The following is a further breakdown of my medical records partially disclosed by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust on the 15th June, 2022

This part covers pages 1 to 8 out of 32 'Progress Notes' and focuses on the MISREPRESENTATION of me and the FALSE ACCUSATIONS and LIES levelled at me, primarily by CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall.

Note that I was NEVER given an opportunity to challenge the veracity of any of the statements entered into my medial records until after the 15th June, 2022. Nobody at CAMHS or the wider Trust EVER asked me for my opinions, my views or my account of events. All of this happened behind my back and would have remained unchallenged had I not sought access to my records. Evidence supports my belief that I was purposely kept ignorant of the cynical and dishonest machinations devised by clinicians and leadership at CAMHS and the wider Trust, at least until their narrative was firmly embedded and I was turned, irrevocably, into a monster.

I will cover pages 9 to 32 in further blog posts.

The information contained in the 'Progress Notes' is detailed and comprehensive. I have transcribed the relevant information into this blog, verbatim and rebutted accordingly.

‘Originator Rebecca Muldoon Mid and North CRHT Date: 13 Jan 2022 19.33 Urgent referral received’ from Sally Mungall stating

‘He believes that …I will provide his family with the perfect mother’ and ‘he is planning on asking me to develop the therapeutic relationship further with him and his daughter.’

THIS IS CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. I never believed that Sally Mungall would provide my family with the 'perfect mother'. I had been considering approaching Sally Mungall via her private art therapy practice in order to continue with the psychotherapy started during 'Parent Work' with her at CAMHS. Sally Mungall was advertising, and still does advertise her services as an art therapist on the internet. The services that she advertises are outside of her work in the NHS and are open to the public. I never considered soliciting services on behalf of my daughter. I never once made Sally Mungall aware of my thoughts on this subject.

‘Originator Ian Whaites Date: 31 Jan 2022 16.44. Phone call from Sally Mungall.’ Ian Whaites states

‘Full on what Mark has been saying to Sally about her joining the family and being a surrogate mum to his daughter.’

THIS IS CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. I never made any suggestion or proposal or even considered Sally Mungall 'joining' my family or being a surrogate mum to my daughter. This statement by Sally Mungall is absurd. For the record, after she had first met Sally Mungall on the 23rd December, 2021, Meg actually said to me, as we were walking out of CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, 'I know why you love Sally. I love her too.' Meg later said to me 'Sally could be my second mum.' At the time I thought it was a lovely, if somewhat naive, thing for Meg to say. I also thought it would be lovely to share Meg's feeling and I relayed Meg's words in a letter afterwards. At no time did I intend Meg's words to be construed as being a desire or intention held by me. I never expressed or insinuated that I wanted Sally Mungall to join my family or be a surrogate mum to my daughter. Sally Mungall professes to be an expert in autism. Meg has been tested and diagnosed, at CAMHS, with autism. The words 'I love her too' and 'Sally could be my second mum' were the words of an autistic teenager who had been experiencing lifelong issues in her relationship to her own biological mother. It was cynical, if not totally dishonest for Sally Mungall to misconstrue and falsely attribute those words to me. I believe Sally Mungall knowingly misconstrued those words in order to build a false narrative.

‘Mark has been talking in front of his daughter about his imminent suicidality.’

THIS IS CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. I NEVER talked in front of my daughter about any aspect of my suicidal ideation. In fact, Meg remained completely unaware until Meg's own mother revealed the truth to her around December 2022.

‘Has written to him to tell him that she cant see him for any further appointments.’

THIS IS CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. I never recieved any written notification from Sally Mungall informing me of such. She may have written such a letter but she never sent it.

‘Mark has printed off photographs of Sally to put up in the house, and Mark talks to these photographs at night.’

THIS IS UNTRUE. I had found two photos of Sally Mungall on the internet and kept them on my laptop. Because of Covid-19, Sally Mungall had elected to wear a facemask throughout much of the 'parent work' and part of my rationale for keeping those photos was to help maintain a connection with the human being who was delivering instense psychotherapy. I NEVER talked to those photos. Sally Mungall has cynically and deliberately conflated admission of my own 'introjection'. It was actually Sally Mungall who introduced me to the concept of introjection. In psychology, introjection is the unconscious adoption of the thoughts of another person, in this case, a trusted mental healthcare professional. My therapy with Sally Mungall was particularly traumatic and I would ruminate over each session, especially at night when it was quiet and my thoughts were uninterrupted. I would talk over each session with Sally Mungall in my mind, processing the content and integrating insights and revelations. I believe that Sally Mungall knowingly misconstrued my introjection in order to frame me as somewhat deranged and perpetuate a false narrative.

This false information then gets forwarded to the Mid and North CRHTT Team who interpret that information as follows

‘Originator Tamzin Allmark 01 Feb 2022 11.04   MDT: Plan’

CRHTT graded my ‘Risk’ stating ‘Risk to self - LOW – may escalate with impulsivity and distress’. Nobody at this meeting had even met me let alone made a formal mental health assessment of me. An actual mental health assessment was carried out by Kirsty Henry at CMHT the Bridge Centre. Kirsty Henry assessed my risk to myself to be HIGH. CRHTT then graded my ‘Risk’ stating ‘Risk to others – MODERATE – Obsessional behaviour’. Kirsty Henry's actual mental health assessment concluded my risk to others to be LOW. Kirsty Henry is a senior nurse practitioner and should have been trusted in her assessment of me. CRHTT had no clinical evidence to support their upgraded risk assessment; they based their assessment on the hearsay of their CAMHS colleagues.

And there it is, the first use of that word ‘obsessional’. Where did that come from? On what clinical basis did CRHT arrive at that risk assessment? CRHT were responding to information that came indirectly from Sally Mungall. For the record I was NOT a risk to anyone other than myself. My behaviour was CATAGORICALLY NOT 'obsessional'. I had been psychologically damaged by the inappropriate and unsanctioned psychotherapy delivered by Sally Mungall and was now being blamed for my own psychological 'transference'. Sally Mungall failed in her responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the therapist to manage transference. It is the responsibilty of the therapist to manage their own counter-transference. It is the responsibility of the therapist to maintain therapuetic boundaries.

The records go further with

‘Clinical Update: ‘Mark has become infatuated by the therapist and has pictures of her in his home and talks to them at night.’

I DISPUTE THE USE OF THE WORD 'INFATUATED'. I am appalled at the lack clinical professionalism and the lazy choice of word. This makes me sound like a love sick schoolboy and is highly offensive. A reputable clinician would have used the evidence at hand and referenced 'idealised transference'. I WAS NOT talking to pictures of Sally Mungall at night ( see above ).

‘Mark has suggested that he would like her to become a surrogate mum.’

AGAIN, CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE ( see above ).

‘Any concerns regarding stalking or threat to Sally ( therapist ) should be reported to the police.’

CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. If there was or is any credible evidence that I was stalking or was a threat to Sally Mungall then that should have been presented to me at the time or presented to me now. I NEVER stalked Sally Mungall and I NEVER threatened Sally Mungall. I have aqcuired evidence proving that Sally Mungall was persuaded to contact Hampshire Constabulary in February, 2022. Why? I had not done anything wrong. There was no evidence that I was a risk or threat to Sally Mungall or anyone other than myself.

‘Originator Rebecca Muldoon Mid and North CRHT Date: 01 Feb 2022 19.21’

‘Email received’ ( from Sally Mungall ) requesting a ‘network meeting of all professionals currently concerned with the case of Megan and Mark Stock.’ Sally Mungall writes

‘…You will be aware that there was a scheduled appointment for the 3rd Feb when mark was to be returned the art work that he made during his parent work sessions. Because of the perceived risk to art therapist and potentially Mark himself, we have cancelled this appointment… Any communication from dad will be monitored…’

I DISPUTE THIS ASSESSMENT. What was the 'perceived risk' to art therapist? There was no evidence to suggest that I was or might have been a 'risk'.

‘If our adult MH colleagues / crisis team assess Mark before the 3rd Feb we request the professionals meeting goes ahead so we can use their assessment of Mark to also inform any action plan.’

THIS IS UNETHICAL. 'A mental health assessment is a conversation between you and mental health professionals to help decide what kind of support you need.

You'll need to have a mental health assessment when you go to any mental health service for help. A mental health assessment is not a test or an exam. It is about helping you. You only have to talk about what you want to talk about. The more open and honest you are, the easier it will be to get you the right help. https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/social-care-and-your-rights/mental-health-assessments/

Information recorded during my mental health assessments at CMHT the Bridge Centre was shared with clinicians in CAMHS and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and cynically used against me. Information disclosed by me during my mental health assessment should have been used to help and support me and NOT used by others with their own agendas. This actually happened twice. Information disclosed by me during a second mental health assessment in April 2022 was also passed on to CAMHS.

An invitation was sent to ( CMHT ) the Bridge Centre by Caroline Blunden, Team Manager Mid & North CRHT on the 2nd Feb 2022 at 08.50 jointly by Sally Mungall and Meg’s former CAMHS therapist, Mark Birbeck advising of the professionals meeting and inviting to attend. Some of the falsehoods detailed above were entered into that invitation, including new ones such as

‘We remain concerned that in his distressed state, Mark might feel the only option is for Meg to join him in suicide.’

HIGHLY INFLAMMATORY REMARK. Evidence proves that I made exhaustive efforts to deliver my daughter into the safety and care of professionals and family. Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck, the co-athours of these words, knew this Indeed, Meg was placed with her mother later in 2022 precicely because I wanted to keep her safe. I remain angry and disgusted by this statement.

Falsehoods become either increasingly distorted or embellished by Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck as their written words continue

‘Mark has developed an obsessional idealization on Art therapist Sally Mungall who has been doing the art based parent work. He believes that Sally could come and live with him and become the idealized mother for Meg. Mark has looked Art therapist up on the internet, printed off photos of her ( since discarded ) speaks to her all through the day in his mind, and at night when he wakes.’

AGAIN, CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE ( see above ). The co-authored words now include 'obsessional' which I CATAGORICALLY DISPUTE ( see above ).

‘We believe that the risks are twofold: as the work ends Mark’s feelings of rejection will manifest as suicidal intent. He has explicitly named his desire to die if Sally is not going to be with him and Meg.’

CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. I was actually abandoned and NOT rejected. Rejection is defined as the dismissing or refusal of a proposal or idea. Sally Mungall made promises and commitments that she failed to keep, left our work incomplete and unfinished. This is ABANDONMENT. I did NOT, EXPLICITELY or otherwise, 'name' my desire to die if Sally was not going to be with me and Meg. THIS IS COMPLETE FABRICATION. THIS IS A LIE.

‘Mark may switch in terms of his presentation from being infatuated to potentially, angry and aggressive. This could potentially put the art therapist at risk’.

I DISPUTE THE ENTIRETY OF THIS STATEMENT. I was NOT 'infatuated ( see above ). I wasn't actually angry or aggressive about anything at the time. I remained impeccably polite and calm throughout the entirety of this appalling debacle.

‘Consider the potential risks for Meg -…Meg’s mental health has already been impacted by dads suicidality…Meg’s dad’s mental health means that he is not able to see the impact of him talking openly to his daughter/ or in the presence of his daughter. Including talking about his own suicidal plans.’

CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE ( see above ).

‘Meg’s dad is angry at her, and talks openly in front of her about the impact that her needs have had upon his life.’

CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. I was NEVER angry at my daughter. This statement, co-authored by Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck, is particularly galling, grieviously insulting.

‘Meg’s dad is all or nothing…and at times, he wants to be rid of her.’

CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. I have never wanted to be 'rid' of my daughter. 'Rid' is an adjective that means to not have an unwanted or unpleasant task or to remove or throw away something unwanted. The use of this co-authored word is particularly odious and insulting. I DID want to move towards greater autonomy in my life so that I might have time and space for adult relationships and a return to a former, successful career but I never at the expense of the welfare of Meg.

‘Mark has said if “someone comes to section him he will fight to the death”. With this in mind there is a risk for professionals attending assessments alone.’

DISINGENUOUS. For clarification I did use the words quoted but they are taken out of context. Sally Mungall suggested that healthcare professionals would likely be instructed to visit me at my home. I misunderstood her words and thought she was suggesting that healthcare professionals were going to my home to 'section' me. Forcible detention would have been wholly inappropriate and I reacted, using the words quoted above. Sally Mungall later modified her suggestion, explaining that healthcare professionals would likely visit my home with benign intentions. I was reassured by Sally Mungall's clarification. No professionals attending assessments have ever been at risk from me.

‘…because of his level of distrust this could spill over into aggression.’

CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. I HAVE, in more recent months, had reason to be RIGHTOUSLY angry at the way that my daughter and I have been treated by mental health services but my 'distrust' has NEVER spilled over into aggression.

‘Mark is likely to feel rejection and abandonment intensely when the “ art work returning appointment” is withdrawn raising the level of risk to those around him.’

CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE ( see above ).

-          Mark Birbeck Child and Adolescent Psychoanalytical Psychotherapist

-          Sally Mungall Art Psychotherapist

1/2/2022

to be continued in Access to Records # 3