Chromatic v. Morgan – When Support Becomes Surveillance

---

🪞SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

“This Was Not an Assessment. It Was an Attempt to Wear Me Down.”

Filed Date: 14 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-E43-MORGAN-KAPOOR-EMAIL
Court File Name: 2024-06-13_SWANK_Addendum_SophieMorgan_MisconductRefusalToDisclose.pdf
Summary: Social worker Sophie Morgan attempts to frame harassment and withheld rights as a voluntary “assessment.” Polly asserts disability accommodations, legal education, and procedural rights in response.

---

I. What Happened

On 13 June 2024, Polly Chromatic forwarded a string of email correspondence to Edward Kendall (WCC) and solicitor Laura Savage, noting that she is unable to check email daily. The forwarded content included her original communication from October 2022, sent to:

• Sophie Morgan, social worker at Islington

• Annabelle Kapoor, Headteacher of Drayton Park

• Joshua Craig, Highbury Grove School

The string details a long-standing pattern of procedural coercion, undisclosed allegations, and refusal to accommodate disability by Islington social work services — all under the pretext of a voluntary assessment.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

The email exchange demonstrates:

• Explicit refusal by Polly to comply with any coercive process framed as “support” while no documentation had been offered and her family was under medical stress;

• Multiple requests for written rights, protocol, and complaint information — none of which were supplied;

• Clear disclosure of severe eosinophilic asthma and difficulty speaking, which was disregarded;

• Statement of fact that school staff were to be copied into all future communication, further affirming transparency;

• Sophie Morgan’s attempt to characterise anonymous, informal third-party reports as a basis for a formal assessment — without evidence, without consent, and without procedural fairness.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This email is logged because it marks an early instance of:

• Rights-based refusal being pathologised;

• Support being used as a euphemism for intrusion;

• A mother with advanced academic qualifications in child development being treated as if she had no standing to advocate for her children’s health.

Polly’s reply is exact, articulate, and grounded in lived legal experience — not rhetoric, not evasion.

It demonstrates that safeguarding services had:

• Knowledge of her disability

• Knowledge of her educational background

• Knowledge of her schedule, obligations, and parenting commitments

• And still failed to accommodate, disclose, or de-escalate

---

IV. Violations

This correspondence raises concerns under:

• Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding powers to pressure instead of support

• Equality Act 2010 (Section 20, 149) – Refusal to accommodate speech and respiratory disability

• Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8) – Disregard for privacy, family life, and procedural integrity

• Data Protection Act 2018 – No provision of information on data used for allegations or assessment

• Social Work England Professional Standards – Breach of transparency, informed consent, and client respect

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not a conversation.
This is not support.
This is an institution weaponising concern while refusing to provide evidence.
And it is noted in full, for the record, for the courts, and for the historical integrity of all that was done to one mother and her four disabled children.

She did not evade.
She asked for her rights in writing.

They did not comply.
They escalated instead.

---

⚖️ 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.