<![CDATA[Diversion may formally resolve juvenile cases without ensuring restorative justice for child offenders and child victims, particularly when successful agreement is treated as evidence of meaningful participation, accountability, and recovery. Addressing the limited understanding of how these dimensions operate as a continuous process, this study examines diversion practices and develops a preliminary restorative justice framework. This study employed a qualitative, multiple-case socio-legal design in two diversion cases in Bandung, Indonesia, involving 13 informants. Data from interviews, observations, documents, and contextual records were analyzed through within-case and cross-case analysis, triangulation, and theoretically sensitized interpretation. The findings reveal that both cases achieved apologies, negotiated responsibilities, family involvement, and court-approved agreements, yet preparation was uneven, children’s attendance did not consistently translate into meaningful influence, recovery and supervision remained family-dependent, and post-agreement professional support was inconsistently coordinated. The proposed framework integrates developmentally appropriate reintegrative accountability, Family Group Conferencing, rights-based safeguards, and social welfare across assessment, preparation, conferencing, differentiated accountability and recovery planning, implementation, and follow-up. The study reframes restorative diversion from agreement-centered resolution toward continuing, child-sensitive, and institutionally accountable restorative responsibility.]]>
