⟡ They Took Four, Then Forgot They Were Siblings ⟡
The Unauthorised Splitting of a Neurodivergent Unit in Care
Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0626-SIBSEP
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_FamilyCourt_Addendum_SiblingWelfareSeparationImpact.pdf
Impact statement on the risk and harm of separating neurodivergent siblings during state custody.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, four neurodivergent American children were removed from their home under an Emergency Protection Order by Westminster Children’s Services. No legal finding of harm was established. No placement hearing was held. No consent was given. As of filing, their mother — Polly Chromatic — has not been informed whether the children were kept together or separated in care.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Sibling interdependence was disregarded entirely.
Neurodivergent care routines were interrupted without coordination.
Section 1(3)(f) of the Children Act 1989 — the sibling welfare clause — was bypassed.
Trauma-informed alternatives and kinship care offers were ignored.
No legal or ethical justification has been given for the potential separation.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Sibling separation of neurodivergent children is not merely a procedural error — it’s an erasure of their social architecture. These children are not just cohabiting; they are co-regulating. To divide them in silence is to institutionalise neglect while branding it as “care.”
This document demands legal clarity on an emotional catastrophe — one authored without evidence, justified without reasoning, and communicated without dignity.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 1(3)(f): Failure to consider the effect on children of ceasing to live with siblings
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8: Interference with family life without proportionate grounds
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 9 & 20: Right to maintain sibling relationships in alternative care
Failure of procedural transparency in placement disclosure
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not child protection. This is sibling dismantlement under bureaucratic fog.
The law does not authorise this kind of silence. The court must not tolerate it.
We demand disclosure. We demand reunification. We demand recognition that to separate these siblings is not only an ethical failure — it is a lawful one.
⟡ 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.