To be over the moon with the way mediaton went?

[D0oinMeCleanin]

I particularly enjoyed these bits

Ex: I have no problems. I don't even know why this is happening. When they said that someone was gonna be coming round I thought it was gonna be someone who'd help her with the house and that and explain that it's not good for kids to be living like this. It's making them smell.

Mediator: So what do you think you can do about the children smelling?

Ex:

Mediator: Do you think if they came to your house you could wash their clothes and shower them?

Ex: Well, yeah and I do, but that's not the point is it? When they're with her they smell and they'll get bullied

Mediator: Okay, but social services have already investigated at your behest and they were happy with the way the children are cared for. Do you think the smell might be your issue?

Ex:

Mediator: So showering them and washing their clothes would be a way of dealing with that?

and

Ex: She lets them go to school all scruffy with grey shirts and holey socks and dd2 is always covered in mud and I dunno what else.

Mediator: So if you are not happy with your children's uniform what can you do about it? They are your children aren't they?

Ex: Well yeah but...

Mediator: Could you buy them new uniform if you think they need it?

Ex:

He sat with a face like a slapped arse throughout the whole thing. I doubt it's gonna help with his attitude, he still insists he is right and me and the mediator are wrong but boy did I enjoy watching it

Had I made them any clearer, it could well have looked like a personal attack on the OP, which would not be my intention.

So it's Ok just to heavily imply a personal attack then, is it? And excuse me for not having more back up.

There is no implication at all. I have no reason to personally attack the OP as I don't know her. I have commented on how I see the relationship between her and her ex, and how imo it affects her kids.

You however, seem to be stirring all this and only you know the reason why.

You're going to need to swap your wooden spoon for a heavy duty blender if you do any more of it.

The mediator sounds absolutely awful. Are they an accredited mediator?

The should be identifying the issues and then helping both parties to work constructively to adress them. They should also remain neutral. That does not sound like what was going on here

I would get a new mediator - a bad/untrained one can do more harm than good

I think there's a lot more going on here but what is clear is that the DC have various issues that they need help with and that should be the priority

Oh FFS. Give over. It's out of order for someone to come onto a thread, imply the OP is lying, and then fuck off.

I challenged it. You supported it, and now you are suggesting that you have held back in order not to personally attack the OP.

If you don't want to be called on your comments and implications then FFS don't post HINTS at all. Report her to MNHQ or just ignore her thread.

I'm bailing on this as it's getting ridiculous.

See you another time OP.

I think the problem with the approach of BOF and Worra is that they work on the assumption that is it impossible for OP to move on; they remember previous threads when she was seemingly stuck with her ex and failing to take steps to move out and protect her children appropriately, and subsequently took him in to look after him when he broke his arms. I must admit I was amongst those who was horrified by that, worried that she had got back into the old vicious circle, and confidently predicted that she would have massive trouble ejecting him - but, as we can see, she did chuck him out again.

It is obvious that she has moved on a long way since then but it does not appear that everyone is willing to give her credit for that. Given her fairly horrendous history with the ex and his current behaviour it is hardly surprising that there are still unresolved issues. But for strangers on the internet to assume from a few threads on a discussion forum that they know better than SS and the various professionals regularly visiting the house is ridiculous.

They should be identifying the issues and then helping both parties to work constructively to adress them. They should also remain neutral. That does not sound like what was going on here

I don't think you can conclude from OP's report that this mediator wasn't neutral. She's only quoted two very short exchanges in a mediation meeting which I suspect went on for about an hour in which, on the basis of these reports, the ex was allowed to give his side of the story. For all we know, she similarly picked up UP on things she said.

When discussing the issue of smell, I think that in pointing out to the ex that no-one else backed him on that she was simply stating a fully evidenced fact which he needed to answer. It is equally appropriate to explore with the ex that, if he is sitting back and criticising the children's uniform, he needs to be able to say what he has done about that.

I haven't read the previous threads so this is a neutral pov- I was a bit at some of the pps

if school and social services are happy, then presumably mn should be?

as for the mediator- it doesn't seem inappropriate to me that he/she should gently suggest things either party might consider doing to address things that they find particularly concerning, no?

otherwise, what would be the point of mediation?

I really didn't read it like that, psip.

You're the person who keeps hinting at that, with references to the OP being 'genuine'. Doubt anyone would have thought she wasn't if you'd not said that.

yeah wot icimoi said

much more concisely than what I did

I'm glad the mediation session went well. FWIW, it sounds as though the mediator did a good job. She wasn't taking sides as far as I can see. She simply addressed the ex's concerns by asking which steps he could take to resolve the issues that he had. Since the OP doesn't agree that these are issues, and outside agencies have confirmed that there aren't any actual problems, finding a constructive way forward for the ex is indeed up to him. The mediator was trying to get him to realise that if he had a problem, it was up to him to solve.

The point of mediation is for the parties to suggest solutions and hopefully agree on one. Then, hopefully, no one feels aggrieved and as though they have had a solution imposed on them

Not for the mediator to be providing solutions or evaluating each parties' position (you can have evaluative mediation but it's comparatuveky rate and never in a family situation). If you want that, you go to court and the judge does that by way of a court order.

The last exchange particularly is .

Aaargghh - if there genuinely is no problem, then the mediator should not be suggesting ways to solve it.

At the beginning of the nexuation, both parties should have said what they thought the issues to discuss and agree on are. If one party brings up a clearly irrelevant issue, then the mediator should explain that it's not relevant and why and therefore that it's not going to be covered

If it's not relevant, you don't then start giving it credence as a mediator by discussing it and then making your own suggestions as to how the issue can be "resolved". The mediator is a facilitator not a problem solver. It's like two parties spending hours discussing what million pounds houses they are going to buy with their divided assets, wgat would be best for the DC etc but their combined assets only amount to £50k. It's irrelevant. So that issue shouk be determined at the beginning of the hearing and struck off the list. Not have the mediator facilitating and joining in by suggesting possible houses.

Also, I understand and that this is has been a previously abusive relationship. Mediation isn't generally recommended in these circumstances so I'm not sure what's going on

If I went to mediation and presented an issue about the colour jeans my ex wore on Wednesdays it would be quite appropriate for the mediator to express that it was not something I should be concerning myself with and that the problem was with me and suggest that I may feel better if I changed my feelings on the matter.

That is not taking sides it would be keeping me on track with what I should be concerning myself with

Agree with Needsasockamnesty.

I don't see where the mediator took sides. I do see her trying to encourage the ex-H to find solutions for himself.

if there genuinely is no problem, then the mediator should not be suggesting ways to solve it.

My impression is that there's a definite problem, which is the ex's powerful & irrational belief that Dooin neglects their children's hygiene to the extent that they smell bad. So powerful has this belief been, it led to the breakdown of the relationship and injured the mental health of at least one of the DC, as well as damaging Dooin's confidence in her own judgement so that she felt compelled to ask strangers if her house was smelly. We know it's irrational because SS have checked her home out and monitored the children.

It totally is the problem, not an irrelevance! I'm guessing that some sort of battle for residence is going on, or at least a dispute over access. Therefore the mediator's prompting the ex for his views on his own parental responsibilities was absolutely the point.

D0oin, I'm delighted to see that you are gradually regaining your trust in yourself :) It's extraordinary what a bully can do to a person's mind; I wish you and your DDs all good speed in getting your heads back to normal.

SS saying the house is ok means nothing in my opinion. I knew of a child sleeping on a filthy blanket in a filthy house but social services viewed it as acceptable .
How many animals are you talking about?

However, I used to have pet rats. They do have a faint odour if only cleaned out twice a week but they certainly didn't make me or my clothes smell.

The school has been asked independently for feedback.
Dooin has been asking random strangers what her house smells of.

FGS, the ex doesn't need half of Mumsnet to support him. If he starts his own thread here, you can all pile in to tell him how utterly reasonable he is

Gobbolino, I think those are excellent posts and absolutely agree with you. The general gist of the OPs post was that she thought mediation had gone well because the mediator backed her up and put her ex in his place. She also said she was meeting alone with the mediator to help her to develop strategies for his 'nastiness' and 'making things up'. I think it's fair to extrapolate from this that that the rest of the session probably took a similar tone.

A mediator is there to reduce conflict, encourage compromise and help the people in mediation to come to a solution together. This woman sounds like she is actively fomenting the conflict. And the whole exercise is completely pointless because you can never convince anybody to do anything just by telling them that they are wrong and someone else is right. She's not doing her job and the whole thing is an exercise in futility when it's conducted like this.

OP, I agree with Gobbolino, get a different mediator. It might feel nice in the short term that this woman is validating your position but in the long time it's going to do you no good. This woman is just going over the same old arguments you've had again and again. You're not doing anything to improve your relationship or reduce the conflict between you. You're just covering the same ground you always have, it's more of the same. You're certainly not lessening the conflict between you or creating an environment where your children feel they are surrounded by less conflict.

If you want to make things better for your children you need to find a mediator who will remain neutral if you want to make progress and improve things. or simply don't bother at all. Because you're wasting your time with this woman, at best she's making no difference, at worst she's damaging the situation further.

Sockamnesty why? Your mediator would have no business telling you that your exes jeans were lovely and you were wrong and that you must change your mind. She would simply tell you it was not relevant to the discussion and was not up for discussion.

I mean, think about this sensibly. If you thought someone had a hideous dress on and someone told you that you were wrong and it was lovely and you must change your mind you wouldn't pay a blind bit of difference would you?

Ditto this 'mediator'. Her simply telling the husband he's right and the ex is wrong isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to what he thinks or his relationship with the OP. Simply telling someone they are wrong does no good. Have you not seen the all the Lefties on here telling everybody how wrong people who voted Tory were and how they're all greedy selfish baby murdering bastards? How many people have you seen suddenly go 'Oh my God, you were right all along, I should never have voted Tory'. All that sort of behaviour does is entrench the opinion further, anger the person who is being told they are wrong and further alienate from the position you want them to take.

The mediator wouldn't need to tell me I should like the jeans just that the jeans were not relevant to the separation/divorce/contact/children.

Should I persist in insisting the jeans where relevant it would be appropriate to explain why they were not relevant.

Obviously thst explanation could quite reasonably consist of "your concerns about the jeans have been assesed by the relevant Jean related professional who has confirmed that they are not relevant to contact. Understanding that they are not relevant could be something you could personally address with yourself"

I probably need to clear a few things up. I tend to brief summary everything and leave people thinking up is down. I'm a bit ill atm, I've had a cold for the last three and also not sat for the last few days and my cold has hit me like a tonne of bricks since dinner time, so I'm now dosed up with Night Nurse waiting for dd1 to finish her "end of SATs bubble bath" so I can go to bed, so I might not make a lot of sense, but I'm stuck here waiting for her, so might as well try, in between yelling "You're relaxed enough now go to bed" of course

I used the term mediator because I am lazy and it was quicker than explaining this woman's full role. She was there to mediate, so through laziness I called her a mediator. She is not an official mediator. There are no issues around contact or money or custody. The issue is the way we communicate with each other and a big part of the conflict between us is ex's attitude towards my care of the children, the number of pets I have and the "smell" of my house. He rarely mentions tidiness, just smell and germs, the germs he says are caused by the number of animals, not general squalor.

I'll start from the beginning because I am too Night Nursed up to decipher what is relevant and as I said have a habit of overly shortening things and ending up saying something totally different to what I actually mean to.

Around 3 months ago ex and I were asked to come to the school to talk about dd1 and her "sadness" as the school termed, which I felt was a little ridiculous as I'd been at the school daily for two weeks at this point trying to get them to act on the bullying dd1 had been receiving (for clarity dd1 is not being bullied because she smells or because of our house. The girl bullying her is a former friend who fell out with dd1 after dd1 refused to hand over her pocket money to this girl. The name calling is centered around dd1 being spoiled and being allowed to do things that the bully is not allowed to do, such as dye her hair during the holidays, she tells ex herself that she has never been called smelly and despite previously spending many weekends at our house this girl has never bullied dd1 over the supposed smell in our house) but that is all by the by I suppose.

Because ex and I have different schedules we couldn't find a time that suited everyone so we met with school separately. I explained I felt that dd1 was sad because she was being bullied and asked again what they intended to do to solve that.

I don't know what ex said, the school are not allowed to tell me. I do know that 5 minutes after his meeting had been due to end I received a phone call from someone at the school telling me that "serious safeguarding concerns had been raised and they had no choice but to refer the matter to child services" and asking if they could come round to discuss their concerns. I explained I was on my way to work. Which was true and advised of when I finished.

Once I'd finished work the lady from the school was on my doorstep waiting for me. I let her in. She had paperwork to do so we walked through the living room and into the dining room, from there you can see the kitchen, so she saw a fair bit of the house and commented that from what she could see there was no issue and I had nothing to worry about but she was duty bound to report the issues. She filled in her paperwork and left.

An hour later I a call from SS who explained that there had been some concerns raised but that they were aware a school official had been in my house that day and was "more than satisfied" with the home conditions and had no issues around the children's well being at school, so they didn't feel the need to pass it on to SS but asked if I'd like a family support worker (a step down from a SW they told me) to come round and have a chat about anything I needed support with. I declined. They then explained that whilst it was my right to decline help, they had to visit the house and officially address the concerns. They arranged for someone from a team called "Families in Need" to come round and do a CAF report.

The CAF report happened the next day and I had a chat with the lady from Families in Need who identified that my only "need" was my need to resolve this conflict with ex and support in managing his behaviour and reducing the impact of our issues on the children. They were happy that the situation in the house did not need escalating to SS or preventative care and that I was managing in all other areas bar coping with ex. They put me in touch with a service called Separated Families. That's who this woman was.

It is her job to help ex and myself communicate any issues we have about the children without resorting to arguing and to indicate and address and issues the children have because of the separation. Both ex and myself work with her alone. The sessions do resolve around how to deal with one another more effectively and calmly for the sake of the children.

At no point did she actively take my side. She never once said that she thought he was wrong and my house was fine. Only that it was not a safeguarding issue and therefore the only way ex could change the way he felt about the issue that he had identified as causing him the most stress and the source of the conflict was to change his own behaviour to it.

She did want to move on to address other issues but he kept coming back to that. She didn't really pick up on much I said because I didn't really get to say much, ex just went on and on and on and if I'm honest I was happy to just sit back and enjoy the show, although I realise that's not helpful and not the aim of the joint sessions, it did feel good to finally know that his problems are his problems and not mine to fix and it was satisfying to watch him show himself for what he is. She did make sure I had a few chances to speak and respond to things he was saying and she made sure he did not interrupt.

Fuck that's long And probably way to detailed.

That's not the point though sock. It's one thing to say 'This has been dealt with by the relevant authorities and not found to be an issue, it is not up for discussion and not a topic I will be mediating on' and making accusatory comments like 'why didn't you do this, why didn't you do that'.

One is firmly moving the topic on. The other one is just stirring and side taking. Not something a responsible mediator would do. I also find it really concerning that she is meeting separately with the OP. It doesn't sound like she's mediating, it sounds like she's advocating and getting into the role of the OPs divorce lawyer.

The whole point of mediation is that it's supposed to avoid the whole adversarial system of blame you get through the courts. It's not serving the purpose mediation is intended for.

Thank you :) Hope the Night Nurse has kicked in and you feel a bit better tomorrow!

Actually, Dooin, what you're describing is mediation. Just not the sort Aermingers seems to assume.