Dear Attorney General, Please Remind Them I Can Read

 ⚖️ SWANK Dispatch: When the Law Is Clear but the Social Workers Pretend It Isn’t

🗓️ 15 July 2020

Filed Under: legal noncompliance, homeschool discrimination, child trauma, ignored statutory rights, medical abuse, Attorney General outreach, safeguarding hypocrisy, institutional harassment

---

“You can’t claim to protect children while ignoring the laws that do.”
— A Mother Who Has Read the Ordinance

To the Honourable Archive,

Three and a half years. That’s how long I endured harassment under the guise of safeguarding. The truth? It began when I chose to homeschool — legally, with full approval. But instead of respect, I received retaliation.

By 15 July 2020, I had exhausted polite routes. My letters to Ashley Adams-Forbes were ignored. My request to the Complaints Commissioner was met with silence. So I wrote to Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles, the Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands — not for favour, but for the enforcement of law.

---

📚 I. The Legal Requirement They Pretended Not to Know

According to the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance, 2015, a report must be provided to the parent of any child under investigation — unless a legitimate safety risk or criminal investigation precludes it.

I received nothing.
No report.
No explanation.
No lawful justification.

Just ongoing interference and unexplained intrusions into our private life.

---

🧠 II. The Consequences Were Not Administrative — They Were Traumatic

• My children were harmed by a doctor at the National Hospital — a violation directly facilitated by the system allegedly meant to protect them.
• They were subjected to emotional and psychological abuse from social work practices.
• They were never told why. And neither was I.

How can one teach one’s children to trust institutions when the institutions refuse to explain themselves?

---

⚠️ III. Polite Requests Were Ignored. Legal Duties Were Not Fulfilled.

The response to my formal concern was:

🫥 Silence from the Complaints Commissioner
🫥 No report from the Department of Social Development
🫥 Ongoing surveillance without grounds

Is it incompetence? Or just impunity?

---

⚖️ Final Plea to Power:

“I would also like to ask you to please use your power as Attorney General to ensure that the Department of Social Development follow the Turks and Caicos Law.”

This was not a request for favour.
It was a demand for lawful governance.
Whether or not she responded, the record now stands.

---

When Care Became Coordination — and the Patient Wasn't Invited

---

⟡ SWANK Psychological Gatekeeping Archive ⟡
“She Listened. She Smiled. Then She Called a Social Worker.”
Filed: 30 May 2024
Reference: SWANK/LIZWHITE/ASSESSMENT-DISCONTINUED-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-05-30_SWANK_LizWhite_Assessment_SocialServicesAnxiety_Record.pdf
Author: Polly Chromatic

---

I. One Hour in Harley Street, Then the Floor Fell Out

Before I found Dr Rafiq, I sat — barely breathing — in the polished stillness of a Harley Street office, speaking to Dr Liz White.

I explained the trauma.
The pattern of harassment.
The physical toll of stress-induced asthma.
And the panic that came every time a letter or knock signaled another institutional ambush.

She listened.
She nodded.
She looked sympathetic.

Then she called Edward Kendall, my social worker — without my consent, without warning, without delay.

And he told her something I had never been told:
That the reason for social services involvement was “domestic violence.”

It wasn’t written in any referral.
No one had informed me.
She found out before I did.

Then — having acquired a narrative from the state, not the patient — Dr White ended the relationship.

She refused to treat me.
No follow-up. No continuity. Just a link to anxiety worksheets and a distant suggestion that someone else might help.

---

II. What the Document Proves

• That I sought support in good faith

• That my oxygen levels had fallen to 44%, yet the hospital claimed “intoxication”

• That my children (then 12 and 14) were falsely described as “left alone”

• That my ex-partner lives thousands of miles away — yet I alone was targeted

• That Dr White responded not with care, but with escalation and exit

And after all this?

I didn’t just feel dismissed.

I experienced severe panic attacks — episodes so intense they left me debilitated for days.
The betrayal was not abstract. It was physiological.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because psychological betrayal wears credentials.
Because therapeutic abandonment isn’t always brutal — sometimes, it’s clinically polite.
Because what looks like neutrality can be devastatingly aligned.

We filed this because:

• Seeking help should not lead to state surveillance

• Panic should not be rewarded with procedural ghosting

• And psychologists should not quietly reinforce the system the patient came to escape

Let the record show:

She did not mishear.
She did not misunderstand.
She simply made a call — and walked away.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept consultants who outsource discomfort to social services.
We do not accept “support” that dissolves upon contact with real institutional critique.
We do not accept silence as an appropriate clinical conclusion to distress.

Let the record show:

The panic was real.
The abandonment was professional.
And SWANK — is what remains when the clinician leaves.

This wasn’t care.
It was clinical cowardice in a cashmere wrap —
and we are thankful to Dr White,
not for the help, but for the honesty of her exit.

---

⟡ 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.

The Policy Was Real. The Access Was Fiction.

---

⟡ You Gave Me Accommodations. Then Punished Me for Using Them. ⟡

Filed: 4 July 2021
Reference: SWANK/FIU/2021-PETITION-ACCESS
📎 Download PDF — 2021-07-04_SWANK_FIU_DRC_AcademicPetition_DisabilityBarrier_MaternalAccessDenied.pdf

---

I. An Academic Petition, or: A Forensic Analysis of Procedural Betrayal

This document was filed to Florida International University (FIU) in response to one of academia’s most dishonest rituals: offering support, then punishing the student for accepting it.

It outlines a sequence of events in which:

• Approved medical accommodations were ignored

• Disability adjustments were erased mid-semester

• Maternal obligations were treated as non-compliance

• And illness was framed not as a limitation — but as a failure of character

This is not a request for help.
It is an autopsy of an institution that handed over crutches and then shattered your knees.

---

II. What the Petition Reveals

• DRC adjustments granted — but not enforced

• Professors scheduling assessments in conflict with disability protocol

• Academic gaslighting reframed as “rigour”

• A system incapable of honouring what it authorises

• A mother forced to choose between protection and participation

The barrier wasn’t academic. It was administratively engineered.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because universities polish their inclusion policies, then weaponise procedure the moment you invoke them.
Because compliance is used to prove you’re undeserving.
Because no student should need a petition to remind the institution of what it already agreed to.

Let the record show:

• You asked for help through every proper channel

• You were ignored

• You followed every rule

• They punished your cooperation

This petition was filed not for accommodation — but for legal posterity.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe “academic rigour” justifies procedural harm.
We do not accept that deadlines trump diagnosis.
We do not accept “You didn’t say it the right way” as a reason to deny access.

Let the record show:

The institution wrote the policy.
You followed it.
And they revoked it the moment you depended on it.

This isn’t a petition.
This is documented pedagogical misconduct — with timestamps.

---

---

---