Debate on the appropriateness of conferences in cases of gendered violence has been occurring since the mid 1990s. Critics are concerned with power imbalances of victims and perpetrators in face-to-face meetings and the potential for re-victimizing victims. Others see benefits, including a victim's ability to voice the story of her victimization and its impact, and to be validated and believed by others. We see two problems with the debate. First, it ignores huge variability in victimization contexts and relationships. Second, there is little empirical evidence on actual practices and outcomes or on victims' experiences. We advance the discussion by analyzing a particular type of gendered violence, sibling sexual abuse, and by presenting new research on court and conference responses to it.