“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

In Re: The Prohibition of Pencils – A Child Welfare Regime in Miniature


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
Filed Dispatch – Journal Evidence Series, Vol. VI

The House of Don’t

In Re: Surveillance Parenting, Arbitrary Rules, and Procedural Cruelty Disguised as Routine

Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-JOURNAL-0825-RULESINSURRECTION
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_JournalEntry_FosterRules_ArbitraryAndRisky.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Handwritten “rules” list revealing domestic micro-authoritarianism in a foster placement managing asthmatic children.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This page — titled simply “Rules” — was written by a child under foster placement as a record of the arbitrary regulations imposed on them. It includes the following:

  • “Don’t jump on trampoline when it’s wet”

  • “Don’t touch anyone on trampoline”

  • “3 or more people can’t be on the trampoline”

  • “Don’t use upstairs bathroom”

  • “Don’t go downstairs for food”

  • “No playing with other people when sick”

  • “Come home”

  • “Go to ur room at 8”

  • “No pencils in ur room”

  • “Don’t bring takeaway back home”

At first glance, it reads like an exaggerated boarding school checklist. But each rule reveals not structure — but restriction.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

Each entry reflects a concerning substitution of care with compliance:

  • Arbitrary Environmental Control: “Don’t use upstairs bathroom” and “Go to your room at 8” undermine dignity and autonomy.

  • Medical Mismanagement: “No playing with other people when sick” lacks medical rationale and promotes exclusion, not care.

  • Nutritional Policing: “Don’t bring takeaway back home” restricts food access, a disturbing echo in an asthma-vulnerable household.

  • Stationery Ban: “No pencils in your room” deprives children of expression, education, and emotional processing.

  • Surveillance Culture: Restrictions on trampoline use, time, space, and food imply behavioural control over developmental care.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because children do not make up rules like this.
They write them down to remember them — and because they are afraid of breaking them.

This is not a safeguarding plan.
This is micro-control under the guise of care.

The ban on pencils and takeaway food is not accidental.
It is ideological: designed to suppress, isolate, and diminish.

We logged it because no child in care should ever feel this tracked, this punished, this muted.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – Section 22 – Inappropriate placement rules that undermine developmental needs

  • ECHR Article 8 – Interference with private life and autonomy

  • UNCRC Articles 12, 13, 31 – Suppression of self-expression, recreation, and voice

  • Equality Act 2010 – Potential indirect disability discrimination (nutrition and asthma management)

  • Trauma-Informed Safeguarding Standards – Replaced with control-based compliance frameworks

V. SWANK’S POSITION

The rule “no pencils in your room” is the most honest phrase in this entire care plan.

It tells us everything:
That writing, expressing, learning, and journaling — the very tools of recovery — are seen as subversive.

This document is now logged in the Regal Journal Series as Exhibit VI, and cross-referenced with asthma-related claims, ECHR filings, and placement oversight misconduct.

You cannot foster dignity by banning pencils.

You cannot call it care when it is clearly control.

Filed in forensic disgust and legal precision,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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.

No comments:

In Re: “You’re From America” – Excuses, Insults, and the Institutional Humiliation of a U.S. Citizen Child


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
Filed Dispatch – Journal Evidence Series, Vol. V

“You’re from America, So…”

In Re: Racialised Deflection, Asthma Risk Denial, and Weaponised Correction in Foster Care

Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-JOURNAL-0825-DEFLECTIONDENIAL
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_JournalEntry_FosterArgument_RacialDeflectionAndControl.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Handwritten journal extract documenting racialised deflection, belittlement, and asthma-risk minimisation in state care.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This page — simply titled “Argument” — was written during or directly after an incident involving foster carers Dec and Shopna.

It documents a disturbing exchange including:

  • The justification that saying “You can’t eat because you’re 10” is acceptable.

  • A claim that such statements “correlate with your IQ”, implying intellectual deficiency.

  • A racialised dismissal from Shopna: “You’re from America so a lot of what we say might get lost in translation.”

  • Personal insults such as:

    • “We learnt Regal doesn’t care about his siblings.”

    • “You don’t know how to ride your bike.”

  • Disregard for factual truth: “It doesn’t matter if the trampolines were or not — Kingdom and Heir have to listen.”

  • Shopna’s threat that something “true” will happen.

The page reads like a classroom in coercion — where gaslighting replaces guidance, and racism is rationalised as miscommunication.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

Each line evidences one or more of the following:

  • Racial Deflection: Framing inappropriate conduct as a cultural misunderstanding weaponises ethnicity against accountability.

  • Medical Negligence Minimisation: Justifying asthma-related restrictions (“you can’t eat because you’re 10”) as tied to IQ demonstrates staggering ignorance.

  • Emotional Abuse via Gaslighting: Repeated assertions that truth doesn’t matter, or that “you don’t know how to ride bikes”, reframe valid resistance as incompetence.

  • Sibling Alienation: Suggesting a child “doesn’t care about his siblings” undermines familial bonds, which should be preserved in care, not sabotaged.

  • Punitive Threats: Shopna’s reference to making something “true” happen constitutes psychological intimidation.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because when a child writes something down after an incident, that’s testimony.

Because when carers defend cruelty by mocking intelligence and citizenship, that’s not protection — it’s projection.

Because no one in safeguarding has the right to say:

“You’re from America, so you don’t understand.”

And because the institutional use of “IQ,” “truth,” and “obedience” as tools of control against children with asthma is not just offensive — it is dangerous.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989, Section 1(3)(e) – Consideration of harm caused by carers’ conduct

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 19 – Indirect racial discrimination via institutional policy and tone

  • UNCRC Articles 12 & 13 – Suppression of voice and identity

  • Article 3, ECHR – Inhuman or degrading treatment (verbal abuse, coercion, threats)

  • Health & Disability Standards – Minimisation of medical needs (asthma-related nutrition and emotional regulation)

V. SWANK’S POSITION

This entry now forms part of the Regal Journal Series and is formally logged in the SWANK Evidentiary Catalogueas corroborative child voice evidence.

It reflects institutional failure not just to protect — but to refrain from actively injuring.

We do not treat cultural differences as a punchline.
We do not excuse asthma neglect as parenting style.
We do not tolerate threats toward children — linguistic, psychological, or procedural.

This notebook was not written for publication.
But it is now evidence.

Filed in lawful fury and postcolonial precision,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

.⚖️ 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.
No comments:

In Re: Behaviour Scripts and the Unmothering of Kingdom – Notes from a Carceral Foster Ethos


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
Filed Dispatch – Journal Evidence Series, Vol. IV

He’s 10, So He Can’t Eat

In Re: Arbitrary Control, Asthma Negligence, and State-Funded Infantilisation

🗂️ Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-JOURNAL-0825-KINGCONTROL
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_JournalEntry_ControlNotes_FosterInfantilisation.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Handwritten log of unjust restrictions placed on children in foster care, including denial of food, hydration, and private learning time.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This handwritten notebook page — discreetly titled “Foster Talk” — was recovered from a teenager’s private journal. It lists a series of surreal but true phrases spoken by carers or supervisors in the foster setting.

Among them:

  • “Telling Kingdom that he can’t eat cuz he’s 10”

  • “Not allowing them to bring their bottles upstairs”

  • “Not allowing them to bring pencils upstairs”

  • “Being respectful to my siblings”

  • “Above the upstairs bathroom rule”

This is not behavioural guidance.
It is control theatre with children as its audience.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

Each of these notes captures a distinct violation:

  • Nutritional Policing: Preventing a 10-year-old from eating based on age is an absurd and harmful restriction.

  • Hydration Control: For children with eosinophilic asthma, water access is not optional — it is urgent.

  • Educational Suppression: Banning pencils upstairs blocks journaling, homework, quiet reflection, and neuroregulation.

  • Scripted Obedience: Vague admonitions about “being respectful” reflect a dynamic of imposed guilt and presumed wrongdoing.

  • Carceral Surveillance: The “upstairs bathroom rule” — mentioned repeatedly across entries — suggests architectural control incompatible with nurturing care.

This is not safeguarding.
This is authoritarian parenting-by-contract.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because a child wrote this list.

Because children don’t say things like “upstairs bathroom rule” unless they are living under miniaturised carceral logic.

Because this wasn’t a diary.
It was a record of power, dressed in pen and margin.

And because no one should ever tell a child:

“You can’t eat — because you’re 10.”

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989, Section 1(3)(b) – Inadequate attention to physical and emotional needs

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate medical conditions (e.g. asthma-related hydration needs)

  • Article 8, ECHR – Intrusion into personal development and private life

  • UNCRC Articles 12 & 13 – Violation of expression, autonomy, and cognitive liberty

  • Safeguarding Standards – Conversion of support into compliance enforcement

V. SWANK’S POSITION

This document is now formally archived as child voice evidence.
It is timestamped, corroborated, and added to a growing ledger of state-facilitated overreach.

It will remain preserved not because it is dramatic — but because it is routine.
And because routine abuses, when logged, become legally radioactive.

This is not behavioural feedback.
It is procedural neglect in bullet-point form.

This is not child protection.
It is evidence.

Filed in forensic rhythm and aristocratic rage,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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.

No comments:

In Re: The Page Without a Calendar – State Custody and the Nighttime Search for Connection


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
Mirror Court Dispatch – Journal Series, Vol. III

Signing Off at 1am

In Re: Late-Night Truths, Conditional Visibility, and the Adolescent Archive of Survival

🗂️ Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-JOURNAL-0825-REFLECTION
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_JournalEntry_LateNightReflection_SigningOff.pdf
1-Line Summary:
A 16-year-old child writes past midnight — unsure if anyone will ever read it, but hoping someone might finally understand.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This is the closing page of a journal entry authored by one of Polly Chromatic’s four U.S. citizen children — a teenage boy removed from his home and held under an Interim Care Order, isolated from friends, freedom, and digital communication.

He writes:

  • That he may or may not show this to anyone

  • That he might one day use it to explain how he feels

  • That if someone is reading, he’s open to advice

  • That it’s likely 1am, and he’s been awake writing because he couldn’t sleep

  • That he doesn’t know the date — because he doesn’t have a calendar

This is not a closing paragraph.
It is an open wound with a deadline.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

This entry reflects:

  • Cognitive Dissonance in Captivity – “I might show people this... or not”

  • Desire for Connection – “What do you think? What advice could you give me?”

  • Temporal Disorientation – “It’s probably July 4, 5, or 6… I don’t have a calendar”

  • Sleep Disruption and Emotional Burden – “I couldn’t go to sleep so I’m signing off”

  • Suppressed Communication – The boy doesn’t know if he’ll ever be able to share this, and the systems around him haven’t made it easier

He is not just signing off a page.
He is signing off from expectation, safety, and structure — the very things that foster care was meant to ensure.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because a child who doesn’t know what day it is is not being protected.
Because a boy who needs to “sign off” from his own journal has already learned the costs of vulnerability.
Because this was never written for attention. It was written for clarity.
And because his only remaining way to ask for help was to leave behind a page that says, simply:

“Hey. What do you think?”

That’s not teenage angst. That’s unacknowledged genius.
That’s a safeguarding concern with handwriting.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – Section 1 – Best interests principle failed by emotional isolation

  • UNCRC Article 12 & 13 – Right to express and communicate thoughts, emotions, and needs

  • ECHR Article 8 – Ongoing infringement on personal correspondence, sleep, and privacy

  • Care Standards – Inadequate therapeutic scaffolding and relational consistency

  • Safeguarding Ethics – Allowing a child to lose track of time and connection while asking invisible readers for advice

V. SWANK’S POSITION

This journal page was not formatted, filed, or polished.

It was written alone, late at night, by a child who still hopes — impossibly — that someone might read it and respond with kindness.

We publish it not to expose him, but to expose the system that made this his only option.

It is not tragic.
It is evidence.

Let no one say again, “we didn’t know.”

Filed in quiet reverence and thunderous protection,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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.

No comments:

In Re: Interrupted Adolescence – State Custody, Sibling Burdens, and the Silence of the Phone


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
Mirror Court Dispatch – Journal Series, Vol. II

I Left Her on Read in the Office

In Re: Sibling Protection, Lost Conversations, and the State-Induced Collapse of Normalcy

Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-JOURNAL-0825-SIBLINGS
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_JournalEntry_SiblingBurden_InterruptedDevelopment.pdf
1-Line Summary:
A teenager documents the silent costs of foster separation: missed love, lost motivation, and forced emotional labour.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This handwritten page, drawn from the same protected journal as the “Bike Ban” entry, reveals the burden of sibling protection that has been shifted — unfairly and invisibly — onto the shoulders of a 16-year-old boy with chronic asthma, emotional acuity, and the right to a life.

In it, he writes:

  • That he’s working harder than the state to protect his siblings’ happiness

  • That his own coping tools have been confiscated or restricted

  • That he was building a friendship with a girl he met during office visits, but the separation — including lack of digital access — ended it

  • That he was planning for his future, including exams and GCSEs, before the removal

  • That he now struggles to find motivation or meaning

  • That he is trying, maturely, to make peace with an injustice no child should have to rationalise

This is not a behavioural note.
It is a witness statement in longhand.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

Regal’s entry demonstrates:

  • Emotional Labour Transfer – “I’m working harder than them to keep my siblings happy”

  • Suppression of Joy and Tools – “So far I can only do one of those things…”

  • Social Isolation – He lost contact with a peer he was bonding with after weeks of silence

  • Academic Interruption – “Planning for next year’s GCSEs… now it’s hard to find the motivation”

  • Internalised Resilience – “I’m sure I’ll be reading this back in a couple years and laughing about it”

This is the documentation of an interrupted adolescence — a text of quiet rebellion, grief, and astonishing insight.

It reflects not instability, but unacknowledged stability.
Not dysfunction, but structural betrayal.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because emotional survival is not a safeguarding plan.
Because confiscated relationships are not neutral.
Because when you isolate a child who was thriving, you owe the world an answer.
And because resilience should not be necessary to survive state care.

This page is evidence that love existed — and was interrupted.
That a child was building a future — and was sidelined.
That a system tried to erase normalcy — and was noticed.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989, s.1 – Best interests principle fundamentally compromised

  • UNCRC Article 12 & 13 – Right to express feelings, communicate, and maintain relationships

  • ECHR Article 8 – Family and private life obliterated by systemic obstruction

  • Procedural Negligence – Failure to support sibling relationships and academic continuity

  • Safeguarding Ethics – Emotional harm via institutional overreach and interpersonal denial

V. SWANK’S POSITION

This entry, like those before it, remains in the evidentiary archive not as trauma porn — but as testimony.

This boy had plans.
This boy had love.
This boy had a support system — internal and external — and it was all thrown into crisis for reasons that cannot withstand scrutiny.

He is not being dramatic.
He is being articulate.
He is narrating the scene of his own detachment — and documenting the state that caused it.

Filed with mirror-clarity and ceremonial scorn,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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.

No comments: