Premium
Rechtwijzer and Uitelkaar.nl. Dutch Experiences with ODR for Divorce
Author(s) -
Kistemaker Laura
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
family court review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.171
H-Index - 4
eISSN - 1744-1617
pISSN - 1531-2445
DOI - 10.1111/fcre.12570
Subject(s) - general partnership , economic justice , process (computing) , psychology , public relations , sociology , political science , social psychology , computer science , law , operating system
In 2014, Rechtwijzer uit elkaar – an online self‐help tool for divorce ‐ was developed in a partnership between the Hague Institute on the Innovation of Law, the Dutch Legal Aid Board and Modria. It was a sophisticated tool that assisted separating partners in having a structured dialogue about their divorce and parenting agreements, and subsequently having those agreements formalized in court, dissolving the marriage. It ran until 2017, after which it was rebuilt and continued under the name of Uitelkaar.nl, operated by the social enterprise Justice42. By using Uitelkaar.nl as an example, this article explores what promises technology holds in the specific case of ODR and divorce. It can offer structure and control over the process, have de‐escalating results, have emancipating effects, stimulate access to justice, be cost‐efficient and prevent conflicts in the future. Also, it discusses the lessons that were learned from the earlier version, Rechtwijzer uit elkaar , and how these were incorporated in the subsequent version of Uitelkaar.nl. Some statistics are shared from the wealth of data that the digital interaction of users with the tool and the surveys that are answered, generate. Currently, the tool deals with the “simpler” divorce cases of people with relatively high levels of self‐efficacy and low levels of conflict. But with certain additions, the reach can be expanded. For example, more complex cases can be handled by adding add on services. Also, people with lower levels of self‐efficacy could benefit from the tool. These groups would need additional help in getting through the process on the tool, but this could be fairly easily facilitated by creating in the tool a supporting role for professionals, such as social workers or employees of the legal advice centers. Lastly, the functionality of “unbundling” the divorce related topics that need tackling and having overview of what issues were agreed on and what issues were not agreed on, also seems useful for cases with higher levels of conflict. The article concludes by reflecting on the position of the Dutch government with regard to the tool. The Legal Aid Board played an indispensable role in bringing the innovative tool to life, but did not go as far as to continue to invest in the tool after the first pilot phase. So far, it has been reluctant to fully create a level playing field. However, the revision of the legal aid system that is currently being prepared, might offer possibilities for scaling up usage of the online self‐help tool for divorce.