Hearing Statement for the Honourable Court — 11 July 2025
Case No: ZCXXXXXXX
Polly Chromatic, Litigant in Person and Director of SWANK London Ltd.
Preliminary Exordium:
May it please the Honourable Court,
I, Polly Chromatic, custodian and advocate of four remarkably gifted progeny, each endowed with dual citizenship of the United States of America and Her Majesty’s United Kingdom — Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — do present myself today, armed with erudition and indefatigable resolve.
My academic repertoire spans the rigorous fields of Computer Science, Psychology, and Human Development, crowned with several additional scholarly accolades. Such a constellation of expertise informs both my professional engagement in ethical Artificial Intelligence — a discipline steeped in the highest principles of probity, fairness, and human dignity — and my scrupulous devotion to nurturing my children’s intellectual and moral fabric.
I am also the Director of SWANK London Ltd., a bastion of institutional accountability and archival diligence, from whence I orchestrate my crusade for justice whilst maintaining a vigilant presence within my household.
My consort, domiciled in the Turks and Caicos Islands, remains a collaborative partner in the stewardship of our children’s upbringing despite our physical separation.
I. Procedural Context and Foundational Background
The onset of RBKC Children’s Services’ intervention coincided most regrettably with my family’s displacement caused by grievous sewer gas poisoning — an environmental calamity that marred our prior abode and occasioned prolonged residence in a transient hotel. On the very day of our relocation to a new domicile, the local authority precipitously escalated the matter to a Child Protection Plan, under the specious pretext of my temporarily diminished capacity for verbal discourse, despite my repeated entreaties for written communication — all summarily dismissed.
Westminster Children’s Services later usurped responsibility, demoting the case to a Child in Need plan by October 2024, subsequent to a parade of six social workers whose assessments proved void of tangible safeguarding concerns.
Kirsty Hornal entered the fray in October 2024, bringing with her a relentless insistence on verbal communication notwithstanding my persistent respiratory afflictions — sequelae of said poisoning.
II. Institutional Accountability and Procedural Dissonance
From the genesis of Westminster Children’s Services’ involvement in February 2024, I have tirelessly demanded clarity, transparency, and lawful basis for their prolonged intervention. Yet, rather than ameliorating our plight, these agents have exacerbated my family’s injuries.
Despite my documented health challenges — including debilitating asthma exacerbated by the aforementioned toxic exposure — my entreaties for accommodation were met with scorn and allegations of mental instability and harassment.
To shield my family, I have resorted to formal legal recourse, filing:
A police report against Ms. Hornal (13 February 2025);
An N1 claim implicating Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services (3 March 2025);
A Judicial Review contesting procedural impropriety (28 April 2025);
A criminal referral for malfeasance against Ms. Hornal and Mr. Brown (21 June 2025).
Yet, obstruction persists, and the paternal figure of my children remains unjustly excluded, a travesty of procedural fairness.
III. Retaliation, Disregard, and Communication Abjection
Ms. Hornal’s last domicile visitation occurred on 13 February 2025. Thereafter, a nefarious Public Law Outline letter, dated 15 April 2025, levied baseless allegations of narcotic misuse against me, demanding an intrusive hair follicle analysis — a profound departure from her erstwhile commendations of my children’s scholarly accomplishments.
Scheduled judicial dialogue set for 2 May 2025 was summarily aborted, whilst Ms. Hornal’s vexatious insistence on invasive visits continued unabated, despite my protestations regarding the deleterious health consequences.
Threats of supervision orders emerged mid-June, accompanied by further procedural chicanery and, most alarmingly, episodes of stalking by an unidentified male subsequent to my public disclosures on SWANK London Ltd., prompting yet another police report.
IV. Breach of Duty of Care and Ethical Obligation
My earnest desire is singular: to nurture and educate my children in a secure and loving environment. Yet, the intransigence and caprice of Ms. Hornal have consigned me to untenable predicaments, accused both of disengagement and mental instability when prioritizing my children’s wellbeing.
Our household endures the scars of egregious environmental harm, including the fatality of our cherished pet and my own vocal and respiratory impairments.
Westminster Children’s Services has egregiously disregarded these vulnerabilities, further imperiling my family’s health through negligent conduct and retaliatory removal.
Such acts constitute not mere neglect but a flagrant dereliction of duty and moral turpitude, precipitating profound suffering.
V. Institutional Retaliation and the Subversion of Safeguarding
Following my initiation of legal claims, Westminster Children’s Services hastened to deploy an Emergency Protection Order, wielded as a sword against my family.
Ms. Hornal and Mr. Brown have compounded injury by excluding the paternal presence, cancelling indispensable medical appointments, unilaterally altering healthcare provisions, and orchestrating vexatious child care arrangements for my children through collusion with erstwhile legal counsel, Alan Mullem.
My establishment of SWANK London Ltd. serves as a bulwark against these injustices, safeguarding the dignity and rights of my family.
Bereft of lawful cause, my children languish in isolation, denied normalcy and denied the joys of childhood pursuits — from acting and modelling opportunities to wholesome outdoor recreations and familial laughter.
The egregious dismissal of their medical needs foreshadows imminent health crises, including asthma exacerbations.
These punitive measures constitute an affront to genuine safeguarding and inflict grievous developmental and emotional wounds.
VI. Ethical Parenting and Philosophical Convictions
My household stands as a citadel of principled living, where rigorous standards of health, education, respect, and justice prevail.
My pedagogic ethos is profoundly holistic, nurturing every facet of my children’s being—intellectual, emotional, physical, ethical, and spiritual—with bespoke and strength-focused approaches that cultivate inquisitiveness and critical acumen.
Their education is a tapestry of rigorous scholarship—spanning the sciences, mathematics, humanities—and lived experience, infused with ethical reflection and global conscientiousness.
I champion resilience, emotional intelligence, and leadership, preparing my progeny to navigate and enrich a complex, interconnected world.
VII. Entreaty for Judicial Relief
In light of the foregoing, I most respectfully implore this Honourable Court to:
Immediately restore my children to my care forthwith, without deferral for ongoing proceedings;
Excise Ms. Hornal and Mr. Brown, along with Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services, from this matter, given manifest conflicts and improprieties;
Mandate a rigorous and transparent inquiry into the practices of Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services, in view of the systemic failings and retaliatory conduct;
Command full disclosure of all safeguarding and medical documentation pertinent to this case;
Ensure future involvement is entrusted solely to culturally competent, impartial professionals, upholding the highest standards of equity and justice.
VIII. Peroration
This grievous saga of unlawful removal, procedural dereliction, and retaliatory malfeasance has inflicted profound harm upon my family’s health, wellbeing, and dignity.
I beseech this Court to uphold justice and restore the sanctity of my family unit with all due haste.
I thank the Court for its attention and solemn duty.
⟡ 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.