Responding to the victimisation of children is a key societal challenge to which nations are increasingly committed. As victims, children have rights and needs that require services from both the justice and welfare sectors. In Europe, the Barnahus (“Children’s House”) model has been introduced as a way to strengthen children’s access to justice and recovery in the aftermath of violence and abuse. Researchers have described the model as a social innovation with the potential to drive further changes in its surrounding landscape of services and society at large (Johansson & Stefansen, 2020). Compared to a standard approach, with services oper-ating alone according to their specific mandates, the model represents a new way of organising the services involved in safeguarding victimised children. Barnahus is designed to prevent fragmentation and gaps in service provision by offering multidisciplinary services under one roof (Johansson et al., 2017b) and in a child-friendly atmosphere (Stefansen, 2017). The agencies involved in Barnahus most often encompass law enforcement, child welfare services, and health care and thus include a range of different professionals: social workers, psychologists, police and prosecutors, defence lawyers and appointed legal guardians, doctors, and sometimes odontologists. As described by Johansson (2011), the model combines two tracks that ideally are meant to be balanced: the justice track, which refers to the handling of criminal cases, and the welfare track, which refers to safeguarding and recovery measures. The aim of the present book is to illuminate the potential of the Barnahus model to deliver on this promise by ensuring both justice and recovery for children who have experienced violence and abuse, as well as the tensions and dilemmas this hybrid model also produces. This discussion is timely, since the model—which was first introduced in the Nordic region (Johansson et al. [Eds.], 2017a)—is now being diffused throughout the broader European context (Johansson & Stefansen, 2020).1 During this process, and as we will illustrate later, Barnahus’s status has also changed from being understood as a promising practice to becoming the answer to the complex issue of safeguarding victimised children.