‘Strong countertransference of feeling violated by the intrusiveness within the room’.

This revelation was informed after reading the document identified as ‘megan 1365700 – 02.09.2021 case disc following first appointment.pdf’ which was completed by Sally Mungall between 14.00 and 14.20 on the 2nd September, 2021 immediately following her first meeting with me.

This document, one of fourteen, was made through the final disclosure by Katie Rees of Information Governance Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust on the 5^th October, 2022, a full 6 months after my original access to records request and long after the first batch of Sally Mungall’s ‘session notes’ was handed over by CAMHS General Manager, Wanda Reynolds on the 20^th May, 2022.

Why had this particular document been withheld until now?

Was Wanda Reynolds still managing the control and flow of information?

Had Wanda Reynolds made an executive decision to release this latest ( though still incomplete ) set of Sally Mungall's ‘session notes’ or had Katie Rees been moved by her own conscience and made these new disclosures without instruction?

‘megan 1365700 – 02.09.2021 case disc following first appointment.pdf’ points to an inconvenient truth

The words written by Sally Mungall, ‘Strong countertransference of feeling violated by the intrusiveness within the room’ are particularly significant.

Why?

Let me explain.

A textbook definition of ‘counter-transference’ is

‘…a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a clinician lets their own feelings shape the way they interact with or react to their client in therapy.

Often, countertransference is unconscious, and both the clinician nor the client realizes it is happening.

Countertransference is an important reminder that therapists are human beings too and that they have their own biases, history, and emotions which can influence their thoughts and reactions to clients.

In a therapy session, a client might remind the therapist of someone or something from their present or their past. As a result, the clinician might unconsciously treat the client in an emotionally-charged or biased way.

If countertransference is not addressed, a therapist may act out their own unconscious patterns with a patient, such as meeting anger with defensiveness or detachment.’

- https://www.simplypsychology.org/countertransference.html

There are FOUR FORMS OF COUNTER TRANSFERENCE, ‘SUBJECTIVE’,  ‘OBJECTIVE’, ‘POSITIVE’ and ‘NEGATIVE’

Subjective

In subjective countertransference, the therapist’s own unresolved issues are the cause. In other words, experience from the therapist’s own history is re-experienced in response to their client.

Objective

In objective countertransference, the therapist’s reaction to their client’s maladaptive behaviors is the cause. Most people would have the same reaction to this person; thus, the therapist’s reaction is “objective.”

Unlike subjective countertransference, objective countertransference can actually benefit the therapeutic process. For instance, if the therapist can accept and study this objective reaction they have to their client, they can use this countertransference as an analytical tool.

Positive

Positive countertransference is present when a therapist is over-supportive of their client. Signs of over-support can include when a therapist is trying too hard to befriend their client, disclosing too much from their personal life, or over-identifying with their client’s experiences.

This can harm the therapeutic relationship as it diminishes professional boundaries and keeps a therapist from working and treating their client with objectivity.

Negative

Negative countertransference occurs when a therapist acts out against uncomfortable feelings in a negative way. This includes being overly critical of the client, punishing them, rejecting them, or disapproving of the client.

Negative countertransference is also evident when the therapist feels bored, irked, paralyzed, or contemptuous in their therapy with a particular client.

Countertransference is especially problematic when it is negative, as it can further harm a client’s psyche and lead to therapy doing more harm than good.

There are further distinctions.

Distinction between personal and diagnostic countertransference

A key development was the distinction between 'personal countertransference' and 'diagnostic countertransference.' Personal countertransference involves the therapist's own emotional responses and unresolved issues. In contrast, diagnostic countertransference refers to the therapist's reactions that provide insights into the patient's psychological state. This distinction highlights the dual nature of countertransference: it can stem from the therapist's personal experiences or be a response to the patient's behavior and psychological needs.

The concept of 'neurotic countertransference' (or 'illusory countertransference') was also distinguished from 'countertransference proper.' Neurotic countertransference is more about the therapist's unresolved personal issues, while countertransference proper is a more balanced and clinically useful response. This differentiation has been widely accepted across various psychoanalytic schools, though some, like followers of Jacques Lacan, view countertransference as a form of resistance, potentially the most significant resistance posed by the analyst.  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countertransference

Let’s look again at Sally Mungall’s own written words.

‘Strong countertransference of feeling violated by the intrusiveness within the room’.

Two words stick out; ’Strong’ and ‘Violated’

‘Strong’ is an obvious adjective. In this context it is likely to mean:  powerful; having or using great force or control

‘Violated’ is worth examining, in detail.

‘Violated means to disregard, assault, harm, or disturb something or someone.’ - https://www.thefreedictionary.com/violated

The Collins online dictionary goes further, stating

Violated in British English

verb 

1. to break, disregard, or infringe (a law, agreement, etc)

2. to rape or otherwise sexually assault

3. to disturb rudely or improperly; break in upon

4. to treat irreverently or disrespectfully; outrage

5.  to mistreat physically

- https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/violate

So, the next question becomes, ‘Was Sally Mungall’s ‘counter-transference’ either a) personal countertransference involving her own emotional responses and unresolved issues or, in contrast, did it evolve into b) diagnostic countertransference providing insights into my psychological state?’

I am going to set out a case for the former. This is foundational to my theory of everything, explaining the prime, though not sole, motivation behind the abuse and clinical neglect in 'art therapy' and perhaps even the rationale behind the misrepresentation and lies that followed.

It is my firm belief that Sally Mungall had, herself, been violated in her past. There was something about me that vividly reminded her of that violation, some aspect of my appearance or character that triggered a ‘powerful’ or ‘forceful’ reaction in her.

Was I ‘intrusive’ during that introduction? Was a feeling of being ‘violated’ a reasonable reaction to whatever was going on in the room at the time?

Did I

break, disregard, or infringe (a law, agreement, etc)

rape or otherwise sexually assault

disturb rudely or improperly; break in upon

treat irreverently or disrespectfully; outrage

or mistreat physically?

I certainly expressed cynicism and some degree of contempt towards other professionals who had been responsible for a duty of care over my daughter, Meg.

But ‘violated’? ‘Intrusive?’

Sally Mungall didn’t highlight ‘strong counter-transference’ due to perceived ‘disregard’, ‘rudeness’ or disrespect’. No. Sally Mungall deliberately used the word ‘violated’, encompassing ‘rape’, ‘otherwise sexual assault’ and ‘mistreat physically’.

Was Sally Mungall making serious allegations of rape, sexual assault or physical mistreatment by me? No. Of course not.

BUT.

My theory of everything suggests that something about my physical presence and or character felt intrusive because it reminded her of a ‘violation’ from her own past.

The first mistake had already been made and remained unaddressed. I had been invited to attend ‘ART THERAPY’ and NOT ‘Parent Work’.

What was about to happen in ‘art therapy’ with Sally Mungall was going to be informed by her own SUBJECTIVE and or NEGATIVE and or PERSONAL COUNTER-TRANSFERENCE with profoundly negative psychological effect.

THEORY OF EVERYTHING 3 will begin to address my own psychological transference.