This contribution reports on an ongoing study into the impact of the COVID pandemic on the rights of vulnerable litigants in the handling of court cases concerning supervision orders and custodial placements of juveniles. The research is based on interviews with judges, lawyers and other professionals in the youth protection chain and a survey among litigants. The central question is whether the handling of these cases should be considered acceptable from the perspective of procedural and fundamental rights. In addition, the procedural justice experienced by litigants is examined. The preliminary results, based on desk research and interviews, is that of varyingly successful improvisations with telephone and digital hearings, in which procedural and fundamental rights could not be fully realized. This is mainly due to technical problems and the complexity of judicial case management under these circumstances. The interviewees differed about whether the bottom of what is acceptable was reached and how often this was the case. The final report will take stock of this and draw lessons for the future.

Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 virus in March 2020, there have been concerns worldwide about an increase in domestic violence and child abuse as a result of the measures taken to combat the pandemic. This article is based on a systematic study of the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the magnitude, nature and severity of domestic violence. A brief overview of the literature is presented as a basis for the assumptions made about a possible increase in domestic violence. The design of the study is discussed as well as the first descriptive results and trends. The authors come to the preliminary conclusion that there is no deviating trend compared to domestic violence reports in 2019, the year prior to the outbreak of the pandemic. The future direction of the research project is also discussed.

The social abstinence imposed by governments in many countries in response to the corona pandemic raises interesting questions and research opportunities. One of those questions is how crime develops in times of forced stay at home and reduced social interaction. That question is the focus of this article. In their analysis, the authors use police data from the Corona Crime Change Monitor for twelve ‘corona months’ (mid-March 2020-mid-March 2021) and compare the development of crime in that period with the development in the same period a year earlier.

In deze bijdrage bespreekt de auteur de vraag in hoeverre bij een internationale nalatenschap voor verwerping, respectievelijk aanvaarding van een making onder voorwaarde of last namens een minderjarige erfgenaam machtiging van de kantonrechter is vereist. Als eerste wordt de kwalificatievraag beantwoord, te weten dat hier sprake is van een kwestie betreffende ouderlijke verantwoordelijkheid/kinderbescherming en niet van een kwestie van erfopvolging. Vervolgens gaat de auteur, mede aan de hand van de bespreking van een negental rechterlijke uitspraken, in op de internationale bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter en het op het machtigingsverzoek toepasselijke recht.

Het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens (EHRM of Hof) heeft in de periode september 2020 tot en met augustus 2021 verschillende uitspraken gedaan over mensenrechtelijke vragen op het snijvlak met het gezondheidsrecht. Veel van deze uitspraken borduren voort op eerdere jurisprudentie van het Hof, maar er zijn ook uitspraken over nieuwe onderwerpen, waaronder over COVID-19, de rechten van psychiatrische patiënten, huiselijk geweld en kindermishandeling alsmede over vaccineren.

De conclusie van het eerste evaluatieonderzoek van de Wet verplichte meldcode is dat met de invoering van een meldcode de eerste stappen zijn gezet richting een ondersteuningsmodel voor professionals om signalen van huiselijk geweld en kindermishandeling te herkennen en hen handvatten te bieden om sneller en adequater hulp te bieden.

This is a letter written by Brigitte Chin-A-Fat to the late Peter Hoefnagels, who was one of the Dutch pioneers in the field of divorce mediation and a professor of criminology and family law at Erasmus University Rotterdam. In 1997, TMD published an article from his hand in which he wrote how he had become inspired by the potential of divorce mediation and about his (first) experiences with this ‘new’ mode of dispute resolution in family disputes. The original article by Peter Hoefnagels, dating from 1997, is reproduced in 2021 in TMD in view of its relevance today and precedes the letter by Brigitte Chin-A-Fat.
Hoefnagels invented the so-called ‘divorce announcement’ and introduced psychology to the legal world of divorce and family mediation. Anno 2021, there are many (legal) developments which are bound to have an impact on the reform of Dutch divorce procedure.
The Dutch government has set up pilot projects experimenting with inter alia a ‘joint access’ to the family court. Many of these developments are in line with Hoefnagels’ suggestions to avoid harm being inflicted on the ex-spouses and notably their children to the largest extent possible. The author discusses some of the current pilot projects and connects the rationale underlying these experiments to Hoefnagels’ ideas as presented 25 years ago. She also looks into the future, notably which changes are likely to occur in the next 25 years in the field of divorce mediation.

Een arts kan op grond van artikel 2 lid 2 Wtl euthanasie toepassen bij een inmiddels wilsonbekwame patiënt op basis van een schriftelijke wilsverklaring. In deze bijdrage staat de regeling van de schriftelijke wilsverklaring centraal. Aan de hand van de ontstaansgeschiedenis van de regeling en de huidige stand van zaken met betrekking tot euthanasie op basis van een schriftelijke wilsverklaring, verdedigt de auteur het standpunt dat de huidige wettelijke modaliteit van regeling van de schriftelijke wilsverklaring niet houdbaar is. De bijdrage sluit af met de noodzaak tot wijziging van de regeling naar een adequate(re) modaliteit en een concreet voorstel daartoe.

In this contribution, a comparison is drawn between the origins of the cellular system in the 19th century and the system of closed youth care in the 21st century. The comparison then focuses on the alarming signals from closed youth care practice and how these are dealt with. The author argues that shortages in the provision of regular youth care have led to situations in which young people are unnecessarily placed in closed youth care institutions. By focusing on eliminating this deficit closed youth care can be gradually phased out and reduced to a minimum.

In the second half of the last century, the position of detainees in the Netherlands improved considerably. As far as is possible in the case of persons deprived of their freedom, there has been a certain emancipation of detainees. A well-functioning right of complaint and appeal has been created, for example, that offers detainees the possibility to have decisions of the government, in particular those of the director of the institution and the selection official, that are unfavourable to them, reviewed by an independent judicial authority. Their living conditions have also improved during this period. However, in recent years there has also been a tendency for the government to make ever greater demands on the behaviour of detainees, in return for fewer opportunities for activities and freedoms aimed at resocialisation. Since last year, the corona pandemic and the way in which it is dealt with in prisons have put further pressure on the already vulnerable position of detainees. Since March 2020, prisoners have had their opportunities for phasing in and resocialising further reduced by the virtual prohibition of leave. Furthermore, the visiting possibilities and the activity programmes within the penitentiary institutions have been minimal for over a year.