“Mark Garland Approved It. The State Just Forgot.”
⟡ A Mother’s Curriculum, a Deputy Director’s Approval, and the Years of Safeguarding Harassment That Followed Anyway
IN THE MATTER OF: A mother who complied, a state that didn’t, and the institutional amnesia that weaponised its own paperwork
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-GARLAND-APPROVAL-DISPUTE
Court File Name: 2020-08-06_Records_MarkGarlandHomeschoolApprovalDispute
Summary: In this 2-page email, Polly Chromatic (then known legally as Noelle Bonneannée) explains that her homeschool arrangement was fully approved by Mark Garland in 2017, that she submitted her curriculum and qualifications as instructed, and that she has faced years of safeguarding harassment and truancy accusations anyway. The email exposes a state that not only fails to coordinate internally — but punishes the parent for its own poor memory.
I. What Happened
Polly met in person with Mark Garland in 2017 and submitted her children’s curriculum and her academic credentials (BA and MA). He approved her choice to homeschool.
Despite this, she was harassed three separate times by the truancy officer Mr. Kennedy — including being shouted at in a grocery store.
The Department of Social Development conducted multiple safeguarding intrusions:
Forcing hospital visits where her sons were sexually assaulted in front of nine adults
Trespassing on her property by dismantling her fence
Entering her home during the COVID-19 lockdown in violation of emergency laws
She repeatedly contacted Garland to confirm approval, which he gave — and which the department acknowledged
In 2020, the Complaints Commission told her none of that mattered and insisted she follow a different policy, allegedly communicated by Edgar Howell — whom she had never spoken to
II. What the Email Establishes
That formal homeschool approval was granted in 2017
That all requested documentation had already been submitted to the correct official
That no written policy or procedure has ever been provided, despite years of requests
That safeguarding harassment continued despite full legal compliance
That the state invented a procedural noncompliance only after being questioned
That institutional coordination between education, complaints, and social development officials is non-existent
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because no parent should be told they “spoke to the wrong official” after years of obedience. Because truancy officers should not behave like bounty hunters. Because safeguarding is not an excuse for public defamation or medical abuse. Because when a mother complies with every instruction and is still threatened with child removal, the problem is not the mother — it is the memory hole of the state.
IV. Violations
Breach of procedural fairness
Repeated safeguarding intrusions without lawful basis
Forced hospital visits and medical abuse of minors
Defamation via public truancy accusations
COVID-19 emergency law violations
Institutional retaliation for documented compliance
Failure to provide education policy in writing
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this as a definitive exhibit of state incompetence dressed up as concern. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
That institutional forgetfulness is not the same as parental noncompliance
That safeguarding chaos is not a valid justification for trespass
That education departments must provide policy before accusing parents of violating it
That no child was ever protected by a truancy officer screaming in a supermarket
And that this email is a masterclass in forced compliance — and its legal consequences