“Is There a Homeschooling Policy — or Just a Game of Institutional Telephone?”
⟡ An Email to Legal Counsel After Three Years of Complying with the Wrong Person’s Instructions
IN THE MATTER OF: Truancy lies, safeguarding retaliation, unlawful entry, and the constitutional right to not be shouted at in a grocery store
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-HOMESCHOOL-LEGALCONSULT
Court File Name: 2020-08-06_Records_LaraMaroofHomeschoolingDispute
Summary: This email documents a mother’s attempt to secure legal help after three years of harassment for “noncompliance” — despite having followed the exact directions she was given by the Department of Education. It outlines harassment by the truancy officer, invasive safeguarding visits based on fabrications, and repeated demands to comply with procedures that were never written down. It is the moment Polly Chromatic stopped playing nice with a state that couldn’t remember who told her what — and began formally preparing to sue.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic (then legally Noelle Bonneannée) wrote to Lara Maroof after being:
Approved to homeschool in 2017 by Mark Garland, Deputy Director of Education
Harassed by Mr. Kennedy, a truancy officer, who screamed at her in a supermarket and came to her home
Forced into multiple hospital visits for fabricated vaccination “concerns”
Witness to her sons being sexually examined in front of nine adults — including her and her mother
Repeatedly subjected to property invasion, including fence dismantling and COVID lockdown trespass
Told by the Complaints Commission that she had spoken to “the wrong person” for three years
Accused again of truancy — despite following all instructions from the Department of Education
Denied access to any written policy or standardised form for homeschooling compliance
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Mark Garland explicitly approved the homeschool plan and received all documents requested
That despite this, Polly was threatened by the Complaints Commission with child removal
That officials cited Edgar Howell’s instructions, yet Polly had never been contacted by him
That each department contradicted the last, creating a never-ending paper chase for “compliance”
That Polly was not simply accused of truancy — she was shamed, interrogated, and retraumatised for an education plan she was invited to pursue
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is not homeschooling — this is harassment. Because an education department that forgets who approved your plan is not a department, it’s a liability. Because “we changed the policy” is not a lawful reason to dismantle someone’s fence. Because shouting “TRUANT” in a grocery store is not oversight — it’s defamation. And because this email proves what every legal advocate eventually proves: compliance does not protect you when the state can’t remember what it asked for.
IV. Violations
Failure to provide written policy despite repeated requests
Contradictory legal guidance between departments
Retaliation for following homeschool procedures
Trespass during COVID-19 lockdown
Fabricated truancy threat despite lawful compliance
Medical abuse of minors in clinical setting
Defamation and intimidation by public officials
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this correspondence as a polite declaration of war. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
That any mother who follows the instructions of a deputy director is in compliance
That removing children for “noncompliance” when no standard exists is unlawful
That abuse under the guise of safeguarding is still abuse
That institutional forgetfulness is not a procedural justification — it’s a civil claim
And that this email is not just a plea for help — it is the beginning of legal reckoning
⟡ 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.