⟡ SWANK Professional Capacity Archive – WCC & NHS ⟡
“I’ve Spent Decades Raising Children. They Sent a Social Worker Who Doesn’t Know My Name.”
Filed: 1 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/NHS/PARENTING-EXPERIENCE-DISABILITY-FORWARD-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-01_SWANK_WCC_NHS_Reid_EmailForward_ParentingExperience_DisabilityDisclosure_SocialWorkCritique.pdf
Author: Polly Chromatic
I. Not a Complaint — A Curriculum Vitae for the Ignored
This email, forwarded to both Westminster NHS staff and Children’s Services, is not a plea. It is a documented history of parenting, education, and instructional expertise, submitted in the face of suspicion masquerading as process.
It includes:
A detailed record of childcare experience from adolescence to present
A list of academic qualifications: psychology, human development, biology, math, chemistry, architecture, computer science
A refusal to be pathologised by workers who lack any credible evaluation of their own methods
A dual disability disclosure — opening and closing the email with the lawful reminder that communication must remain non-verbal
This wasn’t just an email.
It was a professional and medical audit, delivered politely — and surgically.
II. What the Document Establishes
That the parent:
Has more documented childcare experience than most of the professionals involved
Has taught in multiple U.S. states and educational systems
Holds a degree in psychology and human development, with a social justice concentration
Was forced to remind state actors that their “assessment” was being conducted in ignorance of her credentials
That the professionals copied:
Did not correct, apologise, or respond
Had no rebuttal — only silence
Let the record show:
She stated her qualifications.
She clarified her boundaries.
She cited her exhaustion.
And SWANK published what the system would rather keep unmentioned.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because parents are not blank slates to be interrogated.
Because professionals with no child-rearing history should not assess those with decades of it.
Because this email reframes the narrative — not as neglect, but as credentialed refusal.
We filed this because:
No one else would have.
No “case file” has ever told the full truth.
And this one tells it from the source — with footnotes, not defence.
Let the record show:
The degrees were named.
The experience was listed.
The warning was clear.
And SWANK sealed it with typographical restraint and legal intent.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that suspicion overrides credentials.
We do not accept pathologising the articulate.
We do not accept erasing professional capacity just because the parent is the one being watched.
Let the record show:
She was qualified.
She was tired.
She was right.
And she archived it all — before anyone else decided what to write about her.
This wasn’t a defence.
It was a record correction — with more evidence than most of their files contain.
⟡ 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.