Chromatic v The Education Department That Never Wrote Down Its Own Policy – On the Tragedy of Being More Prepared Than the State

---

🎓 “Please Provide Me the Law, Since You Seem to Have Misplaced It.”

⟡ A Formal Letter to the Department of Education After Years of Harassment Over Lawful Homeschooling

IN THE MATTER OF: The Right to Educate, the Abuse of Authority, and the Extraordinary Harm Caused by Not Reading the Policy Before Making a Threat

---

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 5 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-EDUCATION-HOMESCHOOLING-DENIAL
Court File Name: 2020-08-05_Court_Letter_TCI_EducationDept_HomeschoolingDenial_AbuseSummary
Summary: This letter, sent to Edgar Howell (Director of Education, Turks and Caicos), is a formal, cutting response to three years of escalating threats, false truancy accusations, and unlawful safeguarding actions — despite full compliance with a legal homeschool arrangement approved since 2017. The letter recounts sexual abuse by hospital staff, illegal property entries, fabricated vaccination concerns, and the failure of multiple departments to read the actual legislation. It ends, with composed sarcasm, by asking for the very policy they claim was never followed — even though it was never provided.

---

I. What Happened

In June 2017, Polly Chromatic (then known as Noelle Bonneannée) met in person with Deputy Director Mark Garland and submitted her curriculum, degrees, and intent to homeschool. This was done with the full understanding that Garland was the correct authority. She continued submitting documentation yearly.

Despite this, she was:

• Accused of truancy in public by a truancy officer yelling at her in a grocery store

• Repeatedly visited by social workers without reports or legal reason

• Forced to submit her children to invasive hospital “examinations” — including genital inspection

• Subjected to warrantless entry, even during COVID lockdown, in violation of emergency laws

• Blamed for not speaking to “the right person” despite having never been told who that was

• Threatened again in 2020, three years after full compliance, with having her children taken

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That no policy was ever provided, even after direct request

• That the Department of Education and Department of Social Development coordinated unlawful threats

• That social workers fabricated medical concerns (non-vaccination) and used them as pretext for repeated trauma

• That the Complaints Commission acted not as a mediator, but a fresh source of coercion

• That officials repeatedly shifted blame rather than acknowledge a departmental failure to document or communicate correctly

• That the family’s trauma is not incidental — it is the direct result of bureaucratic laziness and safeguarding theatre

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this letter proves that even in the face of institutional incompetence, the mother followed every rule. Because asking for “the policy” after three years of harassment is not a formality — it’s a slap in the face. Because “talked to the wrong person” is not a legal defence. Because no one should have to endure forced sexualised exams of their children while the department argues over who was CC’d. Because safeguarding without records is not oversight — it’s an excuse to trespass.

---

IV. Violations

• Failure to provide written homeschool policy or legal process

• Accusation of truancy despite full compliance

• Sexual assault of minors in clinical setting without lawful grounds

• Warrantless entry during a national pandemic

• Threats of removal based on bureaucratic blame-shifting

• Retaliatory conduct under the guise of safeguarding

• Procedural negligence at the Department of Education, Social Development, and the Complaints Commission

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this document as a formal indictment of every public official who forgot how laws work. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

• That providing documentation in 2017 should not result in threats in 2020

• That truancy cannot be claimed when no policy was ever disclosed

• That trauma inflicted during “examinations” cannot be undone with apologies

• That when a mother is asked to be both the educator and the administrator, the state has failed

• And that the most dangerous thing about safeguarding misuse is not the action — it’s the delusion of authority without law

---

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v The Timeline That Should Have Ended It All – On the Statutory Duties Social Workers Forgot to Read

---

🧾 “Thank You for Acknowledging My Trauma Timeline. Now Please Resign.”

⟡ A Twelve-Page Email, A Twelve-Step Disgrace – On the Inelegance of 3.5 Years of Lawless Harassment

IN THE MATTER OF: Bureaucratic cruelty, safeguarding delusion, and the mother who documented everything while being blamed for defending herself

---

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 21 July 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-TIMELINE-GASLIGHTING
Court File Name: 2020-07-21_Court_Email_TCI_SocialDevTimeline_DisabilityRetaliation
Summary: This email timeline, sent to Ashley Adams-Forbes and senior officers at the Department of Social Development, outlines 3.5 years of unlawful safeguarding interference, false community reports, forced entry, sexualised medical exams, and refusal to provide statutorily required investigation outcomes. Despite formal apologies and performative niceties from the Deputy Director, the department continued its crusade of ignorance, retaliation, and legal ineptitude — all while the mother they were harassing sent them precise citations from the Children Ordinance and Education Act.

---

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic submitted a thorough timeline to the Department after years of unlawful safeguarding visits, forced medical exams, sexual assault of her sons in a hospital, intrusive interrogations, and multiple visits that violated both COVID-19 Emergency Laws and basic legal literacy. Her timeline — complete with statutory references, medical backing, and questions the department could never answer — remains unanswered in substance. What it received in return was vague acknowledgment, empty gestures, and the administrative equivalent of a shrug.

---

II. What the Timeline Establishes

• That not a single statutory obligation was lawfully followed

• That the department refused to provide reports of its own investigations — despite being legally required under §17(6) of the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance 2015

• That the Education Ordinance (2009) explicitly protects the right to homeschool with ministerial approval — which she had

• That the safeguarding claims originated not from child risk, but from neighbour retaliation and boundary violations

• That the social workers conducted surveillance, not support — showing up unannounced, trespassing, yelling through windows, and enforcing chaos

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when your entire safeguarding policy amounts to “We forgot to check the law,” someone must preserve the record. Because twelve pages of citations, evidence, and trauma should be more powerful than twelve months of silence. Because sending your CV to a Deputy Director as proof of competence is not a normal parental obligation. Because we log what institutions ignore. And because this email proves that “concern” is often just bigotry dressed as child protection.

---

IV. Violations

• Breach of Children Ordinance 2015 §17(6): refusal to issue case outcome reports

• Breach of COVID-19 Emergency Powers through warrantless property entry

• Violation of Education Ordinance (right to homeschool)

• Medical abuse of children through non-consensual sexualised examinations

• Ongoing retaliation based on disability status (eosinophilic asthma)

• Breach of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 3, 5, 12, 16)

• Harassment, emotional abuse, and intimidation disguised as safeguarding

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this submission as a sovereign act of defence by a mother who followed every law while being punished for doing so. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

• That this email constitutes a superior investigative document to anything ever produced by the Department

• That calling this timeline “too much” is the final insult — it is not too much; it is exactly enough

• That no parent should have to remind social workers what §17(6) means

• That twelve pages of legally grounded documentation is not “over-explaining” — it’s pre-litigation due diligence

• And that the only thing excessive in this case is the government’s incompetence

---

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v The State That Forgot Its Own Policy – On the Absurdity of Having to Hire a Lawyer to Prove You Were Obeying the Law

---

“Is There a Homeschooling Policy — or Just a Game of Institutional Telephone?”

⟡ An Email to Legal Counsel After Three Years of Complying with the Wrong Person’s Instructions

IN THE MATTER OF: Truancy lies, safeguarding retaliation, unlawful entry, and the constitutional right to not be shouted at in a grocery store

---

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-HOMESCHOOL-LEGALCONSULT
Court File Name: 2020-08-06_Records_LaraMaroofHomeschoolingDispute
Summary: This email documents a mother’s attempt to secure legal help after three years of harassment for “noncompliance” — despite having followed the exact directions she was given by the Department of Education. It outlines harassment by the truancy officer, invasive safeguarding visits based on fabrications, and repeated demands to comply with procedures that were never written down. It is the moment Polly Chromatic stopped playing nice with a state that couldn’t remember who told her what — and began formally preparing to sue.

---

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic (then legally Noelle Bonneannée) wrote to Lara Maroof after being:

• Approved to homeschool in 2017 by Mark Garland, Deputy Director of Education

• Harassed by Mr. Kennedy, a truancy officer, who screamed at her in a supermarket and came to her home

• Forced into multiple hospital visits for fabricated vaccination “concerns”

• Witness to her sons being sexually examined in front of nine adults — including her and her mother

• Repeatedly subjected to property invasion, including fence dismantling and COVID lockdown trespass

• Told by the Complaints Commission that she had spoken to “the wrong person” for three years

• Accused again of truancy — despite following all instructions from the Department of Education

• Denied access to any written policy or standardised form for homeschooling compliance

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That Mark Garland explicitly approved the homeschool plan and received all documents requested

• That despite this, Polly was threatened by the Complaints Commission with child removal

• That officials cited Edgar Howell’s instructions, yet Polly had never been contacted by him

• That each department contradicted the last, creating a never-ending paper chase for “compliance”

• That Polly was not simply accused of truancy — she was shamed, interrogated, and retraumatised for an education plan she was invited to pursue

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is not homeschooling — this is harassment. Because an education department that forgets who approved your plan is not a department, it’s a liability. Because “we changed the policy” is not a lawful reason to dismantle someone’s fence. Because shouting “TRUANT” in a grocery store is not oversight — it’s defamation. And because this email proves what every legal advocate eventually proves: compliance does not protect you when the state can’t remember what it asked for.

---

IV. Violations

• Failure to provide written policy despite repeated requests

• Contradictory legal guidance between departments

• Retaliation for following homeschool procedures

• Trespass during COVID-19 lockdown

• Fabricated truancy threat despite lawful compliance

• Medical abuse of minors in clinical setting

• Defamation and intimidation by public officials

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this correspondence as a polite declaration of war. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

• That any mother who follows the instructions of a deputy director is in compliance

• That removing children for “noncompliance” when no standard exists is unlawful

• That abuse under the guise of safeguarding is still abuse

• That institutional forgetfulness is not a procedural justification — it’s a civil claim

• And that this email is not just a plea for help — it is the beginning of legal reckoning

---

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v The Fiction of Noncompliance – On the Impossible Task of Following a Policy That Doesn’t Exist

---

“Mark Garland Approved My Homeschooling. Apparently, That Wasn’t Enough.”

⟡ A Letter to Legal Counsel Documenting Institutional Whiplash, Fabricated Truancy, and the Fictional Policy That Keeps Changing

IN THE MATTER OF: Unlawful safeguarding, approval denial after approval given, and the myth of a homeschooling policy no one can produce

---

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-HOMESCHOOL-FABRICATEDTRUANCY
Court File Name: 2020-08-06_Records_MarkGarlandHomeschoolApprovalDispute
Summary: Polly Chromatic (then Noelle Bonneannée) documents three years of procedural harassment after following exactly the steps laid out by Deputy Director Mark Garland — who approved her homeschooling plan in 2017. Despite repeated submissions of her curriculum and qualifications, she is accused of truancy, subjected to safeguarding abuse, and told by the Complaints Commission that her entire history of compliance is now irrelevant because she “didn’t follow what Edgar Howell said” — someone she has never spoken with and who has never written her.

---

I. What Happened

• In 2017, Polly met in person with Mark Garland and was told to submit her curriculum — which she did. He approved her homeschooling.

• Over the next three years, she was:

  • Yelled at by a truancy officer (Mr. Kennedy) in public

  • Subjected to sexualised hospital exams of her sons in front of 9 adults

  • Trespassed upon during COVID lockdown

  • Threatened repeatedly with child removal

• She submitted her BA and MA degrees, social enrichment details, curriculum, and learning methods — annually

• In 2020, the Complaints Commission insisted none of that mattered and cited “new” requirements from Edgar Howell, with whom Polly had never communicated

• She was told her approval was void, despite having met every previous standard

• When she attempted to complain about safeguarding misconduct, the Complaints Commission reignited the truancy threat instead

---

II. What the Email Confirms

• That Mark Garland's approval was known, documented, and acted upon

• That social services acknowledged her homeschooling status

• That institutional memory is nonexistent: her three years of compliance were discarded

• That policy is cited, but never shown

• That fabricated truancy threats are being used to reassert power rather than protect children

• That the Complaints Commission functions not as a neutral party, but as an arm of administrative coercion

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because there is nothing more dangerous than a policy that no one can produce. Because “you spoke to the wrong person” is not a legal argument. Because approval should not expire just because a different official decides to contradict it. Because sexualised exams and emergency fence removals are not a form of educational oversight. Because this letter documents the precise moment compliance became litigation.

---

IV. Violations

• Abuse of safeguarding protocols

• Statutory breach under Children Ordinance for failure to provide reports

• Illegal entry and COVID-19 violations

• Denial of education rights despite formal approval

• Defamation and harassment by public officials

• Procedural retaliation through complaints mismanagement

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this document as a primary exhibit in the institutional obliteration of lawful homeschoolers. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

• That truancy cannot be claimed when prior approval exists

• That Mark Garland’s authority cannot be retroactively erased because someone else says so

• That policy must be written, distributed, and consistent — or it does not exist

• That this is not child protection — this is performative, punitive fiction

• That any system that demands compliance while refusing to define the rules is not lawful — it is dangerous

---

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v Bureaucratic Blame-Shifting – On the Consequences of Following the Wrong Instructions from the Right Man

---

“Please Stop Pretending My Children Are Truant When You’ve Read None of the Emails”

⟡ A Formal Complaint to the Complaints Commission on the Abuse, Trespass, and Fictional Truancy Allegations of TCI Social Development

IN THE MATTER OF: Illegal safeguarding, contradictory state instructions, fabricated truancy threats, and the absurdity of being harassed for following directions

---

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-COMPLAINTS-TRUANCYTHREAT
Court File Name: 2020-08-06_Court_Letter_TCI_ComplaintsCommission_SocialDevComplaint_TruancyThreat
Summary: This complaint letter was sent following a face-to-face meeting with Willette A. Pratt (Senior Investigative Officer) to formally document a series of illegal actions and procedural contradictions by the Turks and Caicos Islands Department of Social Development. The letter outlines sexualised medical abuse, illegal home entries, false vaccination claims, and a fabricated truancy threat — all rooted in the state’s inability to remember its own policy or communicate within departments. The tone is resolutely civil, even as the content burns through institutional credibility like acid.

---

I. What Happened

• In May 2017, social workers and police forced Polly Chromatic and her children into a hospital where her sons were sexually assaulted by a doctor in front of nine adults, including herself and her mother — with no lawful basis or privacy

• In August 2020, police and social workers again entered her property — this time by dismantling her fence — and forcibly removed the family for interrogation without cause or paperwork

• In the same month, another forced hospital visit occurred over fabricated non-vaccination concerns, again disproven by medical staff

• In March 2020, staff entered the property during COVID-19 lockdown, without consent, PPE, or legal justification

• At every stage, the Department of Social Development failed to provide any investigative reports, despite legal obligation

• Despite a homeschooling arrangement approved by Mark Garland in 2017, Polly was accused of truancy by the Complaints Commission — because, as it turns out, she “spoke to the wrong person”

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That Polly followed every instruction from officials — and was punished for it

• That Mark Garland, the Deputy Director, provided the homeschool approval and policy in 2017 — which she followed to the letter

• That the Department of Education never made direct contact or provided updated procedures

• That Willette Pratt herself implied Polly’s children could be removed unless she complied with new (undisclosed) procedures

• That abuse and trespass were regular, unacknowledged occurrences, presented as if they were routine

• That institutional memory is nonexistent, but institutional overreach is flourishing

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when your children are assaulted in a hospital and then accused of truancy three years later, something has gone catastrophically wrong. Because safeguarding doesn’t mean fabricated drama followed by radio silence. Because this mother followed the law — and the state simply forgot what it told her. Because a “policy” that cannot be named or provided is not a policy — it’s institutional gaslighting.

---

IV. Violations

• Sexual abuse of minors under clinical pretext

• Trespass and unlawful removal

• Violation of Children Ordinance 2015: failure to provide investigative reports

• COVID-19 Emergency Law violations

• Misuse of truancy enforcement to harass a law-abiding mother

• Procedural deflection by social development, education, and complaints staff

• Violation of right to education and protection from arbitrary state interference

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this letter as an unflinching statement of lawful resistance. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

• That a parent who follows departmental policy should not be threatened with child removal

• That speaking to a deputy director is not “the wrong person” — it’s a chain of command

• That safeguarding authorities cannot operate on memory, mood, and untraceable policy

• That asking for the actual written procedure you’re accused of breaching is not subversive — it’s survival

• That institutional confusion is not an excuse — it’s a liability

---

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v The Department That Forgot Its Own Approval – On the Legal Consequences of Being Obedient in a Chaotic State

---

 “Mark Garland Approved It. The State Just Forgot.”

⟡ A Mother’s Curriculum, a Deputy Director’s Approval, and the Years of Safeguarding Harassment That Followed Anyway

IN THE MATTER OF: A mother who complied, a state that didn’t, and the institutional amnesia that weaponised its own paperwork

---

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-GARLAND-APPROVAL-DISPUTE
Court File Name: 2020-08-06_Records_MarkGarlandHomeschoolApprovalDispute
Summary: In this 2-page email, Polly Chromatic (then known legally as Noelle Bonneannée) explains that her homeschool arrangement was fully approved by Mark Garland in 2017, that she submitted her curriculum and qualifications as instructed, and that she has faced years of safeguarding harassment and truancy accusations anyway. The email exposes a state that not only fails to coordinate internally — but punishes the parent for its own poor memory.

---

I. What Happened

• Polly met in person with Mark Garland in 2017 and submitted her children’s curriculum and her academic credentials (BA and MA). He approved her choice to homeschool.

• Despite this, she was harassed three separate times by the truancy officer Mr. Kennedy — including being shouted at in a grocery store.

• The Department of Social Development conducted multiple safeguarding intrusions:

  • Forcing hospital visits where her sons were sexually assaulted in front of nine adults

  • Trespassing on her property by dismantling her fence

  • Entering her home during the COVID-19 lockdown in violation of emergency laws

• She repeatedly contacted Garland to confirm approval, which he gave — and which the department acknowledged

• In 2020, the Complaints Commission told her none of that mattered and insisted she follow a different policy, allegedly communicated by Edgar Howell — whom she had never spoken to

---

II. What the Email Establishes

• That formal homeschool approval was granted in 2017

• That all requested documentation had already been submitted to the correct official

• That no written policy or procedure has ever been provided, despite years of requests

• That safeguarding harassment continued despite full legal compliance

• That the state invented a procedural noncompliance only after being questioned

• That institutional coordination between education, complaints, and social development officials is non-existent

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no parent should be told they “spoke to the wrong official” after years of obedience. Because truancy officers should not behave like bounty hunters. Because safeguarding is not an excuse for public defamation or medical abuse. Because when a mother complies with every instruction and is still threatened with child removal, the problem is not the mother — it is the memory hole of the state.

---

IV. Violations

• Breach of procedural fairness

• Repeated safeguarding intrusions without lawful basis

• Forced hospital visits and medical abuse of minors

• Defamation via public truancy accusations

• COVID-19 emergency law violations

• Institutional retaliation for documented compliance

• Failure to provide education policy in writing

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this as a definitive exhibit of state incompetence dressed up as concern. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

• That institutional forgetfulness is not the same as parental noncompliance

• That safeguarding chaos is not a valid justification for trespass

• That education departments must provide policy before accusing parents of violating it

• That no child was ever protected by a truancy officer screaming in a supermarket

• And that this email is a masterclass in forced compliance — and its legal consequences

---

⟡ 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.