A Holistic Approach to Justice for Child Victims

Your position paper emphasises the benefits of a “holistic approach” to justice. What does this mean, and how can it particularly benefit children?

A holistic approach means putting the rights and needs of the child at the centre of the justice process. The whole experience of the justice system can be extremely traumatising to a child and too often, children navigating the system are at a real risk of retraumatisation. Imagine a child who has been a victim of abuse—they might have to report the crime to a police officer, undergo a forensic examination, speak to a psychologist, and then attend court with judges and prosecutors. Each step involves retelling their story to different people, which can be deeply distressing.

The holistic approach shifts the responsibility to the system itself. Instead of expecting the child to navigate a fragmented process, a holistic approach aims to create a system that adjusts to the rights and needs of the child. It looks at how we can make sure that we are looking through a ‘child-centred lens’ so that all the different services around the child are coordinated and information is easily accessible so that the child can feel safe and supported throughout. A child is not a file to move from desk to desk. They are individuals with unique needs and rights and individual-needs assessments are absolutely critical.

Multidisciplinary teams are central to this approach. Professionals from different fields—legal, psychological, and social services—must work together to support the child. This not only benefits the child but also helps professionals by fostering collaboration and understanding of how to address children’s needs comprehensively.

What are the biggest challenges children face in accessing justice, and how can the system improve?

There a quite a few, unfortunately, despite the fact that we are in Europe and benefit from quite rich and extensive legal frameworks concerning children in contact with justice systems that member states are obliged to follow. Yet, children still suffer from a failure of the system. 

When we think about violence against children, we often think of contexts like the home, or school. But there is also this idea of violence from the system itself – a system that lacks consideration of children’s specific intersectional needs. For example, imagine a child who has been a victim of a crime but lives in a rural area in a country that already doesn’t have many services available. How will this child be able to report crimes committed against them? And what if this child has a disability? Or is part of the LGBTQI+ community and is afraid of reporting a crime for fear of others’ opinions? There are certainly major challenges here.

One of these major challenges is a lack of accessible information. Children often don’t receive clear, age-appropriate explanations about the justice process. Legal jargon, unfamiliar languages, and inaccessible formats create confusion, particularly for children with cognitive or learning disabilities. Moreover, support systems around the child—guardians, lawyers, or caregivers—are often not properly informed, especially in the case of migrant children or those without a stable guardian.

We are also talking about the accessibility of the services itself. It is one thing to have services existing on paper, but you also need to ensure they have adequate funding, staff and accessibility in all areas of a country. Models like the Barnahus (Children’s House), which integrate psychological support, legal aid, and forensic services under one roof, are excellent examples of holistic approaches. However, such models are only available in select areas, leaving many children underserved.

Another issue is the insufficient training of professionals. All the professionals a child could come in contact with during the proceedings needs to not only understand the rights of the child, but also their development. The approach to children is very different than the approach to adults and we need to ensure that in the curriculum of the professionals you integrate considerations related to children’s rights. There also needs to be continuous training, which is not happening in several areas. 

How does the EU Victims’ Rights Directive address these challenges?

The Victims’ Rights Directive is a strong legal framework, and we welcome its specific provisions on child victims. However, it needs to be more ambitious. The Directive should promote better coordination between services to ensure a seamless experience for children.

One area for improvement is multidisciplinary assessments. The Directive mentions them, but we need more clarity and standards on how they should be carried out. Imagine if every child received a thorough and timely assessment—it would allow professionals to understand their unique context and needs, making it easier to provide effective support. Different categories of children have diverse and specific protection needs and often there aren’t resources to adapt to these or these needs aren’t even thought of. Of course, the Directive is a framework document meaning it cannot address all the local challenges of each state. But it needs to be ambitious enough to push the member states a bit further in ensuring that these services can be adequately developed and resourced. 

Why is restorative justice particularly beneficial for ensuring greater access to justice for children? 

Restorative justice has become an increasingly prominent topic in discussions about children’s rights, both for victims and offenders. I’ve noticed that many people, including professionals from various sectors, are curious about it but also cautious. Common concerns centre on issues like power imbalances or the potential for retraumatisation, particularly when children are involved. However, I believe much of this hesitation stems from a misunderstanding of what restorative justice truly is in practice.

Why could it be quite beneficial for children? Restorative justice is often seen as an alternative to the traditional criminal process, offering a way to resolve issues constructively. For children, this approach can be especially beneficial because it focuses on understanding and addressing their unique needs. What struck me when I first learned about restorative justice was how much it shares values that align with a child-centered perspective—particularly its emphasis on individual needs assessments for both victims and offenders. These assessments help identify the emotional, psychological, and practical needs of everyone involved, making it possible to tailor the process to ensure positive outcomes.

When applied properly, restorative justice can provide children with a sense of closure and empowerment, helping them process and heal from what happened. A powerful example of this comes from a recent consultation we conducted with the Child Advisory Board in Estonia. The young girls, all victims of severe bullying, told us they wished someone had introduced them to restorative justice when they were younger. At 13 or 14, they had felt isolated and helpless, but as they reflected on it as 18- and 19-year-olds, they realised how restorative justice could have helped them navigate and heal from their experiences much earlier. Stories like this show the transformative potential of restorative justice when children are aware of it and have the opportunity to participate.

What safeguards do you believe are necessary to ensure restorative justice processes benefit children while still protecting and ensuring their rights? 

Of course, safeguards are absolutely essential when children are involved in restorative justice processes and all the parties involved must be aware of these safeguards. Participation must always be voluntary, and all parties must fully understand what the process entails before agreeing to it. Proper training for facilitators is critical—not just in restorative practices but also in areas like child development, trauma-informed care, and child-friendly communication. These safeguards ensure that children are supported and protected throughout the process, minimising any risk of retraumatisation.

How could restorative justice services ‘fit’ into the multidisciplinary and multiagency processes that the paper recommends? 

Restorative justice fits naturally into a multidisciplinary and multiagency approach because it offers a unique perspective that complements other services. It’s important to understand that restorative justice is voluntary—not everyone will choose to participate in it, but it should always be a measure that is discussed and proposed as part of the options available. For example, if professionals present a range of possible responses to a case of abuse or violence, restorative justice should be included and explained thoroughly so the child and others involved can make an informed decision. If we don’t offer restorative justice as an option, we miss an essential piece of the puzzle in achieving a holistic approach. 

Another key point is that restorative justice doesn’t need to replace the criminal process. It can work in parallel to legal proceedings, addressing emotional and psychological dimensions that formal justice systems often overlook. There are still judges and prosecutors who believe that you need to go through a criminal proceeding in order to have true ‘justice’, so I think it’s better to explain that, okay, here is the palette of possibilities and restorative justice is just one of those. 

How do you think these approaches could help develop values and standards for good practice restorative justice processes?

To ensure restorative justice practices are effective and safe, quality standards are essential. As a European network ourselves, we see various countries across Europe have inconsistencies in how restorative justice is implemented. This isn’t necessarily an issue of resources—countries with advanced systems, like France, can still fall into punitive approaches rather than rehabilitative ones. For children, we should be more educative than punitive but unfortunately, societies are becoming increasingly punitive. Within this context, we need to best understand how to promote an approach that can be perceived as “not punitive enough.”  That’s why we need clear minimum quality standards for restorative justice, especially when children are involved.

These standards should include core values such as respect, safety, and child-centred communication, as well as mandatory training for practitioners in child development, trauma-informed care, and child-friendly justice. We can’t have someone working in restorative justice with children who lack these skills or the necessary understanding of how to communicate effectively with young people. Regulating and standardising practices across Europe is crucial to ensure that every child engaging with restorative justice receives the same level of care and support.

Do you have any final messages for policymakers and practitioners? How can efforts to raise awareness about restorative justice among professionals improve the accessibility of justice services for children?

Raising awareness about restorative justice is critical—not just among professionals but also in the broader community. One area that’s often overlooked is the role of the media. The way children are portrayed in the media—whether as victims, suspects, or offenders—can have a huge impact. For example, I’ve seen cases where a child involved in a crime is sensationalised in headlines, with their name and age revealed. This kind of stigmatisation only worsens the challenges children face. If I had one project to propose, it would be focused on the impact of the media on child justice issues and ensuring that the language and narratives used are not harmful or stigmatising.

Awareness efforts must also go beyond professionals in the justice system to include parents, schools, and community members. Teachers, school directors, and parents need to understand restorative justice and how it can benefit children. By engaging everyone in a child’s life, we create a more supportive environment where restorative justice can thrive.

Training is another critical component. Many restorative practitioners assume they can work with children simply because they understand restorative justice or because they are parents themselves. This isn’t enough. Practitioners need specialised training in children’s rights, child-friendly communication, and child development to ensure they are prepared to work effectively and sensitively with young people.

Last but not least, we must involve children themselves in awareness and training efforts. Children and young people with lived experiences of restorative justice can provide invaluable insights into what works and what doesn’t. Holistic approaches and restorative justice are not just theoretical concepts—they are practical tools that can transform the justice experience for children. But to make them work, we need commitment, collaboration, and, above all, a child-centred mindset.

Mariama Diallo is the Coordinator of the Child Friendly Justice European Network (CFJ-EN), a dynamic Network based in Brussels, composed of 31 organisations, experts and academic institutions which defend the rights of children in contact with justice systems across Europe. Mariama is a French lawyer specialised in international law, with a family background from the Netherlands and Guinea. She has over 18 years of professional experience working in international cooperation across the globe. Mariama’s areas of expertise and interest include child-friendly justice and access to justice for children without discrimination, with a special attention for children in migration, LGBTI+ children and children with disabilities.

Breanna Fernandes is a Policy and Communication Intern at the European Forum for Restorative Justice.

Laura Hein is the Policy Officer of the European Forum for Restorative Justice.

Published on the 18th of December 2024.