Andy Ashby first introduced himself as the Lead Nurse for Complaints and PALS (Patient Advisory Liaison Service) in an email received by me on the 10^th August, 2022. His email explained that my concerns were now being ‘managed formally’ and requested that I ‘direct all communications through our team’ and ‘not address any further emails to Wanda or the clinical team.’

I received Andy Ashby’s introduction with optimism, believing it to be a sign that my complaints were now going to be treated honestly, candidly and professionally. My optimism was misplaced.

I eventually spoke to Andy Ashby by telephone on Monday 22^nd August, 2022 and wrote a long email to him the following day. The highlights of that email include

1)     My frustrations in accessing records of the meetings of senior managers and clinical leads, including clinical psychologist, Dr Natalie Roberts, convened to discuss me.

2)     Reference to the policy document Sussex Safeguarding Adults Policy And Procedures edition 4 May 2019 that clinicians at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke FAILED to follow.

3)     My contended status as a ‘patient’ of art therapist, Sally Mungall.

4)     A series of legitimate questions that have NEVER, to this day, been satisfactorily answered.

'Hello Andy,

I have spent the last nine hours or so mulling over our telephone conversation from earlier this afternoon and I need to set the following salient points into the written record;

I tried to make you understand how desperately important it is for me to understand the thinking and rationale for decisions made about me by Camhs staff during at least two meetings held during January and the beginning of February 2022. I also have reason to believe that there was a third meeting. While there is no evidence of such a third meeting entered into the medical records, Wanda Reynolds has told me, verbally, that Dr Natalie Roberts, clinical psychologist for Camhs was integral to the decision-making process. A list of attendees for both meetings held during January and the beginning of February has been made available to me through disclosed records and Dr Roberts is not specifically mentioned in either.

I told you that I had been asking Wanda for the minutes to what she referred to as an ‘intensive meeting of senior managers and clinical leads’ for many weeks. She finally acquiesced and eventually told me that she had ‘found’ the minutes that I was requesting access to and apologised because those minutes had not been ‘entered into the system’. She also told me that she was going to send those minutes to Sally Mungall to have her ‘check for accuracy’. I immediately questioned why those minutes had not been entered into the record at the time that they had been made and why Sally was being asked to check for accuracy a full six months after the meeting had taken place. I quoted the legal obligations set out in the Records Management Code of Practice 2021 with particular reference to the ‘record characteristics’ ie ‘authentic’, ‘reliable’, integrity’ and ‘useable’. Wanda didn’t reply to my repeated requests to answer my questions that referenced the Code of Practice. She eventually did reply, telling me that the meeting was held at an ‘operational level’ and such meetings did not require minutes to be recorded. This aroused suspicions that no minutes were entered into the records at the time of the meeting because no minutes were made, period. I considered this a serious overlook. I also saw that Wanda was trying to deceive me. I continued to ask for minutes of the ‘intensive meeting of senior managers and clinical leads’ until Katie Rees at IG sent me the following email on the 8^th August 2022;

‘I have received the Professionals Meeting minutes with CMHT and these are attached, these are the minutes which Sally was requested to check for accuracy. Please note some third party information has been redacted as per our Subject Access Request policy. This information is redacted as default in all Subject Access Requests.

I have been advised that we won't be disclosing the Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion from 1^st February 2022. Unfortunately I am unable to comment further on this but you are more than entitled to detail this within your complaint to PALS or contact Wanda Reynolds for more information.’

I replied immediately with the following email;

Dear Katie,

Thank you for the enclosed Professionals Meeting minutes.

This is NOT the information that I requested of Wanda and she knows it. These minutes from the Professionals Meeting of Feb 9^th 2022 were disclosed to me by Southern Health way back in June 2022. The parts that you have redacted were not redacted by Southern Health.

I wanted access to the minutes of the meeting of ‘senior managers and clinical leads following receipt of my letter to Sally at the end of December 2021’ held at Camhs either late December 2021 OR early January 2022. I was very specific and was promised the minutes of that meeting by Wanda. I was unaware of the ’Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion from 1^st February 2022’ although I can see from the records disclosed by Southern Health that it was this meeting prompted an email from Sally Mungall to Mid and North CRHT later that evening on the 1^st February 2022 at 19.21. I have that email fully disclosed to me by Southern Health. So why the secrecy? That’s a rhetorical question, Katie and I’m writing it here for the record.

Sorry but it appears that Wanda has wasted your time, Katie.

Please note that my dates and references are sometimes inaccurate. This is purely down to not being given the correct information in a timely manner which I suspect is a deliberate manoeuvre designed to obfuscate and obstruct my legitimate enquiries.

Katie Rees then kindly searched, without instruction from me, through the archives to find further information relating to the ‘intensive meeting of senior management and clinical leads’ and discovered the ‘care notes of a Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion’ which she forwarded to me. While the case notes were heavily redacted I could see that there were, potentially, two meetings held. The first was a meeting held by Julie Yalden along with Sally and Mark Birbeck and lasted approx one hour and 15 minutes. The purpose of that meeting was to ‘devise a plan’ to mitigate against ‘perceived and actual risks’ relating to ME. The second was a possible meeting that followed this one. Wanda had already confirmed that there was a meeting that was attended by ‘senior management and clinical leads’ and had also suggested that Dr Roberts was involved at some stage. That adds up to a potential THREE meetings held to make clinical decisions about ME.

I will draw your attention to the reference used ie    SUBJECT: RE; 1365700 MARK STOCK DAD OF MEG

THE SAFEGUARDING INTERNAL CASE DISCUSSION HAS A SUBJECT: RE; 1365700 MARK STOCK DAD OF MEG

So, this reference establishes that a Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion was held in at least one meeting that clearly identifies me as the subject.

I should also make you aware of the policy document Sussex Safeguarding Adults Policy And Procedures edition 4 May 2019.

Section 1.1.2 Promote wellbeing states ‘Professionals should work with each adult to establish what being safe means to them and how that can be best achieved.’

Section 1.1.4 Key principles informing this policy states ‘Empowerment: Description; Presumption of person led decisions and informed consent. Outcome for the adult at risk; ‘’I am asked what I want as the outcomes from the safeguarding process and these directly inform what happens.’’ In practice this means; Having clear and accessible systems for adults’ views to be heard and influence and change. Giving people relevant information and support about safeguarding and the choices available to ensure their own safety.

Section 1.1.4 Key principles informing this policy goes on to describe PREVENTION, PROPORTIONALITY, PROTECTION, PARTNERSHIP and ACCOUNTABILITY.

I think it’s easy to understand my point in referring you to these policy principles.

Section 2.1.2 Prevention in safeguarding goes on to state that ‘individuals ( should be ) empowered to make choices...’

If the meeting referred to above was indeed a Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion then why was I not informed or ‘empowered’? Why was I not asked what I want as an outcome? Why was I not given relevant information or given choices or why was I not given access to a system for my views to be heard? Why was I not given the opportunity to influence or change?

The ‘intensive meeting of senior management and clinical leads’ that convened to discuss my ‘safeguarding’ did so in clear violation of the principles set out in the Sussex Safeguarding Adults Policy And Procedures edition 4 May 2019.

Now, I’ll let you mull this over and reconsider YOUR reiterated statement in your conversation with me earlier this afternoon that ‘I was technically not a patient at Camhs’. Perhaps you’ll now consider the seriousness of this aspect of my case and recognise that I should have been appraised of the Safeguarding meeting and been intimately involved in the decision-making process relative to the ‘safeguarding’. That is the most salient point of this email, ie I have absolutely EVERY RIGHT to access the minutes of the meeting(s) that took place. If no minutes were taken at the time then it was a serious oversight that warrants a timely, thorough, independent investigation.

Decisions made during those meetings had a catastrophic effect upon me as a patient at Camhs. You may argue over technicalities over what constitutes ‘patient’ when it comes to Camhs but you categorically CANNOT argue that decisions made during those meetings had a catastrophic effect on me as a patient at the Bridge Centre. I still maintain that I WAS  a patient at Camhs. The therapy carried out during ‘parent work’ with Sally made a patient out of me. You are obliged to recognise my status as ‘patient’. Regardless, I was discussed, in depth, by multiple persons who are staff at Camhs.

I can see from the records disclosed by Katie Rees that it was Julie Yalden, Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck who collectively decided on plans that included cancelling my meeting with Sally scheduled for the 3^rd February 2022, formulating a planned deceit that ultimately led to pretending that Sally was ‘unable to take any of her meetings for the week including ours due to unforeseen circumstances’ and for monitoring communication from me. I can even see the embryonic plan to emotionally manipulate me during my scheduled mental health assessment at the Bridge Centre.

But this isn’t enough.

I need to understand the further thinking and rationale behind these meetings.

Until I have access to this information I cannot move on with my life. You still seriously underestimate the distress caused. I cannot get over this. My life is at a complete standstill and I have NO HOPE for the future. I am at crisis point and even my work with my current therapist has reached an impasse as I don’t know how to trust anyone. I trusted Sally, completely but was ultimately abandoned by her. Not just abandoned but abandoned by proxy, with deceit and with callous disregard. She knew me well enough to understand that abandoning me was going to damage me. I had been utterly vulnerable during my therapy sessions with her and suffered intense transference due to the intensity of those sessions. She was unable to contain that intensity and I was CUT OFF! It was grotesquely unprofessional. It was clinical malpractice. She knew what was exhausted after 15 years of being a single dad and sole carer to a mentally ill child. She knew I was suffering ‘carer burnout’ when I first arrived at Camhs with my daughter on the 5^th February 2021. She recognised the risk I presented to myself during the final review at Camhs on 13^th January 2022 as I struggled with suicidal ideation but still insisted that I needed to carry on in my role as sole carer for my daughter indefinitely or at least another year.

Was she making these decisions for herself or was she persuaded by senior staff to adopt them? I need to know. Was I right in putting absolute faith in Sally’s judgement? Was I right to trust her? Who was it that suggested that I was a risk to her? Who dared to suggest I was a risk to my own daughter? Whose idea was it to call the police? And why? Was there a meeting before the hour and 15 minute meeting between Julie Yalden, Mark Birbeck and Sally? At what point did Dr Roberts become involved? Did Sally protest at decisions being made? Was she made to fear for her job? Did she really have my best interests at heart? Was the therapy that she used with me during ‘parent work’ a result of an overly ambitious ego? Did she prioritise her academic ambition over my wellbeing? Did she simply get in over her head and take the easy route out by agreeing to cut me off? Was she secretly disgusted by me and want to shower off all trace of me? ( she did actually say something similar to me once during our sessions ). Did she seek to further her career by tapping into the intergenerational trauma of an atypical parent with the hope of writing a career-enhancing academic paper? ( she told me that she wanted to write an academic paper on me). Was she disgusted by my affection toward her? Was she secretly glad to have avoided our scheduled meeting of the 3^rd of February? Has she ever worried about me since I last saw her in January? Has she never thought it right to reach out to me and enquire of my wellbeing? Has she forgotten about me and found forgetting me easy?

You see, those meetings proved foundational to every negative thing that happened to me afterwards. The message that sprang out of those meetings was taken up by staff at the Bridge Centre and embellished into descriptors that framed ne as an ‘obsessed’, ‘fixated’ ‘stalker’. That misrepresentation of me has undoubtedly led to conscious and unconscious bias. I’m obviously regarded as something dirty, unclean or even criminal. My mental health concerns have been roundly dismissed and replaced by contempt and indifference. My medical records are peppered with words and phrases like ‘risk’,‘ perceived threat to therapist’, ‘risk to others’, ‘infatuated with therapist’ ( that’s a demeaning way to treat my feelings), ‘should be reported to the police’, ‘she could be at risk’, ‘hence the police needs to be informed’, ‘stalking or threat to Sally should be reported to the police’, ‘presenting risks perceived and actual’, ‘ perceived risk to art therapist’, ‘potentially put art therapist at risk’, ‘risk to those around him’, ‘reports of fascinations with Sally’, ( that’s a really weird word to use ), ‘evidence we have of concern shared to police’,   etc

I absolutely need to have answers to these questions. Having access to the minutes of the meetings would help me to understand, help me to answer those questions. Until I have access to the thought processes involved, until I know the details that explain the rationale behind the decisions made I wont have access to closure.

I need something to take with me to my current therapist. I need something that I can work with, something to help my settle the chaos in my head ( and it really is chaos in my head. I can think of little else. It’s an existential crisis for me ). If Sally was instrumental in the decisions that were made then I need to know. I cannot reconcile the contradictions until I know. This is real cognitive dissonance and it’s driving me to the edge of a precipice.

The truth must come out. I would rather I was alive to hear the truth but the truth WILL come out, with or without me.

I’ll let you mull all this over.

In the meantime I have satisfied myself that these thoughts are now in writing and ultimately in the public record for future examination.

Yours sincerely,

Mark'