The Commission Was Informed. It Chose to Sleep.

---

⟡ SWANK Petition ⟡

An Archive of Breach, Bureaucracy, and Barefaced Harassment
15 July 2020

When the State Refuses to Read Its Own Laws

---

I. The Harassment Was Sanctioned, but Not Legal

From June 2017 to July 2020, the Department of Social Development (DSD) in Grand Turk launched not a safeguarding mission—but a persecution campaign.

It began with one legally documented decision: a mother homeschooling her children with formal approval.
Approval was granted by Mark Garland on 26 June 2017.

The DSD disregarded this.
They ignored educational law.
They ignored public health law.
They ignored human rights law.

They did not ignore me.
They hunted me.

---

II. The Abuses Were Not Abstract. They Were Documented.

🩸 Sexual abuse by a government doctor, committed in front of nine adult witnesses, and greenlit by DSD. I objected. They retaliated. My children suffered the unspeakable.

🧬 Outdated and harmful medical practices were imposed, including coercive attempts to retract my sons’ foreskin—directly contradicting NHS medical guidance. This is not “care.” This is cruelty.

📚 Homeschooling was pathologised despite my consistent documentation of curricula, educational activities, and my own Master’s degree.

🏠 Home invasions: fence-breaking, illegal entry, shouting through windows, and coercive hospitalisation—all without legal authority or court orders.

🦠 COVID-19 violations: Social workers trespassed during lockdown, risking the life of a mother with eosinophilic asthma, a clinically vulnerable condition. No masks. No sense. No accountability.

---

III. Violations of the Constitution & Conscience

The following constitutional rights under the Turks and Caicos Islands Constitution Order 2011 were plainly violated:

• Right to Private and Family Life

• Right to Protection from Inhuman Treatment

• Right to Education

• Right to Lawful Administrative Action

• Right to Freedom of Expression

• Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion

• Protection from Discrimination

They mocked my beliefs.
They harassed my family.
They humiliated my children.
They endangered my life.
They ignored every complaint.

They fabricated unwritten laws—and punished me for not following them.

---

IV. What They Ignored—and Why It Matters

• They ignored my legal homeschool approval.

• They ignored my medical vulnerability.

• They ignored the constitutional framework they claimed to uphold.

• They ignored the psychological damage they inflicted.

When I finally filed a formal petition to the Human Rights Commission, they responded with silence.

Silence is not neutrality.
Silence is complicity.

---

---

© SWANK Archive. All Patterns Reserved.
Unauthorised reproduction, surveillance, or paper-pushing reinterpretation of the truth is prohibited.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

---

Dear Attorney General, Please Remind Them I Can Read

 ⚖️ SWANK Dispatch: When the Law Is Clear but the Social Workers Pretend It Isn’t

🗓️ 15 July 2020

Filed Under: legal noncompliance, homeschool discrimination, child trauma, ignored statutory rights, medical abuse, Attorney General outreach, safeguarding hypocrisy, institutional harassment

---

“You can’t claim to protect children while ignoring the laws that do.”
— A Mother Who Has Read the Ordinance

To the Honourable Archive,

Three and a half years. That’s how long I endured harassment under the guise of safeguarding. The truth? It began when I chose to homeschool — legally, with full approval. But instead of respect, I received retaliation.

By 15 July 2020, I had exhausted polite routes. My letters to Ashley Adams-Forbes were ignored. My request to the Complaints Commissioner was met with silence. So I wrote to Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles, the Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands — not for favour, but for the enforcement of law.

---

📚 I. The Legal Requirement They Pretended Not to Know

According to the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance, 2015, a report must be provided to the parent of any child under investigation — unless a legitimate safety risk or criminal investigation precludes it.

I received nothing.
No report.
No explanation.
No lawful justification.

Just ongoing interference and unexplained intrusions into our private life.

---

🧠 II. The Consequences Were Not Administrative — They Were Traumatic

• My children were harmed by a doctor at the National Hospital — a violation directly facilitated by the system allegedly meant to protect them.
• They were subjected to emotional and psychological abuse from social work practices.
• They were never told why. And neither was I.

How can one teach one’s children to trust institutions when the institutions refuse to explain themselves?

---

⚠️ III. Polite Requests Were Ignored. Legal Duties Were Not Fulfilled.

The response to my formal concern was:

🫥 Silence from the Complaints Commissioner
🫥 No report from the Department of Social Development
🫥 Ongoing surveillance without grounds

Is it incompetence? Or just impunity?

---

⚖️ Final Plea to Power:

“I would also like to ask you to please use your power as Attorney General to ensure that the Department of Social Development follow the Turks and Caicos Law.”

This was not a request for favour.
It was a demand for lawful governance.
Whether or not she responded, the record now stands.

---

They Harmed My Children. Then They Dodged the Lawyer.

---

⟡ SWANK Archive Dispatch ⟡

“A Lawyer Asked the Questions They Were Too Ashamed to Answer.”
Filed: 25 August 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/JAMESLAW-2020
📎 Download PDF – 2020-08-25_SWANK_LegalLetter_JamesLaw_DisclosureRequest_TCI_SafeguardingBreach.pdf

---

I. The Letter Was Legal. Their Silence Was Not.

This was not a complaint.
This was not a protest.
This was a formal legal demand from James Law Chambers, issued by counsel Lara Maroof, and addressed to Social Development, Turks and Caicos Islands.

It outlines — with composure and forensic clarity — the following:

• Children subjected to forced genital examinations

• No cause. No consent. No documentation.

• Multiple unlawful home visits, including during COVID-19 lockdown

• The destruction of trust and health across three years of state intrusion

• And the government’s refusal to even disclose their justification

The only thing more disturbing than the events was the department’s reaction:
None.

---

II. What This Document Confirms

• That legal professionals reviewed the case and found cause for alarm

• That international human rights and safeguarding law were clearly breached

• That the pattern had already been recognised — and still no one intervened

“We are instructed to demand disclosure,” the letter says.
What they got was evasion.
What we now have — is record.

---

III. SWANK’s Position

When a state body:

• Forces unlawful examinations on children

• Ignores documented trauma

• And dodges legal questions from formal counsel

…it is no longer a service.
It is a threat — cloaked in procedural stationery.

SWANK does not litigate.
We publish.
So the public can see what lawyers already knew:

This wasn’t safeguarding.
It was systemic violence under pastel headers.

Let the record show:

• The letter was sent.

• The questions were clear.

• The children were harmed.

• The agency did not respond.

• And SWANK — published all of it.

---

⟡ 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.

---

The Records Went Missing. The Harm Did Not.

---

⟡ SWANK Clinical Misconduct Archive – TCI ⟡
“They Called It Concern. Then They Examined My Children Without Consent.”
Filed: 8 November 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/CTMC-INTERHEALTH-MEDICAL-ABUSE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2020-11-08_SWANK_TCI_CTMC_InterHealth_MedicalMisconduct_Complaint.pdf
Author: Polly Chromatic

---

I. This Was Not a Clinical Encounter. It Was Institutional Harm With a Stethoscope.

Filed in November 2020, this complaint names Cockburn Town Medical Centre (CTMC) and InterHealth Canada in a coordinated act of medical misconduct against a disabled parent and her children.

At the centre of it:

• Non-consensual genital examinations

• Eight to nine adults present

• No safeguarding threshold met

• No paediatric emergency declared

• No written consent obtained

• And no clinical justification offered — other than vague “concern”

What happened in that room was not a misunderstanding.
It was institutional access disguised as assessment.

---

II. What the Complaint Documents

• Children examined without prior disclosure, without legal basis, and without medical context

• No paediatric specialist involved — despite the nature of the procedures

• Multiple staff present, observing, without necessity or explanation

• No documentation provided after the exam

• A complete refusal to release medical records following the event

• A consistent pattern of data concealment and narrative shaping, coordinated across state and hospital actors

This wasn’t safeguarding.
This was procedural theatre conducted on minors.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because medical consent is not optional when the state is involved.
Because child protection is not performed in silence and shame.
Because when a parent asks for records and is told “they don’t exist”,
— we file the refusal as evidence of its own misconduct.

We filed this because:

• Institutions used “concern” as access and record suppression as strategy

• The medical harm was not incidental — it was documented, denied, and repeated

• This event was a blueprint for future abuse — and SWANK archives blueprints

Let the record show:

There was no emergency.
There was no consent.
There was no explanation.
And now — there is no silence.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept “checking” children as a state-sponsored entitlement.
We do not accept eight professionals in a room pretending consent was implied.
We do not accept silence where trauma was caused.

Let the record show:

The state was watching.
The clinic was participating.
The mother was alert.
And SWANK — wrote it all down.

This wasn’t medicine.
It was colonial safeguarding with latex gloves.

---

⟡ 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.