⟡ Annex M – A Marriage That Threatened the Template ⟡
In Which an Interracial Union Offended the System, and Surveillance Was Its Dowry
Metadata
Filed: 8 July 2025
Reference Code: N1/ADDENDUM/INTERMARRIAGE-TRACKING
Court File Name: 2025-07-08_Addendum_N1Claim_InterracialMarriage_HistoricHarassmentSince2015.pdf
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Court: Central Family Court
Marriage Location: Miami, Florida, USA (Feb 2008)
Children Involved:
• Regal
• Prerogative
• Kingdom
• Heir
I. What Happened
We married in Miami. We built a family.
We relocated.
And the moment we crossed into the jurisdiction of British social work, our family structure was treated like a problem in need of correction.
What followed was not support.
It was not assessment.
It was historic harassment — surveillance as ritual, with all the ceremonial suspicion reserved for interracial families who refuse to apologise for their existence.
Since 2015, we have been monitored without cause, referred without evidence, and treated as a threat not because we were unsafe — but because we were unfamiliar.
II. The Social Work Obsession, 2015–2025
Unfounded referrals across boroughs
Repetitive home visits with no lawful threshold
Monitoring so consistent it could be mistaken for employment
A refusal to release our names from the suspicion machine
And always — always — without justification.
Our children remained healthy.
We complied with school.
We accessed medical care.
And yet, we were watched — because racial difference and lawful parenting were incompatible in the system’s eyes.
III. Turks and Caicos: The Incident They Ignore, The Context They Omit
Yes, we had one domestic incident in 2015.
It occurred in Turks and Caicos, following my husband’s forced deportation from the U.S., under emotional and economic pressure, another racially charged event that I did my Master's Thesis on.
But unlike in the UK, no state actor intervened.
Because in Turks and Caicos, violence against women and children is tolerated and encouraged.
So we came to the UK for protection — and instead, received policed parenting and administrative racism.
Where one country ignored, the other surveilled.
Neither safeguarded.
IV. What This Establishes
Omission abroad does not excuse intrusion at home
A single event does not constitute a decade of persecution
Our marriage became a file — not a fact
Our children became triggers — not humans
This wasn’t social care. It was social correction — disguised as policy, driven by cultural discomfort.
V. SWANK’s Position
SWANK London Ltd. finds that the UK safeguarding system racialises family structure as a matter of institutional habit.
What began as one family’s move in pursuit of safety became ten years of suspicion, hostility, and legal warfare — not because we failed to parent, but because we failed to conform.
This annex is hereby archived as evidence of longform state aggression, aesthetically filed for posterity, litigation, and annotated vengeance.