Family group conferencing

1. Introduction

Version followed: the UK model in Family Rights Group (FRG) FGC Quality Standards (Oct 2022), with its three-part meeting and roles as set out in FRG's Family Group Conferences in the Court Arena (2011) and local authority procedures. Added to it: the family-violence protocol in the Burford, Pennell & MacLeod Newfoundland coordinators' manual (1995), the New Zealand statutory model (Oranga Tamariki Act 1989), the Dutch Eigen Kracht-conferentie (method description, 2012) and the adult FGC standards (Research in Practice, 2026). Where these versions differ, the text names the source.

A family group conference (FGC) is not a therapy. It is a family-led decision-making meeting. An independent coordinator prepares and convenes it. The participants are the person at the centre (a child, or an adult in adult and mental-health versions) and their extended family and friendship network. The network hears professionals' information and concerns, then meets alone in private family time to write its own plan. The referring agency agrees the plan unless it leaves the person at risk of significant harm. The model began in New Zealand's Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. It draws on whānau decision-making and tikanga Māori, though Oranga Tamariki itself says it is not an indigenous model. It spread to the UK, Netherlands, North America and elsewhere, and to adult social care and public mental health. [source: OT About FGC; FRG QS 2022; Eigen Kracht 2012; RiP 2026]

How change happens. The sources' account runs as follows. Decisions made by a wide, informed network are better resourced and more owned than plans that professionals impose. The family knows itself and holds resources that services don't. People carry out plans they made themselves. In Dutch public mental health, de Jong, Schout & Abma (2017) describe the network acting as "shock absorbers". They summarise their finding as "you'll change for your mother, not for professionals". [source: de Jong et al. 2017 abstract; BPM 1995 ch.1]

Your role as a psychotherapist. You will normally take one of three positions:

• Referrer or suggester. You propose an FGC to a client or to the statutory agency.
• Information giver. You attend Part 1 only.
• Clinician for one participant. You support that person before, during and after the conference.

You cannot coordinate a conference for your own client. Independence rules forbid the coordinator holding any other professional role with the family [source: FRG QS 2022 std 1.1; RiP 2026 std 1]. Section 4 gives the coordinator's procedures in full, both so you know what your client will go through and for clinicians who train as coordinators. Therapist-specific tasks are marked [synthesis].

2. Framework

Format. There is no session count. The format is one main meeting plus preparation and reviews:

• Preparation: usually 4–6 weeks. The court-arena guidance says it should take no longer than 4–6 weeks without good reason. Eigen Kracht averages about 6 weeks. Newfoundland aimed for the conference within 30 working days.
• The conference: 3–5 hours, with 1–3 hours of private time (Eigen Kracht). Adult standards allow splitting it into shorter meetings.
• Reviews: one or more review conferences.
• Coordinator time: about 35 hours per conference (Eigen Kracht).

The FGC is "not an emergency response". [source: FRG/FJC 2011; Eigen Kracht 2012; BPM 1995; RiP 2026]

Named variants. All share the same core stages.

• NZ care-and-protection and youth-justice FGCs are statutory. Statutory coordinators convene them. Youth-justice conferences include victims, accountability and restorative actions. [OT About; OT stds]
• UK child-welfare FGCs are voluntary. They can be used before or during care proceedings, and court approval is needed once proceedings have begun. [FRG/FJC 2011]
• Family-violence FGCs (Newfoundland) add support persons and a coordinator veto. [BPM 1995]
• Eigen Kracht uses freelance citizen coordinators. Anyone can request a conference, and the method lists no contraindications. [Eigen Kracht 2012]
• Adult FGCs include an informal opening and an advocate in private time. [RiP 2026]

Training and accreditation. FGC is not a licensed brand, but standards set out who may coordinate:

• FRG (UK): coordinators must be trained in the model and inducted, with supervision, practice consultancy and observed practice. FRG runs an accreditation framework, but its requirements are [uncertain]. [FRG QS std 1.3–1.4]
• Adult standards: at least 10 days' initial training, then shadowing and co-working. [RiP 2026 std 2]
• Eigen Kracht: a six-day course in two parts with a selection check. Keeping the certificate requires at least one conference a year, with coaching on every conference. [Eigen Kracht 2012]
• New Zealand: statutory coordinators are Oranga Tamariki staff. [OT About]

3. Guiding principles

[source: FRG QS 2022 stds 1–7; MK std 2019 §1; BPM 1995 ch.1; OT stds; RiP 2026]

• Independent coordinator. The coordinator, and their manager, have no part in decisions or resources for the family. In practice: never coordinate for a family you treat or assess.
• Voluntary, informed, withdrawable consent. An FGC is offered, never imposed. In practice: explain that people can say no or pull out at any time.
• Family-led decision-making. The family makes the primary decisions and writes the plan in its own words. In practice: professionals supply information and limits, not solutions.
• Private family time is a right. In practice: professionals leave the room and do not hover. The family invites people back.
• The person at the centre is the focus. Their views are sought throughout, and advocacy is offered at every stage. In practice: plan with the child or adult how they will be heard, before you plan anything else.
• The family decides who is family. That includes friends, neighbours and faith or cultural figures. In practice: ask "who matters to you?", not "who are your relatives?".
• Safety comes first. Physical and emotional safety governs who attends, how the meeting is chaired and where it is held. In practice: keep reassessing risk, and exclude only as a last resort.
• Transparent bottom lines. In practice: state what is non-negotiable before the meeting, so the family isn't left guessing [BPM 1995].
• The family gets the information and resources it needs. In practice: give plain, jargon-free information in writing, cover legal advice options, and come with pre-approved resources [OT prep].
• Strengths-based and future-focused. The meeting is not for settling past disputes or assigning blame. In practice: redirect blame towards "what needs to happen from now on".
• Presumption of agreement. In practice: the referrer accepts the plan unless it raises the likelihood of significant harm. If not, it gives reasons immediately.
• Privacy and confidentiality. The family plan is the only record, and no minutes are taken. In practice: keep your own notes minimal and say what will be shared.
• Equality, culture and identity. In practice: arrange the language, protocols (tikanga, prayer, elders), venue and food with the family. Use cultural advisors and interpreters.
• Community ownership (Newfoundland). In practice: a community panel advises on discretionary decisions such as exclusion.
• Tolerate uncertainty (adult standards). In practice: resist offering prepackaged solutions. Let the network find its own.

4. Intervention inventory

The inventory follows the order of the process. It covers procedures 4.1–4.11 (referral and preparation), 4.12–4.17 (the meeting), 4.18–4.21 (afterwards), 4.22–4.23 (variants) and 4.24–4.26 (therapist-adjunct tasks, all [synthesis]). Each item says who carries it out. All example wording is mine and illustrative.

4.1 Offering an FGC and deciding to refer (referrer)

• Purpose and when to use: Use when a significant decision about a child's or vulnerable adult's care, safety or support is needed and a wider network could help. Examples include child-in-need or child-protection planning, pre-proceedings, finding kinship carers, reunification, adult safeguarding, isolation in mental illness, risk of eviction, and youth offending. Offer it as early as possible. In England, refer no later than the Letter Before Proceedings, so the plan can be considered before the local authority decides whether to issue. [source: FRG/FJC 2011; Eigen Kracht 2012]
• Steps:
  1. Complete your assessment first. Newfoundland required investigation and assessment to be finished before referral.
  2. Ask key family members whether they are willing.
  3. Explain the ethos: the family leads, the coordinator is independent, and the family has private time.
  4. Obtain signed consent to the referral and to information sharing.
  5. Write the referral. [source: MK std 2019 §2; Lancs; BPM 1995]
• Example language (illustrative): "There's a meeting where your whole family and the people close to you can hear what we're worried about and then make the plan yourselves, without us in the room. It's your choice whether to do it."
• Watch for: Offering an FGC as an emergency response. It needs weeks of preparation, so put an interim safety plan in place first [FRG/FJC 2011]. Also watch for consent that is not genuinely free, for example when it is pressured by the threat of proceedings. It is working if family members ask practical questions about who could come.

4.2 Stating concerns and bottom lines (referrer)

• Purpose: The family can only plan well if it knows the limits. [source: MK std 2019; Lancs; BPM 1995]
• Steps: Before the conference, write down:
  1. the specific concerns, in plain language;
  2. what would be unacceptable in any plan (for example, no unsupervised contact with a named person);
  3. what decisions the agency has made or could make;
  4. what happens if the family cannot make a plan or the plan is not agreed;
  5. what resources and services are available, pre-approved by a budget holder (OT prep).
  Newfoundland adds two steps: read the relevant statutory wording to show how serious the concern is, and bring the documents.
• Example language (illustrative): "The one thing we can't agree to is Sam being left alone with Mr X. Anything else in the plan is for you to decide."
• Watch for: Bottom lines that quietly expand into a professional plan. Also watch for concerns presented only as deficits. Oranga Tamariki advises presenting strengths, history and resilience too, because negatives alone can overwhelm whānau [OT prep].

4.3 Allocating the coordinator and checking independence (service)

• Steps:
  1. Allocate a coordinator with no prior or other role with the family, and a manager with no part in decisions about them.
  2. Hold a preliminary meeting between the referrer and the coordinator.
  3. Services should define independence and check it with a self-assessment tool. [source: FRG QS std 1; Lancs; RiP 2026 std 1; FRG/FJC 2011]
• Watch for: Families who distrust services because of past experiences. Demonstrable independence is the answer [RiP 2026].

4.4 Mapping and widening the network (coordinator)

• Purpose: Identify everyone who could contribute, including the paternal side, the maternal side, friends and community members. [source: FRG QS std 4.1; OT std 3; BPM 1995; Eigen Kracht 2012]
• Steps:
  1. Contact a key family member first. In family violence this is usually the non-offending parent [BPM 1995].
  2. With the central person, explore who matters to them. Use a genogram or ecomap.
  3. Remember that consultation is about who is family, not who may attend [BPM 1995].
  4. Meet maternal and paternal whānau face to face (OT std 3).
  5. Keep widening the circle as far as possible (Eigen Kracht).
  6. Ask each person you meet who else should be involved.
• Example language (illustrative): "Who has been there for you, even a little? Who would you call at 2 a.m.? Is there anyone you've lost touch with who still cares?"
• Watch for: Central persons who want a tiny circle out of shame. De Jong et al. found impact depended on clients being willing to invite and extend their network. Work through the reluctance rather than accepting it at face value.

4.5 Preparation visits with each participant (coordinator)

• Purpose: Every participant should understand the process and the issues, have their worries addressed, and be able to be heard. [source: MK std 2019 §3; Lancs; OT std 3; RiP 2026 std 7]
• Steps:
  1. Visit each potential attendee in person where you can.
  2. Explain the purpose, the three stages, private time, and who else is invited.
  3. Listen to their view of the concerns.
  4. Address fears, for example of a particular relative.
  5. Tell them what may be difficult on the day and how they might manage it (OT std 3).
  6. Pass on queries between people only with their permission.
  7. Encourage attendance. For people who cannot or will not attend, collect their views as a letter, a recording, a phone link or a statement you present.
  8. Where there is fear, shame or low confidence, build trust and "go the extra mile" (RiP).
• Example language (illustrative): "You don't have to agree with anyone yet. I just want to make sure your view gets into the room, whether you come or not."
• Watch for: The coordinator offering opinions on content. They chair the process but don't judge the agreements (Eigen Kracht). It is working if people arrive knowing why they are there, what they want for the person, and what will happen.

4.6 Preparing the child or central person; advocacy and alternative participation (coordinator)

• Purpose: Put the person's voice at the centre. [source: FRG QS std 4; MK std 2019 §5; OT std 2; BPM 1995; RiP 2026 std 6; FRG/FJC 2011]
• Steps:
  1. Meet the child or adult face to face. Explain the FGC in a form that suits their age, cognitive ability, communication needs and language.
  2. Ask who they consider family, who they do or don't want there, and where and how the meeting should run.
  3. Offer an advocate or supporter, formal or informal. An advocate must have no other role in the FGC. What the child tells the advocate belongs to the child, subject to safeguarding duties (FRG/FJC 2011).
  4. Agree how they will take part. Options: attend all or part, write a letter, poem or drawing, record a message, join online, or have the advocate speak for them.
  5. Help a young person rehearse what they want to say (Newfoundland: with their support person).
  6. If a child fears raising an issue, arrange for a neutral family member or a professional speaker to raise it.
  7. Make sure children don't feel the decisions rest on them.
  8. Arrange support for the child after the meeting.
  9. In adult FGCs where capacity is limited, use an advocate, a prepared statement or a personal plan. The advocate is invited to stay in private time.
  10. Draft a working document from the person's viewpoint, using "I" statements, and share it beforehand (RiP std 7–9).
• Example language (illustrative): "This meeting is about you. Would you like to be there for all of it, some of it, or send something we can read out? Who would you like next to you?"
• Watch for: Emotional harm from attending, which is a "paramount consideration" (MK). Also watch for a child being made responsible for outcomes. It is working if the child's words or picture shape what goes into the plan.

4.7 Preparing professionals and information givers (coordinator)

• Steps:
  1. Brief each professional on why they are invited, the process and their role. They attend Part 1 as guest speakers and do not take part in decisions (BPM).
  2. Ask them to be clear, concise and jargon-free, to present strengths as well as concerns, to say what their service offers and how to access it, and to arrive early.
  3. In court cases the children's guardian attends only the information-giving and final stages, and is not the child's advocate. [source: MK std 2019; OT std 4; BPM 1995; FRG/FJC 2011; RiP std 10]
• Watch for: Referrers or practitioners trying to steer the plan. Clarify roles up front (RiP std 10).

4.8 Safety assessment, exclusion and family-violence safeguards (coordinator)

• Purpose: Make the meeting physically and emotionally safe. [source: BPM 1995 ch.3–5; MK std 2019; Lancs; OT prep; FRG QS std 5.7]
• Steps:
  1. Assess risk continuously, for the child, family members and professionals.
  2. Decide who attends. The coordinator may exclude someone whose presence would risk anyone's safety or isn't in the child's interests. Newfoundland treats exclusion as a last resort, with panel consultation and written reasons, for serious threats, serious mental disturbance or significant stress to the survivor.
  3. Gather and present excluded people's views.
  4. Family violence (Newfoundland protocol):
     • every child under 16 has a support person;
     • if the abuser attends, every survivor has one;
     • the alleged abuser is encouraged to bring one, framed as someone to help them cool off;
     • neither the coordinator nor the referring worker can be a support person;
     • identify relatives who witnessed the abuse and can raise it so the survivor doesn't have to;
     • prepare the abuser for the details that will be presented, offer them a written statement, and remind them the focus is future safety;
     • give information about treatment;
     • incarcerated parents can take part by statement, phone or recorded message.
  5. Choose a neutral, private venue (Newfoundland generally avoids family homes). Use circular seating with no tables, and plan breaks. Have police on standby if needed. Send notices in plain envelopes.
  6. Stop or veto the process at any time if it would be unhelpful to the abused person.
  7. Plan arrival and departure arrangements [synthesis; not described in the excerpt read].
• Watch for: The family colluding to stay silent about abuse. The coordinator must not join a "conspiracy of silence" (BPM). Also watch for intimidation in looks, seating and side-talk.

4.9 Hui ā-whānau before the conference (NZ coordinator)

• Purpose: Whānau meet first to understand the concerns and their impact, so there are "no surprises" at the conference. [source: OT prep; OT std 5, 10]
• Steps:
  1. Offer a family-only or family-led gathering before the FGC.
  2. Identify the whānau members who will lead the whānau through the process.
  3. Involve the kairaranga ā-whānau and cultural advisors.
  4. Consider a hui again before any reconvened conference. If it isn't practicable, record why.
• Note: This is a cultural process led by whānau. A non-Māori clinician supports it and does not lead it. Clinicians outside NZ can borrow the idea of a family pre-meeting only with the family's agreement [synthesis].

4.10 Practical arrangements (coordinator)

• Steps:
  1. Agree the date, time, venue, protocols and tikanga with the family.
  2. Avoid office or clinical settings. Adults may prefer a neutral place or their home, and online or hybrid options are possible (RiP std 7–9).
  3. Arrange a private room for private time, refreshments, interpreters the family is comfortable with, and travel costs and childcare.
  4. Give parents written, jargon-free information at least 24 hours before.
  5. Allow enough time and space (te wā). [source: Lancs; MK std 2019; OT prep; BPM 1995; FRG/FJC 2011]
• Watch for: Using a family member as interpreter. Weigh the benefits against the risks (BPM).

4.11 Informed consent and information-sharing checks (coordinator and referrer)

• Steps:
  1. Confirm consent from the person with parental responsibility, or from the adult.
  2. Confirm consent for each piece of agency information to be shared.
  3. Consider its relevance, its form and level of detail, and its authority to be shared (OT prep cites NZ Privacy Act IPP 11).
  4. Encourage early independent legal and advocacy advice.
  5. Newfoundland had participation agreements: adults sign, young people aged 12–16 are asked, and in child protection the conference could proceed with three family signatories. [source: Lancs; OT prep; FRG QS std 5.4, 6.1; BPM 1995]

4.12 Opening the conference (coordinator chairs)

• Steps:
  1. Open in the way agreed with the family, for example a prayer, acknowledging elders, a mihi, or food and casual conversation. Adult standards recommend an informal opening to reduce hierarchy.
  2. Ask everyone to introduce themselves and their connection to the person.
  3. Explain the purpose, the three parts and confidentiality.
  4. Agree ground rules: no violence or abusive language, no interrupting, and permission to take a break. [source: BPM 1995 ch.5; Lancs; MK std 2019 §4; RiP std 11; OT std 8]
• Example language (illustrative): "Today has three parts. First you'll hear what the professionals know and are worried about. Then you'll have time on your own to make a plan. Then we'll come back and look at it together."
• Watch for: A room arranged like a case conference. Set up the room, tone and atmosphere for genuine discussion (OT std 8).

4.13 Information giving (Part 1)

• Steps:
  1. The referrer states why the conference was called, the concerns, the bottom lines, the resources available, and what will happen if no plan is made or agreed.
  2. Other professionals follow.
  3. Present the views of absent or excluded people and the child's contribution.
  4. The family asks questions and gets clarification. Take breaks as needed.
  5. Newfoundland adds a check on whether participants agree a care or protection problem exists. If they don't, that becomes an item for deliberation. Record which kind of disagreement it is: about whether abuse happened, or about how to respond. [source: Lancs; FRG/FJC 2011; MK std 2019; BPM 1995]
  6. Adult version: professionals mainly listen to what matters to the person and network. Hold an extended discussion of safeguarding at this point if needed (RiP std 12).
• Watch for: Professionals lingering after they have spoken. Information givers leave or wait outside once they are done [synthesis, consistent with BPM's guest-speaker role].

4.14 Private family time (Part 2)

• Purpose: The family deliberates and writes its plan without professionals. [source: FRG QS std 3.5; MK std 2019; BPM 1995; Eigen Kracht 2012; RiP std 13]
• Steps:
  1. Start only when each member says they have the information they need. Check with each person individually.
  2. Remind them:
     • private time is their right;
     • they can take time out;
     • they may agree or disagree that there is a problem;
     • the coordinator is nearby;
     • the coordinator can help turn their ideas into a specific plan.
  3. Clarify expectations: what the plan must cover, and that the family chooses a recorder. Newfoundland used flip-chart headings, read aloud for anyone who cannot read.
  4. Express confidence in the family, then leave with all professionals. An interpreter may stay. An advocate or a survivor's support person may stay only if everyone agrees. In adult FGCs the advocate is invited to stay.
  5. Decline any invitation to stay, gently. Never offer. The coordinator stays only if it would be unsafe to leave the family alone, and leaves as soon as it is safe (BPM).
  6. Stay nearby. Check in tactfully only if needed. Use the time to debrief the professionals.
  7. The family calls everyone back.
• Example language (illustrative): "This part belongs to you. I'll be just down the corridor. Knock if you need anything, or if you want someone to come and explain something again."
• Watch for: Interruptions, and a family that collapses into arguing about the past. If they ask for help, the coordinator can come in to help structure, but not influence, the decisions (RiP std 13). It is working if the family emerges with a written plan in its own words.

4.15 Presenting, testing and agreeing the plan (Part 3)

• Steps:
  1. The family presents its plan.
  2. The coordinator helps test it for realism. With consent, add clarifications.
  3. Check that the plan addresses each concern and states its outcomes. Each task needs a who, what and when, and the support required. NZ requires SMART tasks.
  4. The plan also needs contingency arrangements (what happens if things go off track), how it will be monitored, and a review date.
  5. Check commitment: let doubt surface, and get each person's verbal agreement or signature if agreement is unclear.
  6. Make sure any child present understands the decisions and feels heard.
  7. The referrer agrees in principle, ideally before the meeting ends. They may phone a supervisor for authority.
  8. Where an agency cannot answer on the day, tell the family who will reply in writing, and by when.
  9. Check that everyone leaves knowing their role and timeframe. [source: MK std 2019; Lancs; OT std 9, 8; BPM 1995; FRG/FJC 2011]
• Example language (illustrative): "Let's walk through it. Who is picking Jess up on Tuesdays? What happens if Nan is ill that week? Who will notice first if things start slipping?"
• Watch for: Vague plans (fix these by specifying the tasks, who and when) and plans that need resources nobody has approved. It is working if each person can say what they will do.

4.16 Negotiation, adjournment, decline, veto and "no agreement"

• Steps:
  1. If the referrer cannot agree the plan, they give reasons immediately. The family can then respond, revise or take more time.
  2. If the dispute is about contested facts, proceedings may be needed to make a finding. The FGC can still produce interim and contingency plans (FRG/FJC 2011).
  3. In court, agreement is subject to the court's decision.
  4. Newfoundland allows a coordinator veto, but only rarely: when no referring representative is present or able to veto, the plan leaves a survivor at significant risk, or the plan avoidably breaches the philosophy (for example, placing a child with strangers when family options haven't been explored). The manual prefers a tentative plan with a short review period and strong contingencies.
  5. If no agreement is possible, either adjourn or formally declare no agreement.
  6. If the plan is rejected, authorities must put their reasons in writing. Then reconvene, or find another way for the family to contribute.
  7. Eigen Kracht: if the family cannot make a plan, professionals may make one. [source: FRG/FJC 2011; BPM 1995; Eigen Kracht 2012]
• Watch for: Rejection given without reasons, which destroys trust.

4.17 Recording and distributing the plan

• Steps:
  1. Treat the family plan as the only record. Take no minutes.
  2. Coordinators' working notes are not filed.
  3. Send the plan to everyone who attended, the child or central person, and the agencies. Timing: within 3 working days (Eigen Kracht), 5 working days (Newfoundland), or a stated timeframe (Lancashire).
  4. Include contact details for people with roles in the plan.
  5. Agencies respond to the family's support requests within 10 days.
  6. With permission, store the plan where it is easy to find on agency systems (RiP). [source: MK std 2019 §9; FRG QS std 6.3; BPM 1995; Lancs; Eigen Kracht 2012]

4.18 Monitoring and the safety net

• Steps:
  1. The plan names who monitors, how and how often. Monitoring is usually shared between family and agency, and in NZ the social worker usually holds it.
  2. Build a safety net: who will notice if the person is not OK, and who they will contact. The higher the risk, the tighter the net.
  3. The coordinator oversees but does not deliver plan elements such as counselling.
  4. Eigen Kracht coordinators phone key participants at 4 weeks.
  5. Escalate unmet resource commitments quickly (RiP std 14). Avoid over-monitoring that undermines the network. [source: BPM 1995; OT std 10; Eigen Kracht 2012; RiP std 14]

4.19 Review FGC and reconvening

• Steps:
  1. Set the first review date, place and format at the conference.
  2. Ask:
     • Was the plan right?
     • Is it still relevant?
     • What has been done? Acknowledge successes.
     • What didn't work, and why?
     • What needs to change, who will do it, and by when?
  3. Avoid blame.
  4. Everyone from the original conference may take part, or an appointed subgroup. Reviews can be held by phone or in writing.
  5. The plan changes only at a review, a reconvened conference, or by consensus on minor points.
  6. Anyone can request a review. Hold one when a caregiver changes.
  7. Reconvene if the plan is significantly off track (NZ). Review FGCs need the same consents, and court approval during proceedings.
  8. Match the timing to court dates, the child's age, stability and risk. [source: BPM 1995; OT std 10; FRG/FJC 2011; Lancs]

4.20 Closing a case (Newfoundland)

Consider closing when there has been a long period without incident, care is stable, the family is self-sustaining and connected, the legal position is settled, the child knows how to seek help and services are in place. Some cases stay open for years, for example small children or dependent adults. [source: BPM 1995]

4.21 Debriefing the child and participants

Arrange someone to support the child after the conference, for example a formal debrief (BPM 1995). For adults and other participants, offer a follow-up conversation [synthesis].

4.22 Youth-justice FGC elements (NZ)

• Steps:
  1. Engage victims in the way that suits them. Prepare them face to face and consult them on venue and timing.
  2. Support them to say what accountability and repair they need. If they won't attend, give them an effective way to present their views.
  3. If a young person admits offending, advise the whānau to consider restorative options.
  4. Facilitate discussion of the young person's wellbeing, public safety, the victim's interests and accountability.
  5. The plan includes restorative actions. [source: OT std 3, 6, 8, 9]
• Watch for: Re-traumatising the victim. Stop if the young person is not taking responsibility [synthesis].

4.23 Adult and mental-health adaptations

• Steps:
  1. Set an informal opening.
  2. Draft a working document in the person's own "I" voice.
  3. Offer an advocate, who stays in private time, where capacity or vulnerability is an issue.
  4. Avoid clinical venues. Offer online or hybrid options, and split the meeting into shorter parts if needed.
  5. Professionals listen first.
  6. Support follow-through with structured but light review. [source: RiP 2026]
• In Dutch public mental health and coercive psychiatry: studies of 41 conferences link impact to four things: clients extending their network, sharing shameful feelings and grievances, trust in the coordinator, and professionals reinforcing the group's self-direction rather than drawing clients back into individual care. [source: de Jong et al. 2017 abstract; CoE page citing Meijer et al.] The procedural details of FGCs used within Dutch compulsory-care law are [uncertain].

4.24 Therapist task: preparing your own client for an FGC [synthesis]

• Steps:
  1. Help the client think about who matters to them and rehearse how to state their wishes.
  2. Process shame about the network learning the concerns.
  3. Plan coping strategies for hearing hard information.
  4. Agree with the client what, if anything, you will share with the coordinator, and get written consent.
  5. Keep your role separate from the coordinator's and the advocate's.
• Example language (illustrative): "What's the one thing you most want your family to understand on the day? Let's practise saying it."
• Watch for: Rising anxiety before the meeting, or the client wanting you to attend as their advocate. Point them to an independent advocate instead.

4.25 Therapist task: contributing as an information giver [synthesis, building on BPM 1995 and OT std 4]

• Steps:
  1. Share only consented, relevant information, in plain language, and include strengths.
  2. Say what your service can offer and how to access it.
  3. Leave before private time.
  4. Respond to any requests in the plan within the agreed timescale (10 days in the UK guidance).
• Watch for: Your clinical opinion being treated as a bottom line. Be clear that only the referrer sets those.

4.26 Therapist task: using the family plan in ongoing therapy [synthesis]

• Steps:
  1. With consent, bring the plan into sessions.
  2. Work on the client's own tasks in it.
  3. Process ruptures with relatives that arise during implementation.
  4. Encourage the client to request a review rather than abandon the plan when it falters.
• Watch for: Therapy pulling the client back into an individual care trajectory and away from the network. De Jong et al. identify this as a barrier.

5. Handling problems

The source of each response is tagged. Untagged [synthesis] items are my own guidance.

Family reluctant, absent or refusing

• Restate that taking part is voluntary.
• Capture views in writing, by recording, by phone, or presented by the coordinator.
• Where there is fear, shame or low confidence, build trust in extra preparation visits. [BPM 1995; RiP std 7]
• Eigen Kracht says preparation can always begin, because nobody can know in advance whether a conference will succeed [Eigen Kracht 2012].
• [synthesis] If a client agrees only under the shadow of proceedings, name that pressure openly. Separate "you must engage with the concerns" from "you may choose this route".

Small or depleted network

• Keep widening: paternal relatives, friends, neighbours, faith and community contacts. [OT std 3; Eigen Kracht 2012]
• [synthesis] For socially isolated mental-health clients, include past contacts and peer supporters. Accept a small first conference and widen the circle at the review.

Hostility, threats or disruption on the day

• Use ground rules, breaks, pre-arranged support persons and elders, and police on standby if needed.
• Work on underlying anger, guilt or grief during preparation.
• Exclusion is the last resort, and excluded people's views are still presented. [BPM 1995]
• [synthesis] Keep a quiet room available for anyone who becomes overwhelmed, and agree a signal for a break in advance.

Domestic abuse and coercive control

• Use support persons for survivors and children. Prepare the abuser. Use witnesses so the survivor doesn't have to raise the abuse. The coordinator can veto or halt at any time. [BPM 1995]
• UK court guidance notes FGCs have been held where there was serious abuse, with exclusion and safeguarding procedures as the safeguards [FRG/FJC 2011].
• No detailed current UK protocol on coercive control is given [uncertain].
• [synthesis]
  • Screen privately and separately for coercion before any joint planning.
  • Never put a survivor in the position of agreeing to contact under pressure.
  • Watch private time for one person dominating. A support person or advocate can ask for a break.

Overwhelm: a client or child distressed by the information

• Present strengths and history as well as concerns, because negatives alone overwhelm. Rehearse with the child and arrange support afterwards. [OT prep; BPM 1995]
• [synthesis] Therapists should plan coping and grounding strategies with their client beforehand, and offer a session soon after.

Disagreement about whether there is a problem

• Record whether the dispute is about the facts (whether abuse happened) or about the response. Make it an item for deliberation.
• Contested facts may need court findings, with interim and contingency plans meanwhile. [BPM 1995; FRG/FJC 2011]

A vague, unrealistic or unsafe plan

• Test the plan with who, what and when questions and SMART tasks.
• Use a tentative plan with a short review period and strong contingencies, rather than expecting a perfect, permanent solution.
• If the plan is unsafe, the referrer declines it with reasons, and the family revises it. [BPM 1995; OT std 9; FRG/FJC 2011]

Plan not carried out (non-adherence)

• Eigen Kracht reports that about 9% of plans are not carried out at all. Partial failure is about equally down to family and to professionals.
• Responses: progress checks, the 4-week call, reviews, reconvening if significantly off track, and escalating unmet agency commitments. [Eigen Kracht 2012; OT std 10; RiP std 14]
• [synthesis] At the review, start with what was done before you look at what wasn't.

Professionals take over or drop the family

• Clarify roles up front, and use supervision to help professionals tolerate uncertainty.
• Keep consulting the family even after setbacks, unless there are clear safety reasons not to.
• Advocate for family input when authorities say the model "doesn't work". [RiP std 3, 10; BPM 1995; de Jong et al. 2017]

Rupture: the family feels betrayed by the referrer's decline or by late resources

• Give reasons immediately and in writing. Give the family a chance to respond. Respond to resource requests within 10 days. [FRG/FJC 2011; BPM 1995; Lancs]
• [synthesis] A therapist working with a participant should explore the felt betrayal without taking sides about the agency's decision.

Confidentiality conflicts

• Families may agree to keep private-time discussion confidential. New information about harm to a child must still be disclosed.
• An advocate's information belongs to the child, subject to safeguarding duties.
• Coordinators follow safeguarding procedures when new risk information emerges. [FRG/FJC 2011]

Role confusion for the therapist [synthesis]

• Do not act as coordinator, advocate or decision-maker for your own client.
• Decline to attend private time even if invited. The sources reserve it for the family, its chosen support persons and any advocate.
• Document your consent to share information.

Cultural mismatch

• Agree protocols, venue and language with the family. Use cultural advisors, interpreters and community liaison roles. [OT prep; RiP std 5]
• With Māori and Pacific families in NZ, cultural authority rests with whānau, hapū, iwi and the kairaranga ā-whānau. The clinician supports and does not lead [synthesis, consistent with OT prep].

Suicide or self-harm risk emerging [synthesis]

• The FGC does not replace a standard risk assessment and safety plan.
• If acute risk appears during preparation or the meeting, follow your usual risk procedures. Act immediately, as Eigen Kracht allows professionals to do when safety is acutely at risk, and reconvene later.
• The network can help with means-safety tasks, such as secure storage and removal, and with monitoring.

Sources

Sources

• FGC Quality Standards (Family Rights Group, Oct 2022). Cited as FRG QS 2022.
• Family Group Conferences in the Court Arena (Family Rights Group, Sept 2011). Cited as FRG/FJC 2011.
• Practice Standards for Family Group Conferences (regional network, rev. 2018, published 2019). Cited as MK std 2019.
• Family Group Conference procedure (Lancashire Children's Social Care). Cited as Lancs.
• Manual for Coordinators and Communities: Family Group Decision Making (Burford, Pennell & MacLeod, 1995). Cited as BPM 1995.
• About family group conferencing (Oranga Tamariki Practice Centre). Cited as OT About.
• Preparing for the care and protection family group conference (Oranga Tamariki). Cited as OT prep.
• Family group conferencing practice standards (Oranga Tamariki). Cited as OT std.
• Methodebeschrijving Eigen Kracht-conferentie (Movisie databank, 2012). Cited as Eigen Kracht 2012; read in Dutch, paraphrased in English.
• Family and Group Conferencing for Adults: Standards and Guidance for Practice (Research in Practice, 2026). Cited as RiP.
• Understanding the process of family group conferencing in public mental health care (de Jong, Schout & Abma; abstract page). Abstract only.
• Family Group Conferencing – The Netherlands (Council of Europe, community-based initiatives).

Further reading (not drawn on)

• de Jong, G., Schout, G., & Abma, T. (2017). Understanding the process of family group conferencing in public mental health care: a multiple case study. British Journal of Social Work, 48(2), 353–370. Full text not drawn on here.
• van der Horst, H., Joanknecht, L., & van Pagée, R. (2002). Eigen Kracht handbook. Cited in the Eigen Kracht method description; not drawn on here.
• Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2000). Family group decision making: protecting children and women. Child Welfare, 79(2). Cited in FRG/FJC 2011; not drawn on here.
• Family Rights Group, Barnardo's & NCH (2002). Family Group Conferences: Principles and Practice Guidance. Not drawn on here.
• Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (originally the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989). Sections cited via the OT Practice Centre.