“I’ve Asked for the Reports. Now I’m Asking for a Lawyer.”
⟡ A Formal Disclosure Letter from a Mother Who Can Quote the Law and Now Has Counsel to Prove It
IN THE MATTER OF: Non-disclosure, statutory violations, and the absurdity of planning for a child’s welfare while excluding the mother entirely
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-SOCIALDEV-DISCLOSURE-NOTICE
Court File Name: 2020-08-06_Court_Letter_TCI_SocialDev_Disclosure_AttorneyNotice
Summary: This brief but emphatic letter to Deputy Director Ashley Adams-Forbes marks a formal turning point. It politely confirms the mother’s repeated requests for lawful disclosure under Turks and Caicos legislation, states clearly that her children have been endangered not by any neglect on her part but by the state itself, and notifies the department that she has now retained legal counsel. It is the paper equivalent of a raised eyebrow and a closing file folder.
I. What Happened
After years of unlawful safeguarding visits, medical abuse, and procedural chaos, Polly Chromatic (then legally Noelle Bonneannée) submitted this letter in response to ongoing obfuscation. The department:
Had repeatedly refused to issue investigation reports, in violation of §17(6) of the Children Ordinance
Failed to explain why her children were under investigation at all
Conducted case planning about her children without including her — a procedural and ethical violation
Had, by this point, already inflicted trauma through unwarranted hospital examinations, illegal property entry, and retaliatory safeguarding
This letter is not a question. It is a boundary.
II. What the Letter Establishes
That Polly had already made multiple formal requests for reports and legal justification
That the department was violating its statutory duty by withholding those documents
That she had now retained an attorney — meaning future communications would be subject to legal review
That the real source of risk was not the mother — but the department itself
That no further goodwill would be extended without lawful conduct
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because there is a moment in every legal siege when the gloves come off and the pen becomes a weapon. Because no mother should have to write this letter, but every competent one should know how. Because asking to be included in planning decisions about your own children should not require litigation — and yet here we are. Because this letter is not just notice — it’s the first formal shot in a just war.
IV. Violations
Failure to provide statutory reports under §17(6) of the Children Ordinance 2015
Exclusion of parent from child welfare planning process
Neglect of parental rights under procedural justice
Sustained withholding of legal information
Psychological harm through state obfuscation
Institutional retaliation through fabricated safeguarding measures
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this letter as a formal pivot from advocacy to litigation. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
That every parent has the right to understand and participate in case planning affecting their child
That statutory reports are not optional — they are mandated
That bad judgment by the department is not “concern” — it is harm
That legal counsel was not only justified — it was overdue
And that once a mother formally requests the law, she is no longer a subject of concern — she is a claimant