“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 unlawful restriction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unlawful restriction. Show all posts

A Child’s Affidavit of Captivity: In Re the Legalisation of Loss



🪞 SWANK London Ltd.

CHRONICLE OF A STOLEN SUMMER

“I Can’t Ride Bikes Anymore Because of One Mistake”
Journal Pages from a Captive Childhood


Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-JOURNAL-0825
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_JournalEntry_UnauthorisedRestrictions.pdf
1-Line Summary: A child writes about life under surveillance, emotional suppression, and the loss of joy and autonomy.


I. WHAT HAPPENED

One of Polly Chromatic’s four U.S. citizen children — a teenager with eosinophilic asthma — has been keeping a handwritten journal while living under state-imposed separation from their family.

These entries were written in pen, not for court, but in protest. They emerged not from counsel, but from the child’s own private resistance to a system that silenced their voice, banned their movement, and confiscated their expression.

The journal describes:

  • The prohibition of ordinary activities (bike riding, pencils, trampoline use)

  • A single social worker wielding unrestricted power

  • The erasure of communication tools

  • Asthma deterioration due to loss of physical activity

  • Mockery and restriction by carers

  • Acts of emotional survival: favourite animals, colours, food, fictional powers

This is not a therapeutic log.
It is a hostage ledger.


II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

These journal entries are not supplementary. They are primary evidence.

They demonstrate that a child in state care is:

  • Internalising institutional punishment

  • Attempting to rationalise arbitrary control

  • Recording the breakdown of trust, privacy, and autonomy

  • Documenting the loss of identity, movement, and expression

The writing is specific, coherent, and heartbreakingly clear.
It names the person who has power.
It names the freedoms revoked.
It names the sickness growing from silence.

This is not a failure of parenting.
It is a failure of state guardianship.


III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because no child should be told they can’t use a pencil upstairs.
Because “you’re from America” should not be a punchline.
Because breathing and biking are medical needs — not luxuries.
Because when courts don’t hear children, journals do.

And because when the system denies a phone, a notebook becomes litigation.


IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Article 12 & 13, UNCRC – Right to be heard; freedom of expression

  • Children Act 1989, s.1(3)(a) – Wishes and feelings of the child

  • Children and Families Act 2014, s.19 – Duty to promote well-being

  • ECHR Article 8 – Right to private and family life

  • Equality Act 2010, s.20 – Reasonable adjustments for disability

These entries indicate both medical negligence and psychosocial suppression — by omission, by regulation, by silence.


V. SWANK’S POSITION

These journal pages remain in the archive as evidence — not only of harm, but of resistance.

We do not redact truth for the comfort of the system.
We do not treat children's reflections as disposable.
We do not mistake bureaucracy for legitimacy.

The child wrote because no one would listen.
We publish because the court must.

This is not just a journal.
It is an affidavit of distress.


VI. CRIMES AND LEGAL BREACHES

The conditions described in this child’s journal are not only ethically indefensible — they may rise to the level of criminality. When state agents restrict a child’s liberty, suppress their communication, and jeopardize their health without lawful justification or procedural transparency, they cross the threshold from negligence to unlawful interference.

The following criminal and quasi-criminal offences are either established or strongly indicated:

  • Misconduct in Public Office – Through persistent abuse of authority by state social workers and carers in a public capacity.

  • Child Cruelty (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, s.1) – For inflicting unnecessary suffering through emotional coercion, denial of movement, and ridicule.

  • Neglect under the Children Act 1989 – Especially regarding the child’s documented health needs and psychosocial development.

  • Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997) – If conduct by carers or supervising agents is shown to be repeated, unwanted, and distressing.

  • Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments (Equality Act 2010, s.20) – Where asthma-specific needs and disability-related routines (e.g., exercise) are denied or obstructed.

  • Obstruction of Contact (Children Act 1989, Schedule 1, s.11) – Through systematic restrictions on communication and digital access with the child’s family.

  • Unlawful Interference with Family Life (Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8) – A pattern of state conduct that collectively amounts to a breach of protected rights.

These violations are not isolated. They are coordinated through procedural passivity, narrative control, and denial of legal visibility. The journal entries themselves serve as sworn testimony in miniature — child-originated exhibits of harm, coercion, and disintegration of lawful care.

If committed by a parent, these acts would prompt child protection investigations.
That they are being committed by the state — and justified as policy — constitutes not just failure, but inversion.

This is not safeguarding.
It is containment.


⚖️ 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.