Solicitor for Bi-borough Legal Services — circulated draft Letters of Instruction (LOIs) for psychiatric, parenting, and paediatric assessments. She requested that I personally obtain and forward my GP records to Dr. McClintock, despite:
No direct contact from the assessor
No clarity on consent parameters
No procedural pause despite the original safeguarding basis now having been discredited by NHS Resolution
While the assessments were indeed initially ordered by the Court, they were ordered on the basis of a medical safeguarding referral that has since been formally undermined. Specifically, the referral issued by St Thomas’ Hospital, which triggered the Emergency Protection Order, has now been acknowledged as medically incorrect and procedurally harmful.
To proceed with these assessments without judicial reconsideration is not neutral compliance — it is administrative negligence cloaked in progress language.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
This email reveals the Local Authority’s:
Refusal to pause or re-evaluate its plan in light of corrected medical evidence
Dismissal of due process as a technicality to be worked around, not a safeguard to be respected
Expectation that the parent become the facilitator of her own unjustified examination
Rosita does not ask whether the grounds still justify the assessments — she assumes their legitimacy remains intact, as if the Court’s order exists in a vacuum unbothered by truth.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is the exact juncture at which the law should adapt to evidence — and yet instead, the process continues as though the NHS Resolution letter never happened.
Because Rosita Moise is not only ignoring the parent’s objection — she is ignoring the system’s own correction. The truth changed, but her email didn’t.
And because no parent should be instructed to fetch their own medical history in service of disproven allegations, under the pretence that this is “what the Judge wanted.”
IV. Violations
Article 6 ECHR – Proceeding on invalidated grounds
Article 8 ECHR – Disproportionate intrusion following acknowledged error
Equality Act 2010 – Disregard of written-only accommodation and procedural safety
Data Protection Act 2018 – Coercive implication of medical disclosure absent fresh consent
Public Law Principles – Failure to reassess course of action in light of exonerating evidence
V. SWANK’s Position
Yes, the Court ordered assessments. But the factual grounds have since collapsed, and that collapse has been acknowledged by the medical institution that initiated them.
To proceed mechanically without judicial recalibration — and to request that I, the subject of those false allegations, supply the fuel for a fire already ruled accidental — is not legal efficiency. It is post-truth case management.
SWANK London Ltd. rejects the notion that a procedural train must run simply because the track was once laid — especially when the station was built on error.
This is not progress. This is administrative refusal to stop a runaway process out of professional pride.
The entry is now archived. The assessor may wait.
⚖️ 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.