🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
A Velvet Doctrine on Tactical Miscommunication and False Narratives of Non-Engagement
📜
The Doctrine of Non-Contact Allegations
On the Bureaucratic Weaponisation of Silence Against Litigants in Person
Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-ADDENDUM-0801-ASSESSMENTCORRESPONDENCE
Filename: 2025-08-01_Addendum_AssessmentCorrespondenceFailure_ProceduralObstruction.pdf
1-Line Summary:
The local authority withheld assessment information and then accused the parent of failing to engage — a classic entrapment by procedural omission.
I. WHAT HAPPENED
By 1 August 2025, Polly Chromatic had received direct contact from only one assessment professional — a psychologist, with whom she spoke on 31 July.
From the others — including those responsible for:
Psychiatric evaluation
Paediatric review
Hair strand testing
Parenting capacity assessment
— she received nothing.
No letter. No call. No date. No role. No procedural confirmation.
And yet, the Local Authority continues to construct the fiction that she is “refusing” assessments.
II. WHAT THIS ESTABLISHES
This is not a misunderstanding.
It is a deliberate procedural gap used to invent parental failure.
The absence of contact reveals:
A failure to initiate legally required engagement
A breach of duty to inform a litigant in person
A misuse of silence as a tool of discrediting
They created a void — and then punished her for not filling it.
This is administrative entrapment under the guise of assessment.
III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT
Because this is no longer about missed emails or calendar confusion.
It is a pattern of procedural gaslighting.
You cannot accuse a parent of non-engagement when:
The event was never scheduled
The actor was never introduced
The procedure was never explained
This is the institutional equivalent of sending no invitation and then declaring the guest rude for not attending.
And it fits a broader pattern in the case:
→ Mischaracterisation of lawful behaviour
→ Blame redirected from systemic failure to the mother’s file
→ Confusion staged as non-compliance
IV. SWANK’S POSITION
We assert that:
The mother has expressed consistent willingness to engage
The absence of contact lies solely with the LA and its agents
No negative inference can be drawn where no procedural invitation was issued
The narrative of “refusal” is contradicted by their own failure to initiate
We request that the Court:
Note the singular point of contact received thus far
Require the LA to issue full, written, and trackable contact details for all remaining assessments
Prohibit further misrepresentations of non-engagement based on institutional silence
You cannot comply with instructions that were never given.
And you cannot be blamed for silence that wasn’t yours.
⚖️ 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.