My access to records request made to Information Governance at the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust was finally, though only partially, disclosed to me on the 21st June, 2022. The records disclosed were sparce and redacted. Much of the information had already been revealed in the more comprehensive disclosure by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust on the 15th June, 2022 though parts of the record redacted by IG at SPFT was left unredacted by SHFT. I will therefore not focus on the information already addressed in ‘Access to Records #1 to #3’
The following is the breakdown of the unaddressed parts of my medical records partially disclosed by Information Governance at the Sussex Partnership on the 21st June, 2022 and focuses on the MISREPRESENTATION of me and the FALSE ACCUSATIONS and LIES levelled at me, primarily by CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall and accepted, without question, by clinicians at CMHT the Bridge Centre and CRHTT Basingstoke.
MAY22-021-REP Disclosure from Katie Rees, Head of Information Governance & Health Records at the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust received by me at 14.49 on Tuesday 21/06/22.
There are six distinct further incidences of concern that I will comment on and rebut here.
1) Date 20th January, 2022 email sent by Sally Mungall to MIDANDNORTHCRHTREFERRALS at 16.21
Subject; RE; Mark Stock ..**** new urgent referral
‘Dear Nic, Thank you for your reply…Mark he has given a veiled ultimatum around collecting the artwork that he has made in relationship with me during our parent work appointment. He has discussed with his daughter that I might be a surrogate mum and in relationship with him which is clearly not the case. He was planning to ask me if I would join them and become part of the family on 3rd Feb.’
FACTUALLY UNTRUE. I NEVER made a ‘veiled ultimatum’ around collecting the artwork that I had made. An ultimatum is ‘a threat in which a person or a group of people are warned that if they do not do a particular thing, something unpleasant will happen to them’ or ‘a warning that unless someone acts in a particular way within a particular time limit, action will be taken against them.’ Veiled words are words that are not direct or expressed clearly.’ I NEVER indirectly, unclearly or otherwise, threatened action, unpleasant or otherwise, against anyone. There is no evidence of any ‘veiled ultimatum’. Sally Mungall and I had made a mutually agreed arrangement to meet to review the artwork that I had made. I told Sally Mungall that after the review of the artwork I would ask to see her socially. Sally Mungall agreed to this arrangement. My 12 -page letter handed to her on the 23rd December, 2021 and published earlier in this blog under the title ‘Four and Twenty Dead Crows #7 That letter’ confirmed this arrangement, explicitly informing her that I would accept any rejection.
FACTUALLY UNTRUE. I NEVER discussed with my daughter that Sally Mungall might be a surrogate mum and in relationship with me. I NEVER planned on asking Sally Mungall if she would join us and become part of our family on 3rd Feb. I was planning on asking Sally Mungall to dinner. End of.
2) Date 31st January, 2022 email sent by Sally Mungall to
Ian Whaites at CMHT the Bridge Centre started at 17.16
‘Dear Ian,…Ideally Mark’s feelings towards me after reading the letter could be part of the more full assessment when he is supported to receive the letter by the crisis team-before 3rd Feb’ after which the email is redacted.
EVIDENCE Sally Mungall requested my mental health assessment, ultimately carried out by Kirsty Henry at CMHT, be used to report my feelings towards her. I believe this to be unethical. ‘A mental health assessment is a conversation between you and mental health professionals to help decide what kind of support you need.’ - https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/social-care-and-your-rights/mental-health-assessments/ A mental health assessment is for the benefit of the person being assessed and should NEVER be used to support the agenda of any third party.
3) Date 31st January, 2022 Telephone call made by Sally Mungall to
Fiona Croombs, ‘CART caseworker’. Sally Mungall records the conversation
‘Told her that Mark has looked me up, printed off photos of me and talks to me at nighttime in his mind. Also the house that they were allocated, ( as told in the joint appointment ) was the hollies, which is the house name of me the clinician that he has an intense transference reaction to.’
FACTUALLY UNTRUE. I have already rebutted some of these statements in previous blog entries.
EVIDENCE. The statement by Sally Mungall that I had an ‘intense transference reaction’ to her is a galling admission. ‘Transference, a phenomenon commonly observed in therapeutic settings, occurs when clients develop strong feelings or emotions towards their therapist that originate from past experiences. While transference can be a natural part of the therapeutic process, it is important to recognize when these feelings begin to blur the boundaries between the therapeutic relationship and reality.’ - https://psychology.tips/warning-signs-of-transference/. It is the absolute responsibility of the therapist to manage transference in their patients. Sally Mungall did NOT manage my intense transference and the boundaries WERE blurred. Sally Mungall’s admission was likely made to her clinical cohorts and leadership at the SPFT as well as others in CRHTT and CMHT and those that attended the Safeguarding Professionals Meeting on the 9th February 2022. And yet everyone that was privy to that information BLAMED me for my own transference. CAMHS General Manager, Wanda Reynolds and Dr Natalie Roberts, a qualified and experienced consultant Clinical Psychologist, were aware of Sally Mungall’s absolute culpability and fully aware of the damage likely caused to me yet I was BLAMED. Indeed, Wanda Reynolds absolved herself and the SPFT of any responsibility for damage caused by Sally Mungall in her words written to me on the 23rd March, 2022 ‘I would like to recommend some services that can support you at this difficult time. Your GP will be able to offer you support. 111 offer MH support to both adults and young people and have Mental Health Nurses within the service. I understand that you have been referred to the Adult Mental Health Team and I understand that you can contact them on ************ should you feel that this would be helpful.’ I can see no evidence in the records that Sally Mungall ever offered evidence of her own COUNTER-TRANSFERENCE, the psychological phenomenon that occurs when a clinician lets their own feelings shape the way they interact with or react to their client in therapy and the emotional entanglement that can occur with a patient
4) Date 1st February, 2022 email sent by Sally Mungall to Emma Hall, Carol Bunden and Nick ( Nicola Hoyle? ) at CRHT ( Crisis ) team started at 14.30
‘Dear Colleagues, I am sharing…Because of the perceived risk to art therapist…we have cancelled this appointment. our admin team have called Mark to let him know. He understands that we will make contact in the near future. He seemed calm on hearing the cancellation, only concerned for Art Therapist. Any communication from dad will be monitored…’
FALSE I was NEVER a risk to the art therapist. No one from CAMHS or the wider SPFT ever made contact with me. I was kept in the dark and waiting for six weeks after the cancellation of the appointment. It was I who eventually made contact with CAMHS reception on the 14th March, 2022.
EVIDENCE I was being covertly managed by CAMHS and the wider SPFT.
5) Date 17th February, 2022 telephone conversation between Sally Mungall and Kirsty Henry from CMHT.
‘Kirsty sent over her assessment letter. Assessed him to be high risk of completing suicide and thought that he was clearly for the crisis team but they have not picked him up. This is in contrast to the safeguarding professionals meeting which said he was low risk. Her assessment was misreported during that meeting perhaps mis communication.’ – 17 Feb 2022 14.09 Sally Mungall
EVIDENCE Kirsty Henry sent a copy of her mental health assessment of me to Sally Mungall without my knowledge or permission. I regard this as UNETHICAL.
INCOMPETENCE Kirsty Henry assessed me as being of high risk of completing suicide but Sally Mungall mentions that the assessment was misreported, perhaps miscommunicated. It was Sally Mungall who had initiated the ‘safeguarding professionals meeting’. Sally Mungall was present and giving evidence during the ‘safeguarding professionals meeting’. Surely it was Sally Mungall’s responsibility to ensure that the assessment was NOT misreported or miscommunicated? This was either the result of incompetence or was a deliberate attempt to continue crafting a false narrative.
6) Date 11th February, 2022 Author Julie Yalden Safeguarding Professionals Meeting -Wednesday 9th February 3pm.
‘Mark ( Birbeck ) and sally to consider if meg should be referred to adult CMHT’.
INCOMPETENCE This statement confirms that Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck had still NOT made the absolute necessary arrangements to transfer my daughter from Child Services to Adult Services in accordance with internal CAMHS policy and in accordance with NICE guidelines. Internal policy and NICE guidelines instruct clinicians to make arrangements for transition from Child Services to Adult Services at the age of 17 and a half years.
This concludes the breakdown of the unaddressed parts of my medical records partially disclosed by Information Governance at the Sussex Partnership on the 21st June, 2022.
