I have just forwarded the following information to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman at the request of senior caseworker, Thomas Body. I have agreed to refrain from publishing further information in relation to my complaint against the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust until their investigation is completed and so this will be my final post relating to the PHSO for the time being. I am pleased that Thomas recognises that I am under no obligation to refrain from publishing information.
I have not included the 'additional documents' referred to below in this post but may do so at a later date.
'THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I WANT THE TRUST TO ADDRESS AS PART OF MY DESIRED OUTCOME
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THE QUESTIONS CAN BE FOUND BELOW
THE QUESTIONS. There are 73 questions.
1) Clinicians and leadership within CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke, including Sally Mungall, Mark Birbeck, Sarie Hodgson, Dora Gouveia-Schofield, Amanda Parke, Emma Drake and Julie Yalden, aided and abetted by CAMHS General Manager, Wanda Reynolds and informed by Dr Natalie Roberts, initiated and carried out a covert plan against me, Mark Stock, following ‘parent work’ with CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall and in response to a letter that I handed to Sally Mungall.
Question 1. Why was I never consulted or made aware of this plan against me?
Question 2 . Why was I never given an opportunity to challenge the veracity of any of the accusations made against me?
Question 3 . Why was I not consulted during the meetings convened by CAMHS in January 2022 about ME or any other meetings including the ‘Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion re 1365700 Mark Stock dad of Meg’ dated 1st February, 2022?
Question 4 . Why will you not provide the full, unredacted documents detailing the ‘Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion re 1365700 Mark Stock dad of Meg’ so that I might challenge the veracity of those details?
Question 5 . Have you made ALL documents relating to the ‘Internal Safeguarding’ available to the Health and Care Professionals Council’s ongoing investigation or, at least, advised CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall to make ALL documents available?
1.2) The response by clinicians and leadership within CAMHS to my 12 page ‘love letter’ handed to Sally Mungall on the 23rd December, 2021 was a hysterical overreaction. That same letter was treated as revelatory and initiated a covert plan that led to me being MISREPRESENTED in medical records. That same letter was framed as revelatory in communication with other mental health service providers in Basingstoke. ALL information contained in my 12 page ‘love letter’ had already been the subject of lengthy discussions between Sally Mungall and myself throughout the ‘parent work’ between Sept and Dec 2021. Sally Mungall was always fully aware of my feelings towards her. Sally Mungall had agreed to and made arrangements to meet with me after ‘parent work’ and was fully aware that I intended asking to see her socially after ‘parent work’. She knew all of this BEFORE receiving my 12 page ‘love letter’. The only new aspect contained in my letter was clarification that I would accept any rejection, acknowledging that she might already be in an intimate relationship. My 12 page ‘love letter’ was perfectly reasonable and polite, if somewhat romantically naive.
Question 6 . Were Sally Mungall’s clinical cohorts and leadership staff involved in investigating this case at the beginning of January, 2022 even aware of the full details what had transpired during ‘parent work’?
Question 7 . Was the investigating team at CAMHS Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke and the wider Trust aware of the true nature of Sally Mungall’s complicity in this case?
1.3) I was apparently blamed for infringing therapeutic boundaries during ‘parent work’.
Question 8 . Does the Trust agree that it is actually the responsibility of the therapist to maintain boundaries in the therapeutic relationship?
Question 9 . Does the Trust agree that it is the responsibility of the therapist to manage ‘transference’ in the therapeutic relationship?
1.4) Sally Mungall’s ‘progress notes’ for our session dated 2nd September, 2021 were belatedly disclosed to me by Information Governance in 2022. This was after Wanda Reynolds handed over partial ‘progress notes’ to me on the 20th May, 2022. Sally Mungall’s ‘progress notes’ for this particular session state. ‘STRONG COUNTERTRANSFERENCE OF FEELING VIOLATED BY THE INTRUSIVENESS WITHIN THE ROOM’. I believe that Sally Mungall’s own counter-transference was contributory in her abuse of me during ‘parent work’.
Question 10 . Does the Trust agree that it is the responsibility of the therapist to manage their own ‘counter-transference in the therapeutic relationship?
2) My medical records were partially disclosed to me by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust on the 15th June, 2022. Further partial, redacted medical records were disclosed by the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust ( SPFT ) shortly after. The appalling details recorded in my medical records prove that I had been MISREPRESENTED by clinicians and leadership within both Trusts. Further evidence in my medical records prove that clinicians and leadership primarily within SPFT and particularly CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall, actually lied about me and lied to me. I collated and rebutted those misrepresentations and forwarded them to Wanda Reynolds.
I have attached my full rebuttals to accusations made by clinicians and leadership within both the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust below under the title ‘REBUTTALS’
Question 11. What executive action did Wanda Reynolds take upon receipt of my rebuttals?
Question 12 . What executive action will you, as a Trust, now take upon receipt of those rebuttals?
Question 13 . Will I be invited to discuss these rebuttals with anyone from SPFT, perhaps Jane Padmore herself?
3) CAMHS General Manager, Wanda Reynolds, was given oversight in the investigation into me.
Question 14 . Did Wanda Reynolds make a thorough, forensic investigation into what had happened during the ‘parent work’ delivered to me by Art Therapist, Sally Mungall? If so
Question 15 . Did that investigation include examination of ALL Sally Mungall’s ‘progress notes’ and ‘supervision session notes? If so then
Question 16 . When?
During Wanda Reynold’s initial investigation in January 2022 she consulted with Dr Natalie Roberts.
Question 17 . Did Wanda Reynolds make records of ALL meetings with Dr Natalie Roberts? If she did then
Question 18 . Where are those records?
Question 19 . Did Wanda Reynolds apprise Dr Natalie Roberts of ALL available clinical information including ALL Sally Mungall’s ‘progress notes’ and ‘supervision session notes’?
Dr Natalie Roberts, a consultant Clinical Psychologist, graduated from Southampton University in 2006 with a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology and had been in practice for 16 years at the time. She was a qualified and experienced clinician.
If Dr Natalie Roberts was given access to ALL Sally Mungall’s ‘progress notes’ and ‘supervision session notes’ then did she not notice Sally Mungall’s own concern that she might be abusing me
Question 20 . Why did Dr Natalie Roberts
not identify abuse of me by Sally Mungall?
Additionally
Question 21. Why did Dr Natalie Roberts not acknowledge my ‘transference’ or Sally Mungall’s own ‘counter-transference’ as a priori causes of psychological damage of me?
Question 22 . Why was my potential Complex-PTSD not identified and acknowledged by Dr Natalie Roberts?
Question 23 . Why did Dr Natalie Roberts not realise that I was likely suffering from trauma resulting from the inappropriate and unsanctioned intense psychotherapy delivered by Sally Mungall and that this trauma was contributory to my mental breakdown in 2021?
Question 24 . Why did Dr Natalie Roberts not advise Wanda Reynolds that I needed immediate support and therapeutic intervention due to the psychological damage done to me by Sally Mungall? Or
Question 25 . If Dr Natalie Roberts DID advise Wanda Reynolds of my needs, why did Wanda Reynolds not take full responsibility at the time?
Wanda Reynolds had invited Dr Natalie Roberts to attend the meeting at CMHT the Bridge Centre on the 20th May, 2022 alongside CMHT Services Manager, Vicky Long and Wanda herself. Wanda explained to me in writing that the invitation was extended to Dr Natalie Roberts so that I might ask pertinent questions regarding my ‘parent work’ with Sally Mungall and so have a better understanding as to why things went wrong in therapy.
Dr Natalie Roberts did not attend the meeting on the 20th May, 2022.
Question 24 . Why was I not offered another opportunity to meet with Dr Natalie Roberts so that she might answer my questions and help me understand what had gone wrong during the ‘parent work’ with Sally Mungall?
4) Wanda Reynolds was dishonest with me and lied, by omission, to me throughout her management and beyond. I have included the details of the accusations that I made to Wanda Reynolds regulatory body, Social Work England attached below under the title ‘WANDA REYNOLDS’.
Question 25 . Will Wanda Reynolds hold herself to account or will the Trust hold her to account and will either address my accusations?
Wanda Reynolds made repeated accusations against me using the words ‘obsessed’ and ‘obsessional’ to describe my behaviour. I ROBUSTLY dispute the use of both those words when used to describe my behaviour. I would categorically describe myself as ‘DAMAGED’ by the inappropriate and unsanctioned therapy delivered during ‘parent work’ and by the MISREPRESENTATION and LIES about me fabricated by CAMHS clinicians and leadership within the wider Trust. I would also describe myself as ‘DAMAGED’ by the inept management of me during Wanda Reynolds investigation of this case and the vexatious and cynical reporting of me to Hampshire Constabulary. I would categorically describe myself as ‘TENACIOUS’ in my efforts to discover the explanations for the MISREPRESENTATION and LIES about me and to uncover the truth being denied me by CAMHS clinicians and leadership within the wider Trust.
Question 26 . Will Wanda Reynolds apologise and retract the words ‘obsessed’ and ‘obsessional’ ? or, if not,
Question 27 . Will the Trust instruct Wanda Reynolds to apologise and retract the words ‘obsessed’ and ‘obsessional’ ? or, if not
Question 28 . Will the Trust give their rationale for refusing to do either of the above?
5) There were a number of questions that I posed to Andy Ashby following his investigation into my complaint referenced SP 22020. I was not satisfied with the majority of his answers. I would like the Trust to answer these questions, now reframed.
5.1) ‘You didn’t answer my specific question ‘Was Sally suitably experienced or trained to deal with transference within the therapeutic relationship at CAMHS, particularly when involved in parent work? So, if Sally was taking her sessions with me to supervision, why was the therapy allowed to continue as it did? Surely the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of supervisory staff and not Sally herself. Can you comment further? I desperately need to understand.’
Andy Ashby then went on to state
‘I can assure you that Sally is a suitably qualified and experienced art therapist who is provided with appropriate supervision from the lead Art Therapist and a group peer supervision. This supervision is in line Sally's professional registration and the Trust Policies. The supervisor is suitably qualified and experienced in working with transference concepts to support Sally. A clinical supervisory relationship will only be able to reflect on the aspects of work that are raised within the supervision time and the detail of all cases held on a staff members caseload may not be able to be discussed in depth within the time given.’
So, the efficacy of ‘supervision’ is wholly reliant on trust and is wholly constrained by time. I am expected to be reassured that Sally Mungall was properly supervised and was trusted to be honest in raising issues relating to therapy within time-limited supervisory sessions? I AM APPALLED BY THIS LAZY ATTITUDE TOWARDS PATIENT SAFTEY.
Question 29 . Is the current ‘supervision’ model sufficient to protect patients, parents, guardians and carers, especially those patients who are children and adolescents who are especially vulnerable?
Question 30 . Does the Trust agree with me that the current ‘supervision’ model is grossly insufficient and not robust in protecting service users, namely children and adolescents?
5.2) ‘What was the utility of the ‘parent work’ and how did it inform the therapy that was being delivered by Mark Birbeck to my daughter Meg?’ The ‘parent work’ offered no utility because evidence now suggests that Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck were incompetent in their care of my daughter.
Question 31. Does the Trust agree with my statement that Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck were incompetent in their care of my daughter?
Question 32 . What was Sally Mungall’s formal role in my daughter’s case? Was Sally Mungall the ‘clinical lead’ in my daughter’s case?
Question 33 . If Sally Mungall was the ‘clinical lead’ then why did she not initiate my daughter’s ‘transition’ to adult mental health services in accordance with internal protocol and NICE policy guidelines?
My daughter's medical records confirm that Sally Mungall carried out multiple mental health assessments of my daughter without actually meeting her.
Question 34 . Why did Sally Mungall not carry out multiple mental health assessments of Meg face to face as is required according to policy and protocol?
Question 35 . Evidence later revealed in Meg’s own disclosed medical records suggest that Sally Mungall was struggling to understand Meg’s autism. Can the Trust please clarify?
Question 36 . Meg’s own disclosed medical records state that Sally Mungall made suggestions that she was going to refer our family to a specialist ‘family liaison’ appointee but eventually declined. Why and on what clinical grounds?
5.3) ‘Why was there no acknowledgement, no insight offered, no specific comments in the envelope of art therapy drawings I collected on 31st March?’ Your answer to this question is truly shocking,…’ The excuse offered to me by Andy Ashby was that the ‘parent work’ had been given a proper ending and that a ‘closing letter’ had been sent to me. Andy Ashby fails to understand that the final meeting mutually arranged by CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall and me, scheduled for the 3rd February 2022 was designed to appraise and process those art therapy drawings. Until that was done the ‘parent work’ was INCOMPLETE. I went on to write ‘You’ll remember that I tried to describe what it felt like for me to have been abandoned in such an abrupt and insensitive manner. When the meeting that Sally and I had arranged for the 3rd Feb was dishonestly cancelled, I was left waiting for almost six weeks for someone to call and reschedule. I told you it felt like I’d had my trousers pulled down and been told to bend over and then left alone, exposed and vulnerable. That was my attempt to try and convey the feeling of absolute humiliation and abandonment that I felt while I was kept waiting.’ Those art therapy drawings were carelessly folded and shoved into an envelope and handed over by a complete stranger.
Question 37 . Does the Trust still continue to agree with Andy Ashby’s answer?
Question 38 . Does the Trust believe it clinically appropriate to hand over unapprised and unprocessed art therapy drawings at the ending of such a therapeutic relationship?
Question 39 . Was it not the responsibility of Sally Mungall to least make written clinical assessments and appraisals of the art therapy drawings that I had made?
The ‘parent work’ with Sally Mungall was NEVER closed properly. Lack of closure means that I still, even at the time of writing these words, feel hideously vulnerable and exposed. This failure of Sally Mungall and the Trust has contributed to my formal diagnosis of Complex-PTSD. I opened the envelope of art therapy drawings on my way home after collecting them from a complete stranger at CAMHS reception and was afterwards physically sick on the pavement of Eastrop Lane.
Question 40 . Does the Trust have any comments to make about this statement?
4) ‘What is the formal policy and where are the documented procedures and guidelines pertaining to CAMHS ‘parent work’ ? Where are the empirical, multivariate studies into the ethics and efficacy of CAMHS ‘parent work’?’ You need to make a stronger commitment to reflect, evaluate and learn from a wide and diverse range of parent experiences of your services. The only study on the subject of parent’s experiences with Camhs that I have seen published online is found here https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/parents-experiences-of-individual-work-within-camhs/ and that is wholly inadequate. I would like to know exactly what lessons you have learned through listening to my experience of your services. Please keep me up to date with your reflection, evaluation and learning from my specific experience of your services up until such time as I deem this complaint to be closed ( This complaint is almost certainly headed towards PHSO and will likely be unresolved for at least several further months ).
Question 41 . Has the Trust taken action to ensure that there are now robustly applied procedures and guidelines embedded in formal protocols and policies pertaining to ‘parent work’ within CAMHS?
Question 42 . What are the new procedures and guidelines now embedded in formal protocols and policies pertaining to ‘parent work’ in CAMHS?
Question 43 . What new procedures and guidelines now embedded in formal protocols and policies pertaining to ‘parent work’ in CAMHS that now accommodates the rights of parent, carer or guardian?
Question 44 . Why was I NEVER consulted or given the right to reply or the opportunity to formally rebut any of the accusations or assessments made of me during the investigation carried out by CAMHS clinicians and leadership in the wider Trust?
Question 45 . Does the Trust agree that I was MISREPRESENTED by clinicians and leadership at CAMHS and the wider Trust?
5) ‘Whose decision was it to unilaterally terminate me? Was it Sally’s decision to cut me off or was she persuaded or her original decision overruled by her superiors?’ All evidence uncovered in my medical records suggest that it was decided by senior managers and clinical leads that I was not to be offered a final session BECAUSE of my 12 page letter and NOT because the work with Sally had had an ending and a closing letter. That is a fact, is it not? The closing letter itself acknowledged the final session meeting arranged between Sally and myself for the 3rd Feb 2022. If there was a final session outstanding then there should not have been a closing letter. IF, on the other hand, it WAS decided that the final session was to be withdrawn BECAUSE of my 12 page letter then I should have been contacted immediately, ideally by Sally herself, and had it explained to me. Instead, I was lied to, deceived and manipulated and left hanging for almost six weeks. I would still be hanging had I not contacted Sally on 14th March.
Question 46 . Does the Trust agree with me that the real decision to cancel my mutually agreed meeting to pick up my art therapy drawings was NOT because a ‘closing letter’ had already been addressed to me but because of the hysterical overreaction to my own 12 page ‘love letter’?
Question 47 . Has the Trust properly reflected on the management of me at the time of the investigation, especially by Wanda Reynolds?
Question 48 . Does the Trust, on reflection, believe that I was treated with compassion, dignity and respect during the investigation?
Question 49 . Does the Trust believe, as I do, that CAMHS clinicians were DISHONEST and or DISINGENUOUS in their communications with me at this time. See my document criticising Wanda Reynolds which is attached below and titled ‘WANDA REYNOLDS’.
6) ‘Why was the meeting with Sally on the 3rd February really cancelled? And why at such short notice? And 8) Why did I have to wait patiently and politely for almost 6 weeks without a follow up call regarding the missed 3rd February meeting?’ The reasons for cancelling the meeting with Sally had little to do with the excuses you’ve already given. I have since requested an Access to Records and can see from my medical records disclosed by Southern Health that the true reason for cancelling the final session on the 3rd February was BECAUSE of my 12 page letter to Sally handed over to her on the 23rd December 2021. To claim otherwise is wholly disingenuous. Your answer fails to explain why I was forced to wait almost 6 weeks for the meeting to be rescheduled. The lady who phoned me the day before to tell me that ‘due to unforeseen circumstances, Sally was unable to take any of her meetings for that week ’was a blatant lie as my disclosed medical records prove. It had already been decided by a committee of ‘senior staff and clinical leads’ in an ’extensive meeting’ at Camhs early January 2022, that I was to be denied that meeting of the 3rd Feb. I told that lady that I would wait to be contacted by Camhs when Sally was able to reschedule the meeting. That lady knew full well that I was never going to have that meeting rescheduled. In fact, I now see in my medical records, during the ‘professionals meeting’ held at the Bridge Centre on the 9th February 2022 at 3pm that Sally informed everyone ‘Appt ( to collect my artwork on 3rd February ) cancelled by admin. Dad unaware that this isn’t planned to carry on.’( I was actually being monitored for my reaction ) . Clear deception. Absolutely disgusting. Nobody called me over the next almost six weeks. I was left hanging, led to believe that Sally was likely ill or troubled by personal issues. I waited patiently and politely, showing due care and consideration, all the while unaware that I was being lied to.
Question 50 . Does the Trust now acknowledge that CAMHS clinicians and leadership within the wider Trust colluded and conspired against me and deliberately lied to me and purposely withheld factual information from me?
Andy Ashby concluded in his investigation of my complaint referenced SP22020 that he could find NO evidence of CAMHS clinicians or leadership staff in the wider Trust purposely MISLEADING, MISREPRESENTING or LYING about me or to me or purposely MISLEADING, MISREPRESENTING or LYING about me in communication with other mental health providers in Basingstoke. This is despite my exhaustive efforts in supplying evidence in my original joint complaint against SPFT and Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. It was originally decided by Wanda Reynolds and Vicky Long that my complaint against both Trusts would be investigated and responded to as a joint complaint. The decision was later made by either SPFT and or SHFT to re-separate the joint complaint to be addressed separately and respectfully by each Trust. It may be that Andy Ashby did not pay due care and attention and overlooked pertinent evidence. Ultimately it is Andy Ashby, or at least the Trusts failure to include and address the pertinent evidence. I have highlighted some of the evidence of CAMHS clinicians or leadership staff in the wider Trust purposely MISLEADING, MISREPRESENTING or LYING about me or to me or purposely MISLEADING, MISREPRESENTING or LYING about me in communication with other mental health providers in Basingstoke. I have included the relevant document below titled ‘REBUTTALS’.
Question 51 . Does the Trust agree that CAMHS clinicians or leadership staff in the wider Trust purposely MISLEAD, MISREPRESENTED or LIED about me or to me or purposely MISLEAD, MISREPRESENTED or LIED about me in communication with other mental health providers in Basingstoke? And, if not
Question 52 . Why not?
9) ‘Why was a new appointment to meet to review the art therapy drawings not made before the closing letter dated 8th March? That’s almost six weeks opportunity to do the right thing.’ So, there were actually 2 closing letters. The second was actually antedated 8th March and rushed out to me on 14th March in response to my letter sent to Sally earlier that same day. The second closing letter was a panic response wasn’t it? I had been brushed under the carpet and forgotten by the time my email to Sally turned up at Camhs reception during the early hours of the 14th March. How unsettling was it, to realise that I was still out there waiting? Nobody over the course of the preceding six weeks even considered offering me the simple courtesy of calling to let me know what was going on. I wasn’t deemed even worthy of simple politeness. The decision to deny me the meeting had been made literally weeks before but I wasn’t informed. I was abandoned and forgotten. End of. It was cowardly, disrespectful, unprofessional and psychologically damaging to me.
Question 53 . Does the Trust now acknowledge that I was treated contemptuously and disrespectfully by CAMHS clinicians and leadership within the wider Trust at this time?
10) ‘Why was my daughter’s case closed before my case was closed? My art therapy was conducted in conjunction with my daughter’s.’ My objective was to gain insight into parenting my daughter. One case should not have been closed until both were ready to be closed. You say that you recognise how difficult the message you are relaying is to hear. Your message is indeed difficult to hear because the reasoning behind it is flawed. The meeting for the 3rd Feb could easily have been rescheduled for some time in January before my daughter’s final session with Mark Birbeck on the 28th January. You chose to deny me that meeting of the 3rd Feb because of my 12 page letter to Sally and NOT because the work had ended and been closed down. Clear deceit.
11) ‘Did Sally want to change her mind or reassert her original decision to meet with me while Wanda Reynolds was investigating?’ You were apparently concerned about my emotion and the lack of clarity with regards the therapeutic boundary. What do you mean by my ‘emotion’? Do you mean my love for Sally? Why be concerned about my love? Am I not entitled to or have autonomy over my feelings? My love should be treasured and not condemned as inappropriate. I had and still have crystal clear understanding of the therapeutic boundary. I was respectful of that boundary then and continued to respect that boundary. And what distress are you alluding to? I was distressed when I first arrived at Camhs , Brambly Drive with my daughter back in February 2021. I was explicit in informing everyone that attended the emergency meeting at Camhs on the 5th February 2021 that I was suffering carer burnout and unable to cope with my daughters extreme mental health issues. I attended a final review with my daughter, my daughter’s therapist Mark Birbeck and Sally on the 13th January. I was, understandably, distressed at the time because my daughter was about to be discharged by Camhs and we were about to be cast adrift and, arguably, no better off than we were when we first arrived at Camhs the year before. I was being advised by Sally that I needed to continue as my daughter’s main carer indefinitely or for at least another year. I was exhausted and, seeing no signs of respite, was feeling suicidal.
Question 54 . Does the Trust have any further comments to make on these points made in 10 and 11 above?
12) ‘Why have I not been informed of all information relevant to me, either held by Camhs or the Bridge Centre?’ The disclosure of my medical records has been inconsistent and incomplete. I had been informed by Katie Rees of IG at the Sussex Partnership that her IT department suffered unprecedented technical issues which was partly responsible for the significant delays in accessing my records. There are other more alarming issues relating to record keeping and management that need addressing ( see below under the heading ‘RECORDS’ ) With reference to Kirsty Henry and the ‘professionals meeting’; yes, Kirsty Henry told me during my mental health assessment with her on 8th February that a ‘professionals meeting’ had taken place or was about to take place and that she hoped that I would be updated regarding this. Kirsty included the following under ‘Recommendations by MDT’ in my written mental health assessment report ‘ A professionals meeting has taken place and I hope that you would be updated regarding this’. I was never updated regarding the ‘professionals meeting’ either by Camhs or the Bridge Centre. The disgusting details regarding that ‘professionals meeting’ were finally revealed to me on the 15th June 2022 after I made an Access to Records request ( see below under the heading ‘PROFESSIONALS MEETING’ ). With reference to Sean Dale Malloy; SDM told me during a telephone conversation on 4th May 2022 that he had seen documents stating that Kirsty Henry had spoken to Sally Mungall and that it had been unilaterally agreed that Sally would be ‘cutting me off’ completely. That’s me paraphrasing but those are SDM actual words ‘cutting me off’. He used a phrase similar to ‘ documents have passed across my desk’. I was incredulous at the time and telephoned him back the following day for further details. He was deliberately vague the second time around. So who is lying? Would SDM lie in front of a judge during a suicide inquest? I know what I heard. His words were like a klaxon. There are other issues of concern relating to my medical records relating to the sparsity of note taking and the omission of significant information.
Additionally, Wanda Reynolds has stated, in writing, that ‘operational meetings’ are not recorded.
Question 55 . Does the Trust agree with me that record-keeping by CAMHS clinicians and leadership, especially by Wanda Reynolds at this time was poor?
Question 56 . Has the Trust made any improvements to record-keeping policy within CAMHS and the wider Trust, especially the recording of all ‘operational’ meetings?
I later discovered, through access to my daughter’s medical records, that Sean Dale Malloy who was and still works for CMHT the Bridge Centre, Basingstoke under the management of SHFT DID have access to and DID see documents that had ‘passed across his desk’. This is despite his written denial to the Head of Nursing at CMHT the Bridge Centre, Farayi Nyakubaya who thoroughly investigated the SHFT part of my original complaint. Evidence disclosed in my daughter’s records prove that CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall, forwarded two of my personal and private, handwritten letters written and addressed to Sally Mungall on to CMHT. These same letters made their way to Sean Dale Malloy. I am extremely disgusted that my personal and private, handwritten letters written and addressed to Sally Mungall were passed on to another mental healthcare service provider without my permission. Sean Dale Malloy later used the information gleaned from Sally Mungall in a malicious way against me. I have since alerted senior management at SHFT to the information regarding Sean Dale Malloy.
Question 57 . Does the Trust agree with me that the sharing of such personal and private, handwritten letters was UNETHICAL? and
Question 58 . Those letters were of no clinical value in helping and supporting me as a patient at CMHT the Bridge Centre and that those letters were likely passed on in the hope that they might help and support the CAMHS and wider Trust false narrative that I was somehow a ‘risk’?
13) ‘What other information has been withheld from me or not forwarded to me?’ ( AGAIN, see below under ‘RECORDS’ )
Question 59 . Has Information Governance disclosed ALL records that identify me, unredacted or otherwise?
I have it in writing from the investigating caseworker at the HCPC that they were frustrated at the lack of cooperation by Sally Mungall and the wider Trust in complying with requests for records.
Question 60 . Has CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall and the wider Trust fully complied with ALL formal requests made by the Health and Care Professions Council to disclose records?
14) ‘Why is it that I still have not been offered carers support?’ In her referral to CRHT Sally wrote ‘I will be making safeguarding referral for Meg and Mark will then be entitled to a carers assessment.’ The safeguarding referral should have triggered a carers assessment. In this case it did not. You are incorrect when you write ‘she did not include this ( carers support ) in the recommendation letter’. You need to reread Kirsty Henry’s mental health assessment report and specifically her ‘Recommendations by MDT’ where she writes ‘I have kindly asked that you have carers support...’ More importantly I should have been offered carers support back in February 2021 when my daughter and I first arrived at Camhs. My distress was evident from the onset. Indeed, I spoke first with Mark Birbeck and then later with Sally during our time at Camhs expressing my concern over my absolute exhaustion at being a carer to my daughter. If I had been signposted in the early months of 2021 much of my later distress and trauma could have been averted. There have been many promises of carers support which have never materialised. There are numerous mention of offering carers support throughout my medical records but no action was taken. I had to wait until 20th of June before Phoebe Evans, Meg’s social worker finally acquiesced and gave me a carers assessment although I’m still waiting for a response to that assessment. Nick Tuson, newly appointed Carers Peer Support Worker has only recently ( Tues 12th July ) advised that I could have accessed the local council for support. Far too little, far too late.
Question 61 . Was there policy or provision within CAMHS at the time to advise vulnerable parents, carers and guardians about ‘carer support’ and or signpost to services and, if not, has there been any new policy or protocol introduced since?
15) ‘Why am I being denied access to my medical health records at Camhs?’
THE EVIDENCE ALREADY DISCLOSED TO ME BY WAY OF ACCESS TO RECORDS REQUESTS OF BOTH THE SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST AND SOUTHERN HEALTH NHS FOUNDATION TRUST REVEALS MULTIPLE INCIDENCES OF MISREPRESENTATION, DECEPTION AND LIES OF AND ABOUT ME.
THESE MISREPRESENTATIONS, DECEPTIONS AND LIES WERE WILFULLY AND CYNICALLY MADE BY VARIOUS CLINICIANS AND LEADERSHIP STAFF WITHIN CAMHS, BRAMBLYS DRIVE, BASINGSTOKE AND THE WIDER TRUST AND CAUSED SERIOUS, LONG-TERM PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE TO ME AND IRREPAREABLE REPUTATIONAL DAMAGE OF ME. Some of the rebuttals to the MULTIPLE INCIDENCES OF MISREPRESENTATION, DECEPTION AND LIES ABOUT ME AND TO ME are attached below.
Question 62 . Why are TWO outstanding ‘progress notes’, made by CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall during ‘parent work’ still not being disclosed to me?
Question 63 . IMPORTANT QUESTION Will the Trust PLEASE forward ALL records and documents, unredacted, that name either my daughter, Meg Stock or me so that I am given the opportunity to challenge the veracity of entries about my daughter and me?
Question 64 . Why has Information Governance refused access to ALL of CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall’s ‘progress notes’ made during ‘parent work’? Where are the ‘progress notes’ made on the 7th October, 2021 AND 25th November, 2021 following ‘parent work’ sessions with me and have they been forwarded to the HCPC as requested by them?
Question 65 . Are the ‘progress notes’ for the two ‘parent work’ sessions highlighted above being withheld because they incriminate CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall?
I was informed by Adam Churcher of Information Governance SP on the 17th May, 2023 that information, including the ‘progress notes’ for the two ‘parent work’ sessions highlighted above were being withheld ‘because the Clinical Team believed at the time of the request they could cause harm’.
Question 66 . Please clarify ‘could cause harm’ to who?
I would argue that the Trust is causing more harm to me by withholding ANY information and adds to the pervasive atmosphere of distrust.
I have been informed by Information Governance at SPFT that records already disclosed have been redacted and that other records might have been withheld in compliance with UK GDPR and Data Protection Guidelines.
‘What information is exempt/When might I need to redact a response to a SAR?
Some information is exempt from disclosure under a SAR and would need to be redacted from a SAR response. Exempt information may include information which:
· would be likely to cause serious harm or distress to the requestor or another person if released
· identifies a third party (see What if records contain data about other individuals?)
· would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime
· contains confidential employment data such as references or management information
· contains child abuse data’
I am now fully aware of the details of ALL third-party involvement. Denying me access to full, unredacted access to ALL records is certain to cause more ongoing serious harm or distress to my daughter and to me than allowing full, unredacted access to ALL records.
Question 64 . If I am still to be denied access to ALL unredacted medical records then please identify the specific part of UK GDPR and Data Protection Guidelines that you are using to justify exemption or redaction?
I have been advised that the authorisation to exempt or redact records has come from the clinicians and leadership involved in my case.
Question 65 . Who are the clinicians and leadership who have jointly authorised exemption and redaction?
I BELIEVE THAT THE CLINICIANS AND LEADERSHIP WHO HAVE JOINTLY AUTHORISED EXEMPTION AND REDACTION ARE PURPOSELY OBSTRUCTING MY RIGHTFUL ACCESS TO ALL UNREDACTED RECORDS BECAUSE THOSE RECORDS INCRIMINATE THOSE SAME CLINICIANS AND LEADERSHIP.
QUESTION 66 . DO YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THE AUTHORISATION BY CLINICIANS AND LEADERSHIP TO EXEMPT AND REDACT RECORDS , IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND FOR THE REASONS THAT I SUGGEST ABOVE, AMOUNTS TO CORRUPTION?
16) ‘Will I have access to the document seen by Sean Dale Malloy that details the unilateral decision made by Kirsty Henry and Sally to ‘cut me off’ from Sally? I never made the claim that Kirsty Henry or Sean Dale Malloy had made that decision to ‘cut me off’ from Sally. I was suspicious that Kirsty had conspired with Sally to renege upon the meeting scheduled for the 3rd February 2022. Kirsty wasn’t involved in the decision but she certainly knew at the time of my mental health assessment on the 8th of February and was complicit in the conspiracy to keep me ignorant. I was reporting SDM’s actual words to me during telephone conversations on the 5th and 6th of May. I have, more recently, been given access to my medical records and I can see an abundance of note and record taking detailing Camhs decision to deny me the meeting with Sally on the 3rd of Febraury and the despicable strategies by both Camhs and the Bridge Centre to monitor me, surveil me, misrepresent me etc following that decision. SDM had, in all likelihood, been given access to those notes and records and it was this information that he was referring to. I can only imagine what mischief was in SDM’s mind when he decided to let slip that such ‘documents had passed across his desk’ ( my paraphrasing ). He was fully aware of my state of mind and the psychological damage that such information would cause me. Really disgusting, or at the very least, irresponsible behaviour on his part.
I asked SHFT to locate and return those same letters to me. Recent investigations carried out by Gemma Stubbington, Head of Services at SHFT revealed that those same letters have now been ‘LOST’, probably by Sean Dale Malloy. This was hugely distressing news to me and left me feeling grievously betrayed.
Question 67 . What is the Trusts reaction to the this last statement?
17) ‘Was Wanda Reynolds privy to the decision to ‘cut me off’ from Sally? I am, at time of writing, still awaiting records of the notes taken at the time of the ‘extensive meeting’ that will, hopefully, name the professional lead staff involved and outline their rationale in making their decision.
Question 68 . Was it Wanda Reynolds who made the final executive decision to deny me the ‘review meeting’, mutually agreed between Sally Mungall and me and scheduled for the 3rd February, 2022?
Question 69 . Did anyone within the Trust have senior oversight of Wanda Reynolds and her management of me between January and July, 2022?
Question 70 . Does the Trust agree that it is the responsibility of ALL clinicians to manage content shared on social media including Facebook?
Question 71 . Will the Trust thoroughly investigate Sally Mungall’s use of social media and question her professional judgement in sharing personal details that were accessible to the wider public including her patients, many of whom are children and adolescents?
Question 72 . Will the Trust consider the implication raised in my complaints and adopt and enforce new policies around the use of social media by clinicians in the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust?
AND, FINALLY,
I made a complaint against CAMHS psychotherapist, Mark Birbeck to his regulatory body, the Association of Child Psychotherapists. Their investigation largely absolved him of wrongdoing, blaming failures on the institution, namely CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke. I have attached the investigation report along with my rebuttals below.
Question 73 . Will the Trust please read the investigation report by the ACP and address the criticisms made about them?'
