I am supposed to tell the children that "Mummy and Daddy have met up in mediation to rebuild their relationship with their father". Ahem, no.
I explained I was there because Mr Toad wanted to reestablish his relationship with the children and I would take a neutral stance in the matter.
That is apparently not good enough.
And I am not to brief the children what to say to the mediator when he interviews them interrogates them. Why do people think that all I do is brief the children what to say? Do people not think that children can speak for themselves?
And I am not to call him Mr Toad, but by his first name. "Why don't you call him by his first name, he is good old a Toad, come on, you have lived together for fourteen years". I explained that I am not on first names with him, good old German custom (v old fashioned, but hey, we are stuck up old fashioned formal people in our family).
I said I was happy for someone to speak to the children once they are settled back at school, late in October, before half term.
This did not suit the mediator. he is desperate for cash
I insisted that I would not put undue pressure on the children and late October it is.
Could Toad give them presents before they are being interrogated?
I thought that was bribing them, but I was swiftly corrected: it is about presenting Toad in a positive way, is that not what I wanted?
This was not victim blaming, this was victim bullying.