“Polly Chromatic Will Now Be Represented — and You Will Now Produce the Reports.”
⟡ A Formal Legal Demand After Three Years of Fiction, Fabrication, and Safeguarding Without Cause
IN THE MATTER OF: Missing records, invented noncompliance, and the state’s sudden silence when asked to provide evidence
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 25 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-FCHAMBERS-LEGALDEMAND
Court File Name: 2020-08-25_LegalDemand_ForcedExams_SafeguardingAbuse_JamesLaw
Summary: This legal letter, sent by Mark Fulford of F Chambers on behalf of Polly Chromatic (then Noelle Bonneannée), addresses the safeguarding circus surrounding her family. It politely obliterates the Department of Social Development’s claims of “noncompliance,” notes that no Care Plan had ever been seen, demands disclosure of all records, and affirms the family’s right to natural justice. It is legally surgical and factually devastating.
I. What Happened
Polly was under scrutiny by Social Development for over three years without ever being shown a complaint, report, or summary of allegations.
She was accused of noncompliance with an August 2019 “Care Plan” she had never received, heard of, or been told existed.
She had complied with every arbitrary request made — including allowing medical exams of her children.
Despite this, safeguarding officials continued to escalate — without producing a single lawful justification.
This letter from counsel was the first formal legal reply, demanding:
All medical reports from the exams inflicted on her children
The full Care Plan allegedly written in 2019
Every report generated since the matter began
An end to baseless delays and misrepresentations of her conduct
II. What the Letter Establishes
That there has never been lawful or transparent disclosure to justify the scrutiny Polly faced
That “noncompliance” cannot be claimed if no instructions were given
That safeguarding workers ignored the law, the Constitution, and basic ethics by escalating without threshold
That Polly was forced to retain legal representation just to obtain her own case records
That the system’s first “real” reply came only after a lawyer got involved — not after three years of good-faith requests
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is what gaslighting looks like in procedural form. Because any department that takes three years to respond to a mother’s pleas for clarity should be sued on principle. Because inventing a Care Plan and then penalising someone for not following it is not child protection — it’s bureaucratic psychosis. Because medical exams are not benign when they’re forced. And because this letter shows what it takes to drag a fictional safeguarding narrative back into legal reality.
IV. Violations
Procedural gaslighting via undocumented “noncompliance”
Failure to provide documentation under constitutional standards
Forced medical examinations without informed consent or legal basis
Three-year delay in formal communication
Threats of legal intervention absent due process
Fabrication of Care Plan without disclosure
Abuse of safeguarding powers for non-evidenced reasons
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this document as Exhibit D in the prosecution of safeguarding theatre. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
That there is no such thing as noncompliance with an invisible plan
That no family should need a lawyer to get access to their own safeguarding records
That medical coercion is not protection
That children do not benefit from institutional amnesia or fabricated timelines
That this letter is not just a legal demand — it is a notice of war, written in passive voice and legalese