“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
Showing posts with label treatment summary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label treatment summary. Show all posts

You Got the Prescription. And Still Filed the Report.


⟡ She Was Treated. They Still Called It Neglect. ⟡
“I sent you the prescription. You sent a concern.”

Filed: 21 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAILS-21
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-21_SWANK_EmailSummary_WCC_HonorHospitalTreatment_PrescriptionPlanDischarge.pdf
Email submitted to Westminster Children’s Services documenting Honor’s hospital treatment, medication protocol, and discharge plan following respiratory crisis. Safeguarding concerns persisted despite full clinical cooperation.

I. What Happened

On 21 November 2024, shortly after Honor was discharged from hospital for respiratory distress, the parent:

  • Sent a summary of the treatment plan to Westminster

  • Confirmed Honor’s condition, prescribed medications, and follow-up steps

  • Included factual details from the hospital discharge process

  • Noted that NHS staff had escalated a safeguarding referral — not because care had been refused, but because it had been questioned

The parent’s message was clinical, correct, and complete.
The response was silence.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Honor received medical treatment, medication, and follow-up protocol

  • That Westminster had no basis to suggest medical neglect

  • That a disability-informed, clinically engaged parent was still viewed with suspicion

  • That the real concern wasn’t the child’s care — it was the parent’s noncompliance with institutional power

  • That full transparency was met with administrative hostility

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when you send them the prescription,
and they escalate you anyway —
you’re not being reviewed. You’re being profiled.

Because when treatment isn’t the problem,
but you are —
they’re not protecting children.
They’re preserving control.

We gave them the plan.
They gave us a file.
So we gave them one back.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 27
    Victimisation for asserting rights and questioning institutional action

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004
    Misuse of safeguarding referral powers despite confirmed clinical treatment

  • Care Act 2014 – Coordinated Care Obligation
    Failure to work in partnership with parent and medical provider

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8
    Interference with family life post-medical care without cause

V. SWANK’s Position

You asked what happened.
We told you.

You received the treatment notes.
You filed a concern anyway.

This wasn’t about care.
It was about compliance.
And we don’t comply with misconduct.
We archive it.


⟡ 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.
No comments:

Documented Obsessions