“What Is the Purpose of This Case?” — A Formal Timeline for Those Who’ve Lost the Plot
⟡ A Legal Summary of Three and a Half Years of Surveillance Masquerading as Concern
IN THE MATTER OF: Departmental Amnesia, Timeline Fatigue, and the Inconvenient Existence of Statutory Law
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 14 July 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-TIMELINE-LEGALDEMAND
Court File Name: 2020-07-14_Records_AshleyAdamsComplaintTimelineAndLegalDemands
Summary: A structured, politely furious timeline and formal legal complaint submitted to the Deputy Director of Social Development in Turks and Caicos. This document outlines a pattern of unjustified investigation, repeated harassment, procedural vagueness, and rights violations, backed by direct quotes from the law the department is supposed to follow.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic (then writing as Noelle Bonneannée) sent this letter in response to yet another aimless update from the department. Instead of explaining itself, the state continued to act like “safeguarding” means “hovering indefinitely with no outcome.” The author responds by:
Laying out 3.5 years of events in precise chronological order
Asking direct legal questions the department has failed to answer
Citing the Education Ordinance (2009) and Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance (2015) to demand her rights
Requesting the written reports she is legally entitled to
Pointing out — gently — that telling a mother “you don’t have to prove yourself” after years of interrogations is textbook gaslighting
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That the family was repeatedly targeted despite no actionable safeguarding concerns
That all relevant paperwork — homeschool curriculums, credentials, income documents — was submitted, often multiple times
That the children were thriving, vaccinated, and protected
That trespass occurred during COVID-19 Emergency Powers
That neighbour feuds were weaponised by the state
That no written outcome reports have been provided, in violation of TCI law
That the department’s failure to define the “purpose” of its own case has resulted in procedural abuse
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is what happens when intelligence is required to explain itself to mediocrity. Because no one should have to quote Ordinance §17(6) to remind the state it owes them an investigation report. Because if an agency cannot articulate the goal of its interference after three years, then the goal was never protection — it was control.
IV. Violations
Breach of legal obligations under Education Ordinance and Child Protection Ordinance
Procedural ambiguity constituting harassment
Disability discrimination and COVID trespass
Failure to close case files or document outcomes
Weaponisation of external neighbour conflicts
Gendered and racialised undermining of parental credibility
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this as a master timeline of administrative fog. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
That a woman does not need to justify the success of her children to an office with no plan
That sending the same documents ten times is not “engagement” — it’s a hostage situation
That formal law exists for a reason — to limit the reach of whim
And that anyone who cannot answer the question “What is the purpose of this case?” has no business opening one