“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label child protection abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child protection abuse. Show all posts

A Chronology of Retaliation Disguised as Welfare: How DSD Failed, Fumbled, and Fabricated



πŸ‘‘ The Name Is Chromatic

On Surnames, Surveillance, and State-Sanctioned Folly

By: Polly Chromatic
(nΓ©e Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett, but not if I can help it)
πŸ“ Grand Turk / Providenciales / London
πŸ•° Dated: 9 January 2020


πŸ–‹ I. Regarding Names, Misnamings, and Institutional Clumsiness

Let us begin where all bureaucracy fumbles first: identity.

  • My full legal name—infelicitously recorded—is Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett.

  • “Bonnee Annee” is misspelled on my husband’s adoption certificate. It ought to be Bonneannee.

  • “Simlett” belongs to my husband’s stepfather and plays no meaningful role in my personhood.

  • I do not use either. Neither should you.

  • We intend to correct this grave aesthetic and legal oversight by legally adopting the surname Bonneannee, a name as unapologetically French as our standards.


🏚 II. Duke Street: A Study in Neighbourly Malice

November 2016 – November 2017

  • Our residency on Duke Street was marred by the theatrical villainy of one Brian Haegney, who declared (publicly and repeatedly) his wish to have my children “taken away.”

  • He succeeded in summoning the state: Ashley Adams Forbes responded on 23 May 2017 with references to “many occasions” of physical abuse.

  • There were no such occasions.

  • I have never physically punished my children. Not once. Not ever.

  • Fabrication, however, was clearly in season.


πŸ₯ III. The May 2017 Examination: A Display of Barbarism

  • Following Brian's fables, I—along with my mother and children—was forcibly escorted to Grand Turk National Hospital.

  • My sons were subjected to genital examinations in the presence of nine seated adults, who arranged themselves in a semicircle as though attending a gallery opening.

  • My daughter was not examined at all. One wonders why.

  • There was no consent. No privacy. No explanation.

  • I protested. I was shamed for protesting.

  • My mother witnessed every indignity. We left traumatised. DSD left satisfied.


πŸ“΅ IV. On the Myth of My Disappearance

  • Contrary to DSD’s invented difficulties, I have had the same phone number since 2016.

  • I provided them a timeline that plainly stated we had relocated to Providenciales.

  • They knew where we were. They simply preferred the fiction.


πŸ›’ V. Brown Houses, Truancy Officers, and the Politics of Grocery Shopping

May 2018

  • Upon moving to the Brown Houses, I was harassed in the grocery store by Mr. Kennedy, truancy officer and part-time intimidator.

  • I contacted Ashley Adams ForbesMark Garland, and Edgar Howell. Mark responded. Ashley threatened a home visit to inspect my children's notebooks.

  • No such visit occurred.

  • I was advised to let it go by our property attorney Andre Malcolm, so I did—like a lady, not a doormat.


🧾 VI. Homeschooling: Authorised and Yet Persecuted

  • I spoke to Mark Garland in June 2017. He formally approved me to homeschool.

  • DSD was informed—directly and explicitly.

  • Therefore, any report about my children “being out during school hours” in 2018 is not just irrelevant, it is publicly embarrassing for those who made it.


🧱 VII. Palm Grove, Petty Neighbours, and Nonsensical Allegations

August 2019

  • Allegations emerged: drug use, nudity, dirty children. (I assure you: only the last one is true, and blessedly so.)

  • The report coincides precisely with a verbal altercation involving my neighbour Jenny and her fence-builder John, a man who:

    • Attempted to punch me through a fence.

    • Threatened to kill me.

    • Complained that my house “should be torn down.”

  • If children being barefoot in their own yard offends someone, the problem is with their worldview, not my parenting.


πŸ’‰ VIII. Vaccinations and Surveillance by Stethoscope

  • My children are vaccinated. In the USAUK, and TCI. Try to keep up.

  • The report that we were “unvaccinated” came one day after I privately discussed vaccines on the phone with my mother. Someone had clearly been eavesdropping.

  • Romeo’s cheek bandage was from treating a cherry angioma, not trauma.

  • The wart plasters I used worked better than the prescription.

  • The doctor declared all children in good health. So why was a Care Plan initiated?

  • We were left at the hospital without transport or explanation.


🧠 IX. The Psychiatric Farce

  • I have no mental health diagnosis.

  • I disclosed eosinophilic asthma—a medical condition, not a psychiatric one.

  • Mental health officers were sent anyway. They asked if the trampoline was for the kids and whether we wore shoes outdoors.

  • No reports, no diagnoses, no explanations. Just... bureaucrats in sandals.


πŸ“Œ X. The Paper Trail of Nothingness

  • Ashley Forbes now declares that a “current investigation” continues.

  • Into what, exactly?

    • Medical professionals reported no concerns.

    • My documentation is exhaustive.

    • DSD refused to meet my attorney, Lara.

  • They claim I am uncooperative. Yet the silence, avoidance, and evasion are all theirs.


πŸ“Ž XI. Demands, Non-Negotiable

I hereby demand:

  • Full access to all records and reports made by DSD against me.

  • Disclosure of every justification offered for:

    • The 2017 genital inspections.

    • The 2019 hospital visit.

    • The so-called Care Plan that no one has seen.

  • A formal acknowledgement that no Care Plan was ever agreed, signed, or explained.


πŸ•― Final Observation

This is no longer about safeguarding. It is about face-saving.

A decade of harassment, neighbourly vendettas, misapplied protocols, and fabricated crises—designed not to protect children, but to punish a woman who refuses to grovel.

If DSD remains “involved,” it is not because of need. It is because they cannot admit error.


⟡ 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.



They Said “Supervision Order.” I Said “Abuse of Process.”

 ⚖️ SWANK Dispatch: I Filed to Dismiss the State's Lies. Legally. Loudly. Publicly.

πŸ—“️ 7 January 2021

Filed Under: supervision order dismissal, legal abuse, child protection overreach, statutory noncompliance, passport overreach, court process violation, unfounded safeguarding, procedural misapplication, legal defence, F Chambers


“If my children were in danger,
you wouldn’t need to lie to the court.
But you did.
Which means they weren’t.”

— A Mother Who Took the Department of Social Development to Court for Filing Fiction


This formal legal application, submitted by F Chambers on behalf of Polly Chromatic, moves to dismiss the Department of Social Development’s request for a twelve-month Supervision Order filed in September 2020.

What makes this filing extraordinary isn’t just its precision — it’s that it exposes a full procedural collapse of lawful safeguarding under the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance 2015.


🧾 I. Seven Legal Grounds. No Leg to Stand On.

The application asserts that the state's case must be dismissed because:

  1. The file includes dated, misleading, and erroneous information

  2. It is a blatant abuse of court process

  3. The department failed to meet basic statutory obligations under sections 4, 9, 12, 18, and 22

  4. It overreaches its legal authority — notably by trying to control passports

  5. The department didn’t notify the mother or children as required by law

  6. It fails to disclose harm — the legal threshold for any such order

  7. It wastes court time and diverts resources from real safeguarding needs


πŸ“Œ II. Why This Filing Matters

  • It shifts the narrative from defence to prosecution of the process itself

  • It forces the department to justify its paperwork — not just its posture

  • It sends a message: “You cannot weaponise safeguarding without evidence and expect no resistance.”


🧠 III. SWANK Commentary

This isn’t just about getting a case dismissed.
It’s about getting a state narrative unmasked.

Because when the only harm is the application itself —
The court becomes the crime scene.



Twelve Legal Questions. Zero Legal Answers.

 ⚖️ SWANK Dispatch: When a Lawyer Has to Ask Why Your Children Were Touched

πŸ—“️ 25 August 2020

Filed Under: legal intervention, forced medical exams, investigation without cause, rights breach, family life violation, child protection misconduct, lack of disclosure, systemic harassment, trauma documentation


“Was there a report of abuse? If so, where is it?
If not — then what gave you the right to examine my sons’ genitals?”

— A Mother, Represented and Still Waiting for Answers


This letter from attorney Lara Maroof of James Law Chambers to Ashley Adams, Deputy Director of Social Development, formalises the case that Polly Chromatic has been trying to make for over three years:
That no lawful cause has been given for the intrusion, medical violations, and trauma inflicted upon her and her children.


🧾 I. What This Letter Demands

Twelve direct legal questions, including:

  1. Was any report of suspected abuse ever made in 2017 or 2019?

  2. Was any assessment carried out before police and social worker visits?

  3. On what grounds were her three sons subjected to genital examinations?

  4. Why was no interview conducted with Polly prior to these exams?

  5. Why were the children not spoken to before being touched?

  6. What legal section was used to justify action — or inaction — under the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance?

  7. What lawful grounds existed for the 26 March 2020 home intrusion during national lockdown?

  8. Is there an active investigation or not?

These are basic statutory questions.
Yet none had ever been answered.
Even after three years.
Even after a lawyer asked in writing.


⚠️ II. What This Reveals

  • There is no record of a proper cause for any investigation

  • The department violated both medical ethics and legal procedure

  • No closure was given. No actions were explained.

  • The result has been chronic, legally sanctioned distress for Noelle and her children

“After three years, it is reasonable to expect your Department would have been able to form a very clear opinion…”
Instead — they formed no opinionno case, and no lawful conclusion.


πŸ“Œ Final Note:

The letter is from a lawyer.
The trauma is from a government.
The burden is on a mother.
And the silence, still —
is from the State.



We Asked for Rest. They Sent Reinforcements.



⟡ We’re Sick. You’re Still Coming. And Now It’s a Matter of Record. ⟡
“You think our home is a revolving door. We think this email is admissible.”

Filed: 24 September 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAILS-03
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2024-09-24_SWANK_EmailObjection_WCC_HarassmentDuringIllness_FamilyPrivacyBreach.pdf
Formal written objection to Westminster social workers entering a sick household, breaching medical boundaries and family privacy despite clear requests.


I. What Happened

On 24 September 2024, a disabled parent wrote to Westminster Children’s Services, objecting to an unrelenting pattern of home visits — despite the family being visibly ill, medically compromised, and mid-relocation.

The email requested:

  • Cancellation of the upcoming visit

  • An end to new workers entering the home

  • Respect for the household’s health, safety, and privacy

It followed repeated boundary violations, including:

  • A former social worker re-entering the home after being explicitly barred

  • Exposure of sick children to strangers during active illness

  • Dismissal of the parent’s respiratory and psychiatric conditions

Despite the clarity of the objection, the visits continued — and the disregard was logged.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Westminster proceeded with intrusive visits during active illness and crisis

  • That previous boundary-setting was ignored, including the rejection of specific staff

  • That privacy and safety concerns regarding unknown individuals were dismissed

  • That verbal disability adjustments were not respected despite explicit reminders

  • That a pattern of procedural harassment was unfolding under the guise of routine “concern”


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because asking not to be harassed while sick should not be controversial.
Because objecting to new strangers entering the home should not be ignored.
Because a request to “please don’t come tomorrow, we’re ill” should never be met with continued surveillance.

This isn’t social work.
It’s soft-intrusion under state authority — the appearance of concern masking the persistence of control.

You bring cameras to court.
We bring email headers.


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20
    Failure to acknowledge respiratory disability and respect written-only communication

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004
    Inappropriate use of statutory powers during health vulnerability

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8
    Breach of private and family life, despite direct withdrawal of consent

  • Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR
    Continued presence of unauthorised individuals in the private home of a disabled person and minor children


V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a visit.
It was intrusion.

This was not “business as usual.”
It was documented resistance to consent.

We were sick. We said no.
And Westminster said, “We’re coming anyway.”

Now we say:
You were warned. Now you’re recorded.


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.



Documented Obsessions