Chromatic v The Education Department That Never Wrote Down Its Own Policy – On the Tragedy of Being More Prepared Than the State

---

🎓 “Please Provide Me the Law, Since You Seem to Have Misplaced It.”

⟡ A Formal Letter to the Department of Education After Years of Harassment Over Lawful Homeschooling

IN THE MATTER OF: The Right to Educate, the Abuse of Authority, and the Extraordinary Harm Caused by Not Reading the Policy Before Making a Threat

---

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 5 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-EDUCATION-HOMESCHOOLING-DENIAL
Court File Name: 2020-08-05_Court_Letter_TCI_EducationDept_HomeschoolingDenial_AbuseSummary
Summary: This letter, sent to Edgar Howell (Director of Education, Turks and Caicos), is a formal, cutting response to three years of escalating threats, false truancy accusations, and unlawful safeguarding actions — despite full compliance with a legal homeschool arrangement approved since 2017. The letter recounts sexual abuse by hospital staff, illegal property entries, fabricated vaccination concerns, and the failure of multiple departments to read the actual legislation. It ends, with composed sarcasm, by asking for the very policy they claim was never followed — even though it was never provided.

---

I. What Happened

In June 2017, Polly Chromatic (then known as Noelle Bonneannée) met in person with Deputy Director Mark Garland and submitted her curriculum, degrees, and intent to homeschool. This was done with the full understanding that Garland was the correct authority. She continued submitting documentation yearly.

Despite this, she was:

• Accused of truancy in public by a truancy officer yelling at her in a grocery store

• Repeatedly visited by social workers without reports or legal reason

• Forced to submit her children to invasive hospital “examinations” — including genital inspection

• Subjected to warrantless entry, even during COVID lockdown, in violation of emergency laws

• Blamed for not speaking to “the right person” despite having never been told who that was

• Threatened again in 2020, three years after full compliance, with having her children taken

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That no policy was ever provided, even after direct request

• That the Department of Education and Department of Social Development coordinated unlawful threats

• That social workers fabricated medical concerns (non-vaccination) and used them as pretext for repeated trauma

• That the Complaints Commission acted not as a mediator, but a fresh source of coercion

• That officials repeatedly shifted blame rather than acknowledge a departmental failure to document or communicate correctly

• That the family’s trauma is not incidental — it is the direct result of bureaucratic laziness and safeguarding theatre

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this letter proves that even in the face of institutional incompetence, the mother followed every rule. Because asking for “the policy” after three years of harassment is not a formality — it’s a slap in the face. Because “talked to the wrong person” is not a legal defence. Because no one should have to endure forced sexualised exams of their children while the department argues over who was CC’d. Because safeguarding without records is not oversight — it’s an excuse to trespass.

---

IV. Violations

• Failure to provide written homeschool policy or legal process

• Accusation of truancy despite full compliance

• Sexual assault of minors in clinical setting without lawful grounds

• Warrantless entry during a national pandemic

• Threats of removal based on bureaucratic blame-shifting

• Retaliatory conduct under the guise of safeguarding

• Procedural negligence at the Department of Education, Social Development, and the Complaints Commission

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this document as a formal indictment of every public official who forgot how laws work. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

• That providing documentation in 2017 should not result in threats in 2020

• That truancy cannot be claimed when no policy was ever disclosed

• That trauma inflicted during “examinations” cannot be undone with apologies

• That when a mother is asked to be both the educator and the administrator, the state has failed

• And that the most dangerous thing about safeguarding misuse is not the action — it’s the delusion of authority without law

---

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v Bureaucratic Blame-Shifting – On the Consequences of Following the Wrong Instructions from the Right Man

---

“Please Stop Pretending My Children Are Truant When You’ve Read None of the Emails”

⟡ A Formal Complaint to the Complaints Commission on the Abuse, Trespass, and Fictional Truancy Allegations of TCI Social Development

IN THE MATTER OF: Illegal safeguarding, contradictory state instructions, fabricated truancy threats, and the absurdity of being harassed for following directions

---

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-COMPLAINTS-TRUANCYTHREAT
Court File Name: 2020-08-06_Court_Letter_TCI_ComplaintsCommission_SocialDevComplaint_TruancyThreat
Summary: This complaint letter was sent following a face-to-face meeting with Willette A. Pratt (Senior Investigative Officer) to formally document a series of illegal actions and procedural contradictions by the Turks and Caicos Islands Department of Social Development. The letter outlines sexualised medical abuse, illegal home entries, false vaccination claims, and a fabricated truancy threat — all rooted in the state’s inability to remember its own policy or communicate within departments. The tone is resolutely civil, even as the content burns through institutional credibility like acid.

---

I. What Happened

• In May 2017, social workers and police forced Polly Chromatic and her children into a hospital where her sons were sexually assaulted by a doctor in front of nine adults, including herself and her mother — with no lawful basis or privacy

• In August 2020, police and social workers again entered her property — this time by dismantling her fence — and forcibly removed the family for interrogation without cause or paperwork

• In the same month, another forced hospital visit occurred over fabricated non-vaccination concerns, again disproven by medical staff

• In March 2020, staff entered the property during COVID-19 lockdown, without consent, PPE, or legal justification

• At every stage, the Department of Social Development failed to provide any investigative reports, despite legal obligation

• Despite a homeschooling arrangement approved by Mark Garland in 2017, Polly was accused of truancy by the Complaints Commission — because, as it turns out, she “spoke to the wrong person”

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That Polly followed every instruction from officials — and was punished for it

• That Mark Garland, the Deputy Director, provided the homeschool approval and policy in 2017 — which she followed to the letter

• That the Department of Education never made direct contact or provided updated procedures

• That Willette Pratt herself implied Polly’s children could be removed unless she complied with new (undisclosed) procedures

• That abuse and trespass were regular, unacknowledged occurrences, presented as if they were routine

• That institutional memory is nonexistent, but institutional overreach is flourishing

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when your children are assaulted in a hospital and then accused of truancy three years later, something has gone catastrophically wrong. Because safeguarding doesn’t mean fabricated drama followed by radio silence. Because this mother followed the law — and the state simply forgot what it told her. Because a “policy” that cannot be named or provided is not a policy — it’s institutional gaslighting.

---

IV. Violations

• Sexual abuse of minors under clinical pretext

• Trespass and unlawful removal

• Violation of Children Ordinance 2015: failure to provide investigative reports

• COVID-19 Emergency Law violations

• Misuse of truancy enforcement to harass a law-abiding mother

• Procedural deflection by social development, education, and complaints staff

• Violation of right to education and protection from arbitrary state interference

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this letter as an unflinching statement of lawful resistance. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

• That a parent who follows departmental policy should not be threatened with child removal

• That speaking to a deputy director is not “the wrong person” — it’s a chain of command

• That safeguarding authorities cannot operate on memory, mood, and untraceable policy

• That asking for the actual written procedure you’re accused of breaching is not subversive — it’s survival

• That institutional confusion is not an excuse — it’s a liability

---

⟡ 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.