“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label truancy threats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truancy threats. Show all posts

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.

“Please Email Me a Letter” — Said 27 Times, Ignored Every One

 📚 SWANK Dispatch: Exhibit A — The Facebook Record That Should Have Been a Formal Letter

🗓️ 7 August 2020

Filed Under: homeschool obstruction, evidence of compliance, social work escalation, educational gatekeeping, digital documentation, policy evasion, truancy threats, legal overreach


“The record was digital, the neglect was institutional.”
— A Mother With a Screenshot and a Syllabus

In this final escalation to Edgar Howell, Director of Education, Polly Chromatic didn’t just explain the past three years — she documented them. With timestamps. Screenshots. Email threads. And an unassailable transcript of evidence pulled directly from Facebook Messenger, lovingly titled Exhibit A.

What she revealed was not a story.
It was a bureaucratic slow-burn:
Approval dangled.
Letters promised.
Deadlines missed.
Children threatened.


🧾 I. The Timeline Is Not Alleged. It’s Archived.

• 15 June 2017 – Initial message to Mark Garland via Facebook
• 26 June 2017 – In-person meeting at 3pm in Grand Turk
• 4 September 2017 – Mark finally requests her curriculum
• 10+ separate written requests asking for written homeschool confirmation
• Dozens of follow-up calls, messages, and apologies for non-response
• Multiple truancy threats, including from the truancy officer (Mr Kennedy)
• Zero formal letters received

All while she followed the UK curriculum and complied with every informal instruction.


📉 II. Compliance Was Never the Problem — Communication Was

Polly:

“I am happy to adhere to whatever curriculum you want me to follow but I need to know what that is.”

Instead of clarity, she received:
• Vague emails
• Delayed replies
• Repetitive instructions
• And most devastatingly — continued harassment from the Department of Social Development for lack of a letter that had been promised but never sent.


🧠 III. Digital Evidence vs Institutional Amnesia

Mark Garland:

“I will email you this evening.”
27 times — Noelle followed up.

What she got:
✓ Approval in conversation
✓ Repeated verbal acknowledgements
✗ No formal protection from truancy accusations
✗ No shielding from social work threats


📌 Final Plea:

“Please, I am willing to do whatever is necessary to resolve this matter cooperatively.”

But cooperation is only possible when the institution holds up its end — and responds, formally, in writing, as promised.

SWANK has the receipts.
Exhibit A, archived.



You Received the Request. You Chose Not to Reply.



⟡ How Many Times Must I Ask to Homeschool Before You Stop Calling It Neglect? ⟡

Filed: 7 August 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2020-EDUCATION-HOWELL
📎 Download PDF — 2020-08-07_SWANK_TCI_EducationDept_HomeschoolingHarassment_LegalPetition_EdgarHowell.pdf


I. This Was Not a Request. It Was a Formal Reminder That I Already Complied.

This letter was sent to Mr. Edgar Howell, Director of Education, Turks and Caicos Islands, following years of:

  • Lawful homeschooling requests

  • Meticulously filed documentation

  • Repeated educational reports

  • And in return: truancy threats, safeguarding innuendo, and zero policy follow-through

What began as consent became suspicion.
What should’ve ended in confirmation became harassment.
And what you ignored, SWANK filed.


II. Facebook Was More Procedural Than the Ministry

The letter documents:

  • Attempts to register homeschooling through formal channels

  • Requests for written acknowledgement of lawful exemption

  • Staff responding through informal apps

  • No confirmation. No closure. No accountability.

Instead, the state defaulted to:

  • Monitoring

  • Threat

  • “Welfare visits”

  • And professional disdain veiled as outreach

This is not education policy.
This is digital avoidance stitched to analog power trips.


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no parent should be punished for following the law.
Because homeschooling is not a safeguarding issue.
Because neglecting a reply is not the same as neglecting a child.

Let the record show:

  • The parent submitted everything

  • The department responded with nothing

  • And still tried to escalate concern

  • Until this letter — filed it all

This is not a gentle reminder.
It is legal recoil, dressed in calm paragraphs.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not confuse paperwork silence with innocence.
We do not accept safeguarding as a substitute for policy.
We do not permit institutional vagueness to justify familial distress.

Let the record show:

The family complied.
The Ministry deflected.
And SWANK wrote it down — before they could rewrite the timeline.