Stalking and harassment — assessment and multi-domain management (MEQ)

(i) Definition and classification. Stalking is a pattern of unwanted intrusive behaviours causing fear/distress — legal thresholds vary by jurisdiction. This is not a DSM diagnosis. Presentation fits rejected Mullen type (post-separation reconciliation/revenge motives) in an intimate/ex-intimate RECON context, with possible evolving resentful features after legal constraints. Threat language raises violence concern despite minimisation.[1][4]

(ii) Assessment and multi-domain risks. Multi-source: victim account, order/breach history, message content, workplace incidents, alcohol use, child-contact logistics, prior notes, MSE. Domains: violence (threat, access via child handover, alcohol, breaches); persistence (10 months, high volume); recurrence risk after any pause; victim psychosocial harm (hypervigilance, sleep, work fear); stalker self-harm after further legal loss. Do not collapse to a single "medium risk" label.[4][3][2][5]

(iii) Formulation and scenarios. Drivers: attachment injury, entitlement to reunion, alcohol disinhibition, child-contact access, minimisation. Scenario example: assault or serious threat enactment around handover if intoxicated + rejected again + no supervision. Lower but non-zero suicide risk after arrest/order enforcement. Psychosis not required for high concern here.[3][1][7]

(iv) Integrated plan. Victim track: safety planning, no-contact enforcement, workplace security liaison principles, support for trauma/anxiety symptoms, safe child-contact redesign (supervised/third-party as local family-law process allows — principles only). Stalker track: clear no-contact message from clinicians (no collusion with "make her see reason"); alcohol intervention; offence-focused psychological work / emotion regulation (DBT-informed approaches have RCT signal in selected samples); frequent review; consider higher-intensity or inpatient pathway if imminence rises and local mental health criteria met; multi-agency information sharing principles.[4][8][2]

(v) Documentation and protective duties. Document exact threat words, chronology, multi-domain formulation, options considered, actions (who notified, when), and review triggers. If serious risk to an identifiable person remains, confidentiality is not absolute: Appelbaum assess → protect steps → implement/document. Use local law/policy; no invented section numbers. Avoid unhelpful false precision.[6][7][4]