'MY REACTION TO YOUR RESPONSE TO MY COMPLAINT DATED 30^TH JULY 2022  ( REF SP22020 ) AND MY CONCLUSIONS BEFORE FORWARDING TO PHSO

MY CONTENDED ‘PATIENT’ STATUS

Your response to my complaint starts with your contention that I was not a ‘patient’ at Camhs and that no medical file was opened for me at SPFT. Your contention goes further by stating that all documentation, where necessary, was entered onto my daughter, Meg’s medical record. This is your contention in response to my repeatedly thwarted efforts to access details of at least three, potentially more, meetings held by senior management and clinical leads at Camhs, Bramblys Drive sometime between the end of December 2021 and 1^st February 2022. I robustly dispute your contention, especially when used to deny me access to details of those meetings. I was made a ‘patient’ as soon as Sally Mungall’s work with me turned from ‘parent work’ and crossed over into full-blown intense and traumatic psychotherapy.

There was NO CONTEXT with reference to ‘parent work’. THE SALIENT POINT HERE BEING THAT SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND CLINICAL LEADS WOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS HAD A PROPER FORENSIC INVESTIGATION BEEN CARRIED OUT AT THE TIME OF THOSE MEETINGS.

This is the FIRST FAILURE by senior management and clinical leads. Nobody thought to retrieve the ‘clinical notes’ made by Sally throughout the ‘parent work’ sessions. Scrutiny of those ‘clinical notes’ would have demonstrated that the therapy that was inappropriate and the outcome of those meetings would have been completely different.

Nobody accessed those ‘clinical notes’ until Wanda Reynolds printed them off and read them for herself just prior to my meeting with her and Vicky Long at the Bridge Centre on 20^th May 2022. Wanda’s actual words to me at that meeting, having been informed by those ‘clinical notes’, was that ‘We ( Camhs ) have damaged you’. I have read in your response that Wanda no longer has recollection of uttering those words but Vicky Long was prompted by Wanda to also add that my ‘mental health assessments carried out at the Bridge Centre would need to be reassessed.’ ( I have since written to Vicky for further comments but she is unavailable until the 12^th Sept due to AL and or illness ).

Instead, uninformed decisions were made that denied me a promised final meeting with Sally on the 3^rd Feb 2022 and, more egregiously, misrepresented me as a risk to staff, and particularly Sally, at Camhs, Bramblys Drive, a risk to my daughter Meg and worse. That misrepresentation escalated into regarding me as a ‘fixated’, ‘obsessed’ ‘stalker’ that needed monitoring and manipulating and, eventually a ‘concern that needed reporting to the police’!

At least one of those meetings was a Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion held on 1^st Feb 2022. That discussion identified ME as the subject. I was given the reference number  SUBJECT: RE; 1365700 MARK STOCK DAD OF MEG. Sussex Safeguarding Adults Policy And Procedures edition 4 May 2019 states the following; 

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.

CAMHS, BRAMBLYS DRIVE ACTED IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE SECTIONS OF POLICY AND PROCEDURE. This is the  SECOND FAILURE by senior management and clinical leads.

If I had been involved in the Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion which clearly identified ME as the subject then I would likely have steered the discussion along the correct line of investigation and the inappropriateness of the therapy carried out during ‘parent work’ would have been revealed to all attendees of that meeting.

So, why were minutes not taken at the time of the three, possibly more, meetings. You cite ‘operational’ as an excuse to absolve Camhs, Bramblys Drive of the responsibility to make minutes and to keep records. In what way exactly is a Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion which clearly identifies ME as the subject ‘operational’? Decisions made as a result of that meeting, and the other at least two meetings, led to clinical outcomes that had profoundly negative consequences for me, both at Camhs and then later at the Bridge Centre. Those decisions have psychologically damaged me, the effect of which is leading me to suicide.

The introduction to the NHS CONSTITUTION says ‘ It ( the NHS ) is there to improve our health and wellbeing, supporting us to keep mentally and physically well, to get better when we are ill and, when we cannot fully recover, to stay as well as we can to the end of our lives.’ Camhs, Bramblys Drive failed me in that most fundamental of undertakings and worse. They undermined my health and wellbeing and further impoverished my mental welfare. YOU WANT TO MAKE ME LESS THAN A PATIENT but I am a patient regardless. You acknowledge that the ‘parent work’ transitioned to having therapeutic impact but go on to suggest such work was ‘not delivered as an intervention following assessment and or diagnosis’. If you attend your GP surgery suffering symptoms of an as yet undetermined illness are you a ‘patient’ before or after an examination? Are you less than a ‘patient’ before an assessment or diagnosis? It’s a rhetorical question. At the point that the ‘parent work’ transitioned to having a therapeutic impact I became a ‘patient’ because the therapeutic impact had a negative clinical affect on me. That negative clinical affect has completely overwhelmed my life for the better part of a year. I currently barely function as a human being.

You can argue over the technicalities of if I am or am not a ‘patient’ ad nauseam. Minutes should have been taken at all three, or more, of those meetings held at Camhs, Bramblys Drive and at least entered into Meg’s medical records. This very complaint categorically proves the necessity to take minutes and enter them into the record. ANY MEETING THAT IDENTIFIES AN INDIVIDUAL PATIENT BY NAME OR, BY EXTENSION, A PARENT, GUARDIAN OR OTHER MAIN CARER OF THAT NAMED PATIENT SHOULD BE MINUTED AND RECORDS ENTERED INTO THE PATIENT’S RECORD. This should be mandatory, especially when such meetings have a clinical outcome that directly affects either the patient or, by extension, the parent, guardian or other main carer. The decisions made by the attendees of those meetings at Camhs, Bramblys Drive ultimately affected Meg. The trauma that I have endured as a result of inappropriate therapy and the decisions made by senior management and clinical leads was felt also by Meg. She witnessed her father’s profound distress in often mute horror. It was hard to explain to her why I was so distraught, hard to disguise the physical signs ie throwing up and having panic attacks. It was hard for her to contend with a dad who had shown remarkable resilience and resource in the face of overwhelming adversity and duress for so many years to finally succumb to debilitating depression. She was scared witless when police came knocking at our front door the day I went missing with intention to take me own life back in April.

THESE ARE THE CONCLUSIONS THAT I HAVE ARRIVED AT AFTER READING YOUR RESPONSE TO MY COMPLAINT

PART ONE

1)      Sally was NOT experienced in dealing with transference within the therapeutic relationship. She was unable to contain the intensely powerful feelings generated by what has later been established as inappropriate therapy. I have spoken with more experienced therapists since my ‘parent work’ with Sally and they have all, unequivocally shared their incredulity with me at the ill-advised attempt by Sally to carry out deep psychotherapy that uncovered intergenerational trauma within just a few short months. Indeed, my assessor at Basingstoke Counselling Services was heavily critical of that attempt. My current therapist at BCS believes that it will take us many years to deal with the trauma of my childhood abuse and neglect. Likewise, the supervisory structure available to Sally FAILED completely to recognise that she was delivering inappropriate therapy.

2)      My ‘parent work’ offered NO utility in the therapy that was simultaneously being carried out between my daughter, Meg and her therapist, Mark Birbeck. I made slight modifications to my parenting style as ‘parent work’ progressed but the insight gained by Sally into my own intergenerational trauma made little to no difference to Mark’s therapeutic approach to Meg.

3)      Sally’s letter to me dated 30^th December 2021 made no attempt to review the hideous drawings that I made during ‘parent work’. The meeting that we had arranged together for the 3^rd Feb 2022 was specifically set aside for that very purpose. It still makes me feel sick to remember when those drawings were handed back to me with insensitivity and indifference. Disgusting.

4)      –

5)      –

6)      The decision made by the Operational Manager, Professional lead and Clinical lead was based on incomplete information. The same goes for the other meetings that were held at around the same time and which were likely attended by Julie Yalden, Sarie Hodgson, Wanda Reynolds, Sally Mungall, Mark Birbeck, Dora Gouveia-Schofield, Amanda Parke, Emma Drake and Dr Natalie Roberts. None of the above, with the exception of Sally Mungall, were aware of the true nature of the therapy that had been delivered throughout my ‘parent work’. I was grossly misrepresented because the above attendees based their decisions on incomplete information. That misrepresentation characterised me as a RISK to staff at Camhs, Bramblys Drive, particularly Sally. That misrepresentation led to further embellishment in subsequent communication with staff at the Bridge Centre. My character was eventually maligned as a ‘fixated’, ‘obsessed’ ‘stalker’ who needed monitoring, emotionally manipulating and reporting to the police. I was even considered a RISK to my own daughter. Further misquoting, misinterpreting and imaginative embellishment and outright false information found its way into my medical records at the Bridge Centre. All of this can be traced back to the initial ‘extensive meetings of senior staff and clinical leads’ at Camhs, Bramblys Drive throughout January and the first part of February 2022. SENIOR STAFF AND CLINICAL LEADS FAILED TO MAKE A THOROUGH FORENSIC INVESTIGATION AND EXAMINE THE CLINICAL NOTES MADE BY SALLY THROUGHOUT THE ‘PARENT WORK’.

7)      –

8)      –

9)      It isn’t just the lack of communication that grieves me. It’s the clear deception that was being orchestrated. Sally was informing attendees at the ‘Professionals meeting’ at the Bridge Centre on the 9^th Feb 2022 that the scheduled appointment with me of the 3^rd Feb 2022 had being permanently cancelled and that ‘dad was unaware that this was not going to be rescheduled as promised’. Sally actually lied to me at the end of the final review on 13^th January when I said to her ‘See you on the 3^rd of February for our meeting’. She hesitated before saying ‘yes’ when she secretly knew that the meeting was already going to be cancelled. The lady from Camhs reception who phoned me on the 2^nd Feb to tell me that ‘sally had to cancel ALL her appointments for that week including mine’ ALSO lied. She lied again when she said ‘yes’ after I asked her to call back the following week to reschedule the appointment. Nobody attempted to contact me for the almost 6 weeks that I waited politely and patiently. Everyone at Camhs was in on the deception.

10)   Again, as explained above, I was being treated by way of intense psychotherapy and that made a ‘patient’ out of me. My case was a part of my daughters case, at the very least and Meg was still being seen by Mark Birbeck until 28^th January. My meeting with Sally could easily have been rescheduled at a time and date before the 28^th January.

11)   All decisions were based on incomplete information and definitely NOT with MY best intentions in mind. I was being misrepresented and considered a problem that needed reporting to the police.

12)   Meg gave her consent for me to see her medical records at the point at which I originally submitted my access to request records back week during commencing April 25^th 2022. NO EXCUSE.

13)   –

14)   –

15)   –

16)   –

17)   -

18)   Disclosure of medical records from Meg’s records was originally requested 18 weeks ago!

PART THREE

 ( using your numbering which is out of alignment with my own )

4) The decision to deny me an opportunity to face those ‘leadership staff and clinical leads’ or,  indeed ALL those mentioned in Part One number 6 above is COWARDLY. I was grotesquely misrepresented by that collective group and they have not been held accountable for the psychological damage done to me. Restorative justice would allow me the opportunity to be seen as a human being and for them to acknowledge my humiliation, distress and very real pain.

5) You have not identified any evidence of Camhs intentionally lying to me, acting in a deceptive manner or trying to manipulate me because you don’t want to identify it. I have taken much time and trouble to bring evidence to bear within the pages of my complaint document. That evidence is sourced directly from the medical records that were disclosed to me by the Bridge Centre. It’s all there in black and white. I have copies that I can provide to you or the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman.

6)-

7)-

8)-

9)-

10)I AM OUTRAGED BY YOUR ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE DECISION TO CONTACT THE POLICE AS A RESULT OF THE SAFEGUARDING MEETING. The attendees of those meetings and the subsequent ‘professionals meeting’ held at the Bridge Centre on the 9^th February 2022 were wholly wrong to frame me as a risk to anyone but myself. They endeavoured to make a criminal out of me as did staff at the Bridge Centre throughout January and February 2022. The true extent of contact with police is still shrouded in secrecy. ALL allegations made against me were unjust and without foundation. I WILL NOT REST UNTIL JUSTICE IS SERVED ON THIS POINT. I WILL HAVE FULL, UNREDACTED DISCLOSURE OF DETAILS OF ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY CAHMS STAFF TO COMMUNICATE TO THE POLICE AND SO MISREPRESENT ME AS ‘FIXATED’, ‘OBSESSED’, OR AS A ‘STALKER’ AND TO MAKE AMENDS BY RECINDING ANY ACCUSATIONS IN WRITING TO THE POLICE. THIS IS A CROSS THAT I AM FULLY PREPARED TO DIE ON.

MY REQUEST FOR MINUTES TO THE MEETINGS HELD BY LEADERSHIP STAFF AND CLINICAL LEADS THROUGHOUT JANUARY AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 1^ST 2022

In the first instance I was asking for records of what Wanda Reynolds originally referred to as ‘extensive meeting of senior management and clinical leads’. I made many, many requests for disclosure of those records. The first request was made to Wanda in an email dated Tuesday 21^st June 2022                                                                                                                                                                   ‘ I need to understand what happened during that meeting of the Camhs leadership team, the part referred to as ‘...the extensive discussion with our leadership team...’ Where are the notes Wanda? Where are the minutes for the extensive discussions about me and my 12 page letter. I wanted to understand the thought process that led to reneging on my meeting of the 3^rd. I needed to know what sallys thoughts were.’

 I was exact with my words in all my emails and Wanda promised them to me finally in an email dated Friday 1^st July 2022

‘ I have now been sent the minutes of the the meeting the administrator who took the notes has sent them too me but I need to get Sally to verify them as accurate as they have not been uploaded to the system.’

After I had raised concerns about record integrity and forwarded many quoted references regarding policy and procedure, Wanda changed everything and authorised disclosure of a completely different ‘professionals meeting’ that took place at the Bridge Centre over a week later also sending a message through Katie Rees at IG Sussex Partnership that the ‘Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion’ would be withheld from me. It was only through Katie Rees’ kind cooperation that I was made aware that there had been a potential THREE meetings held at Camhs, Bramblys Drive to discuss ME.

Mark Stock

2^nd September 2022'

It should be noted that this 'reaction' was made with the limited information made available to me by the beginning of September, 2022. I recovered further damning evidence over the coming weeks, months and years and modified my complaints accordingly. Such evidence was immediately forwarded to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman and updated regularly over the following three years.

I initially placed absolute confidence in the PHSO, expecting them to uphold my complaint in a professional and timely manner.

Again, my confidence was misplaced.

Traumatic events, unprecedented and unforeseen, were to unfold before the end of the month of September, 2022.