The concept of family group conferences (FGCs) originated in New Zealand in 1989 as a tool and statutory right for extended family networks to arrange for the welfare and safety of a child that is neglected or abused by his/her own parents. Through successful FGCs, state intervention can be avoided while the resourcefulness of the larger community is mobilized. The concept has proliferated to many countries and therefore lends itself for analysis as a ‘legal transplant’. This contribution investigates the FGC as a transplant, focussing on how the concept has been adapted and incorporated in the legal systems of England and the Netherlands. In these two countries the ‘Big Society’ and austerity measures in the social domain are high on the policy agenda. How are such policy priorities blended – if at all – with the emancipatory ideal of granting family networks autonomy next to, or even over, publicly funded professionals? It appears that the FGC concept has been compromised in both England and the Netherlands, but in different ways.

This study aims to provide insight into allegations of child sexual abuse in the context of divorce, and related, proceedings by analyzing the decision-making process of civil judges. To this aim, interviews with 13 judges and 11 lawyers were conducted and a focus group was organized with different specialists. It is concluded that in the eyes of the judges, allegations of child sexual abuse in this context are not rare, and some of the professionals signal an increase of allegations in the last decade. The presence of an allegation poses a dual issue: it points out problems within the family, as well as causes problems for the child. This dual nature makes it even more complex for judges to make decisions, especially concerning contact between father and child. The validity of the allegation becomes less important than its presence when judges consider the children’s best interests. The judges’ aim to create conditions for the family within which the child’s safety is best protected, can as an unwanted consequence delay the process, which in itself can be damaging for the child.

We investigate a recent development in the practice of the civil courts: judges increasingly devote attention to the underlying conflict of parties instead of only to their legal dispute. In administrative law, this development has already been codified and termed ‘de Nieuwe zaaksbehandeling’, but not so in other areas of law.
Lawyers know that social conflicts are transformed into legally viable disputes so that the court can decide on them. For a long time, the most important task for lawyers was to resolve those legal disputes. Nowadays, that does not seem to be enough: judges should become problem solvers. Civil judges seem to blend in with these new requirements, but the question is whether the new approach really works. Based on our empirical material of 100 observed cases in civil law, we answer the following questions. 1. What do judges actually do in civil cases when they address underlying conflicts and try to steer parties toward a settlement? 2. What effects do these interventions of judges have on the outcome of cases? 3. How are these interventions perceived by the parties in terms of procedural justice?

In administrative law, a substantial number of citizens who are dissatisfied with government decisions go on to appeal their decision at a higher court. This article discusses how satisfied those appellants are about the procedure and the result.
The data presented demonstrate a substantial difference in appreciation of the procedure between winners and losers. In addition, many appellants experience a very low degree of distributive justice. In part, people show a fundamental distrust in the administration of justice, but for a greater part, people argue that the higher court judge has not assessed their case in an expert or fair way.
The most intriguing outcomes of the analysis concern the large majority, including both winners and losers, that claim that the verdict did not end the conflict with the counterparty. Additionally, almost everyone argues that they would file an appeal again, if presented with that possibility. The experienced dissatisfaction, skepticism and frustration regarding the procedure seem to have little or no influence on the willingness to return to the administrative higher court in the future.

To overcome problems of juridification and formalization of administrative law, successful initiatives have been undertaken by professionals in the public administration and judiciary to improve administrative procedures. These initiatives have been inspired by theories of (perceived) procedural justice, as developed by Tyler and Lind (1988). Although the author acknowledges the importance of procedural justice, she argues that the strong focus on procedural aspects, based on subjective opinions of claimants, may unintentionally lead to a situation in which other important issues may be easily overlooked, such as the question why citizens would refrain from starting a lawsuit or the question what explains the low success rates of citizens in administrative law.

If someone disagrees with an administrative order, he or she has to lodge an objection with the administrative authority responsible for the order. Only after the administrative authority has fully reconsidered the contested order is the interested party allowed to seek redress with the administrative courts. Estimates are that around 2.6 million objections are filled each year, making the administrative objection procedure the most frequently used dispute resolution procedure in the Netherlands. Numerous variations can be found in the way administrative authorities handle objections. Does this affect how professional users evaluate its quality? And if so, how can this be explained?