Introduction

The idea of arranging a meeting between a victim and perpetrator of sexual harm might, at first sight, seem undesirable or even unwise. There is mounting evidence, however (Zinsstag and Keenan, 2017), that restorative meetings such as family group conferences (FGCs) can, in certain circumstances, be beneficial for all stakeholders. Drawing upon theory, empirical research and practice examples, this chapter will explore the potential and some of the risks of FGCs (conceptualised as a restorative approach that can address both welfare and justice needs) in cases where young people have displayed harmful sexual behaviour (HSB).

Harmful sexual behavior

The term harmful sexual behavior (HSB) refers to behaviour displayed by minors, and encompasses a wide spectrum of contact behaviours, such as sexual assault and rape, and non-contact behaviours, including coercing others to make and share sexualised images. Importantly, HSB is distinct from the curiosity-driven exploration of their own bodies or those of other children, known as ‘sex play’ (Swisher and Pierce, 2014) in which some young children will spontaneously engage. ‘[B]enign in its effects on later psychological, social, or sexual development’ (O’Brien, 1991: 75), sex play occurs occasionally among children who know each other well and play together regularly (Swisher and Pierce, 2014). It is mutually agreed, absent of aggression, and between children similar in age, developmental level and size (Swisher and Pierce, 2014; Finkelhor, 1980; O’Brien, 1991). These last elements are important factors distinguishing between ‘normal’ and harmful sexual interactions. Hackett and Masson (2011) conceptualise sexual behaviour as a continuum ranging through ‘normal’, ‘inappropriate’, ‘problematic’, ‘aggressive’ and ‘violent’. This reminds us that there are often ‘grey areas’, and that HSB can be complex and something into which a child may progress, rather than a binary. This ambiguity can pose challenges with respect to how HSB is assessed and addressed, particularly within the traditional youth justice system.

FGCs’ potential

There are no gains in presenting the FGC as a panacea. HSB cases are often complex and sensitive (Ricks and DiClemente, 2015) and an FGC may be inappropriate or detrimental in some instances. Suitability for an FGC should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Young perpetrators have important needs, but the priority has to be the victim's safety (Oudshoorn, Jackett and Stutzman Amstutz, 2015).