Child Relocation 2025 Comparisons

Note: A major amendment to the family law provisions of the Civil Code is scheduled to take effect by May 2026. This chapter primarily explains the law as it currently stands, while also referring to the 2026 Amended Civil Code where appropriate.

Under Japanese law, the comprehensive authority to make decisions for a minor (under 18) is referred to as parental authority (Civil Code, Article 818(1)). Parental authority consists of two principal elements.

Custody and Education

• The rights and obligations to care for and educate the child (Article 820).
• The right to determine the child’s residence (Article 822).
• The right to permit the child to engage in an occupation (Article 823).

Property Management (Article 824)

The right to manage the child’s property.

The authority to represent the child in property-related legal acts and to consent to such acts.

The mother-child relationship is deemed to arise by the very fact of childbirth (Supreme Court, 27 April 1962, Minshu Volume 16, No 7, p. 1247). Once this relationship is established, the mother automatically acquires parental authority at the time of birth.

Under Japanese law, the establishment of paternity is closely linked to marriage. Unlike the case of the mother, the father does not necessarily acquire parental authority automatically at the time of birth. Where a child is born out of wedlock, the father must complete additional procedures to obtain parental authority.

Child Born in Wedlock (Legitimate Child)

A child born in wedlock is one for whom the father is automatically determined by virtue of the marital relationship. In such cases, both parents exercise parental authority jointly (Civil Code, Article 818(3)).

• A child conceived during marriage (Article 772(1), first sentence).
• A child conceived before marriage but born after the marriage (Article 772(1), second sentence).

Child Born Out of Wedlock

A child born out of wedlock is one for whom the father is determined independently of marriage. In this case, the mother has sole parental authority (Civil Code, Article 819(4)).

For the father to obtain parental authority, he must first establish paternity through acknowledgment (Article 779). Thereafter, the parents may agree, or the Family Court may determine, that the father shall be the sole holder of parental authority (Civil Code, Article 819(4); Article 819(5)).

Where the Parents Divorce Before the Child’s Birth

The mother also has sole parental authority (Civil Code, Article 819(3), main provision). However, as with children born out of wedlock, it is possible for the father to be designated as the sole holder of parental authority by agreement of the parents or by determination of the Family Court (Civil Code, Article 819(3), proviso; Article 819(5)).

2026 Amended Civil Code

In cases of children born out of wedlock or where the parents divorced before the child’s birth, it will also become possible for both parents to hold joint parental authority (Amended Civil Code, Article 819(3)–(5)).

Legitimation by Subsequent Marriage

Where the father acknowledges the child and subsequently marries the mother, or where the father acknowledges the child during marriage, the child acquires the status of a child born in wedlock through legitimation (Civil Code, Article 789). As a result, both parents exercise joint parental authority.

Assisted Reproductive Technology

Act on Assisted Reproductive Technology Offering and Special Provisions of the Civil Code Related to the Parent–Child Relationship of Children Born As a Result of the Treatment (Act No 76 of 2020)

This Act provides rules on parent-child relationships where a child is born through assisted reproductive technology using third-party gametes.

• Where a woman conceives using an embryo created with a third-party ovum and her husband’s sperm, the woman who gives birth is deemed to be the mother (Article 9).
• In the case of artificial insemination with donor sperm (AID), if the husband has consented to the treatment, the child is presumed to be his child born in wedlock, and this presumption cannot be rebutted (Article 10).

Surrogacy

Surrogacy lacks a legal framework in Japan and is not practised. However, where it occurs, the woman who conceives and gives birth is regarded as the mother (Supreme Court, 23 March 2007, Minshu Volume 61, No 2, p. 619). For the biological parent to acquire parental authority, it is necessary to establish an adoption with the surrogate mother’s consent (Civil Code, Article 797) or a special adoption (Kobe Family Court Himeji Branch, 26 December 2008, Family Court Monthly Report Volume 61, No 10, p. 72).

Same-Sex Partners

For same-sex partners, see 1.6 Same-Sex Relationships.

See 1.3 Requirements for Fathers.

In Japan, same-sex marriage/partnerships are not legally recognised, and therefore there are no special provisions regarding the acquisition of parental authority by same-sex partners. However, in practice, the following approaches are possible.

Female Couples (Where One Partner Gives Birth Through Donor Insemination)

The woman who gives birth is the legal mother (birth mother) and, at the time of birth, holds parental authority. Her partner may subsequently adopt the child with the consent of the birth mother (Civil Code, Article 797(1)). As noted in 1.7 Adoption, upon adoption, parental authority is vested in the adoptive parent, not the birth mother (Civil Code, Article 818(2)).

Male Couples (Where a Child Is Born Through Surrogacy)

The man who provides the sperm becomes the legal father (biological parent) through acknowledgment. His partner may then adopt the child and become the adoptive parent.

Supplementary Case Law

There is a Supreme Court decision involving a transgender man who had legally changed his sex from female to male and married a woman, where the woman gave birth to a child conceived through donor insemination; the court recognised the presumption of legitimacy and held that the child was the legitimate child of the transgender man (Supreme Court, 10 December 2013, Minshu Volume 67, No 9, p. 1847).

Japanese law provides for two types of adoption: ordinary adoption and special adoption.

Ordinary Adoption (General Adoption)

An ordinary adoption establishes a new parent–child relationship between the adoptive parent and the adoptee (Civil Code, Article 809), while the legal relationship with the birth parents continues to exist.

In such cases, parental authority vests in the adoptive parent (Civil Code, Article 818(2); under the 2026 Amended Civil Code, Article 818(3)(i)).

The main requirements are as follows:

• the adoptive parent must be at least 20 years old (Article 792);
• where a married person adopts a minor (under 18), the spouses must, in principle, adopt jointly (Article 795);
• agreement between the adoptive parent and the adoptee is required (Article 802(i)). However, if the adoptee is under 15, consent may instead be given by the legal representative (normally the birth parents) (Article 797); and
• where the adoptee is a minor (under 18), the permission of the Family Court is, in principle, required (Article 798).

Special Adoption

A special adoption is one in which, from the date of the adoption, the legal relationship with the birth parents is terminated and a parent-child relationship equivalent to that of a birth/biological parent and child is established with the adoptive parents. Parental authority vests exclusively in the adoptive parents (Civil Code, Articles 817-2 et seq).

The main requirements are as follows.

• It may be established only by a ruling of the Family Court (Article 817-2).
• The adoptive parents must be a married couple and, in principle, adopt jointly (Article 817-3).
• The adoptive parents must, in principle, be at least 25 years old (Article 817-4).
• The adoptee must, in principle, be under 15 years old (Article 817-5).
• The consent of the birth parents is, in principle, required (Article 817-6).
• It is permitted only where the birth parents are unable or unsuitable to care for the child, and where special necessity exists for the welfare of the child (Article 817-7).

Where the Parents Are Married

If the parents are married, they exercise parental authority jointly (Civil Code, Article 818(3)) and both hold the right to determine the child’s residence (Article 822). Accordingly, as a rule, the consent of both parents is required.

If a child is taken abroad without such consent, this may constitute a breach of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Child Abduction Convention) and may also give rise to criminal liability (see 3. Child Abduction).

Where the Parents Are Divorced

The current Civil Code provides that, after divorce, only one parent has parental authority (Article 819(1), (2)). The parent with sole parental authority may, in principle, relocate the child abroad without the consent of the other parent.

However, if the non-custodial parent has been designated as the custodian of the child at the time of divorce (Article 766), relocation abroad without that person’s consent may be regarded as wrongful removal under the Hague Child Abduction Convention.

2026 Amended Civil Code

Under the Amended Civil Code, at the time of divorce, the parents may choose between joint parental authority and sole parental authority; if they cannot agree, the Family Court will decide (Amended Civil Code, Article 819(1), (2)). Where joint parental authority is chosen after divorce, relocating the child abroad requires the consent of both parents generally.

In Japan, where parents share parental authority, there are no explicit provisions or procedures to directly resolve disputes between them regarding the exercise of parental authority, including disputes over relocation.

However, where the residential parent seeks to relocate with the child to a distant location, the procedures traditionally used have mainly been designation of the custodian (Civil Code, Article 766) or a change of the parent holding parental authority (Article 819(6)).

2026 Amended Civil Code

The amended Civil Code clarifies which matters of parental authority are to be exercised jointly or individually (Article 824-2). According to the legislative commentary, relocation – regardless of the distance involved – is considered a matter that requires joint exercise of parental authority, except in cases of urgency (Article 824-2(2), Article 824-2(1)(iii)).

The amended Code also introduces new provisions to resolve disputes between parents over the joint exercise of parental authority (Amended Civil Code, Article 824-2, Article 766). In addition to the procedures traditionally used, the following methods will become available.

• Designation of the parent exercising parental authority (Article 824-2(3)) – upon the petition of either parent, the Family Court may authorise one parent to exercise parental authority alone with respect to changing the child’s residence. Where relocation alone is in dispute, this method is expected to be the primary means of resolution.
• Allocation of custody responsibilities (Article 766) – the authority regarding the child’s care (including matters concerning the designation of residence) may be entrusted to one parent.

There are no differences in statutory provisions or procedures between international and domestic relocation. The factors set out in 2.3.1 Factors Determining an Application for Relocation apply equally regardless of whether the relocation is international or domestic.

However, for example, relocation to a nearby location and relocation abroad may naturally differ in terms of the extent to which the change in the child’s living environment affects the child, and in the extent to which contact with the non-residential parent is affected. To that extent, the substance of the decision may differ.

Illegality under the Criminal Code

Taking a person away for the purpose of transporting them to a foreign country by means of violence, intimidation, deception or enticement constitutes the offence of Kidnapping for Transportation Out Of Country (Criminal Code, Article 226), punishable by imprisonment for a definite term of not less than two years. The offence is complete once the person is taken with that purpose, even if the actual transfer abroad has not taken place (Supreme Court, 18 March 2003, Keishu Volume 57, No 3, p. 371).

In addition, where a parent who is not actually caring for the child at the time removes the child following divorce or separation, this may constitute Kidnapping of Minors (Criminal Code, Article 224), punishable by imprisonment for not less than three months but not more than seven years (Supreme Court, 6 December 2005, Keishu Volume 59, No 10, p. 1901).

Possible breach of civil obligations (2026 Amended Civil Code)

Unilaterally relocating a child without just cause in a manner that obstructs the child’s contact with the other parent may be regarded as a breach of the mutual obligation of respect and co-operation between spouses, newly established under the 2026 Amended Civil Code (Article 817-12).

If Taken to a Hague Convention State

If a child under the age of 16 has been wrongfully removed or retained from their state of habitual residence, return proceedings are available under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. The Convention entered into force for Japan on 1 April 2014 and Japan enacted the Act for Implementation of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Act No 48 of 2013). Japan’s Central Authority is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to whom an application may be made for assistance in securing the return of the child to Japan.

If Taken to a Non-Convention State

If a child has been taken to a non-contracting state, there are no legal procedures available in Japan to secure the child’s return. In such cases, the principal legal option is to bring proceedings before the courts of the country to which the child has been taken.

Legal Aid

The Japan Legal Support Centre (Houterasu), a government agency, provides up to three free legal consultations in Hague Convention cases (limited to in-person meetings).

For court representation, it advances attorney’s fees and actual expenses interest-free, but repayment in instalments is generally required (with the possibility of waiver if financial eligibility requirements are met). As a rule, an application must be made after obtaining an assistance decision from the Central Authority and appointing an attorney. While the system is well-established, it is not available free of charge to everyone because of the financial eligibility requirements.

Link to Data Provided by the Central Authority

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (the Central Authority) maintains a dedicated website on the Hague Child Abduction Convention:

Under “implementation status”, the site provides data on the annual number of Hague Convention cases and their outcomes.

Court Practice

Japanese courts respect and tend to strictly apply the fundamental principle of the Hague Child Abduction Convention, namely the prompt return of the child, pursuant to Article 27 of the Implementation Act.

At the same time, the grounds for refusal of return under Article 28(1)(i)–(vi) are carefully examined, and in practice disputes often focus on prior consent or subsequent acquiescence (item (iii)), grave risk (item (iv)), or the child’s objection (item (v)). There are in fact a significant number of cases in which return has been refused.

In addition, under Japanese practice, conciliation proceedings are routinely attached to return proceedings (Implementation Act, Article 144), and a substantial proportion of cases are resolved through conciliation or settlement.

Return From Non-Convention States

See 3.2 Steps Taken to Return Abducted Children.

Costs and Average Duration

Costs

The costs of an application for the return of a child are approximately(as of September 2025):

• application fee – JPY1,200 per child; and
• postal stamp fee – a few thousand yen, depending on the court.

In addition, each party must bear their own legal fees. Because return proceedings are often complex, specialised and require urgent handling, substantial legal fees are typically incurred.

Timescale

At the Tokyo and Osaka Family Courts, which have exclusive jurisdiction over applications for the return of a child, a “six-week model” has been established in line with the purpose of Article 11 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention (Implementation Act, Article 151). Under this model, a final decision is generally rendered within six weeks, or close to that period, from the filing of the application. However, if an appeal is lodged against the Family Court’s decision, proceedings may be extended by several months.

This section is not applicable to Japan, as Japan is a signatory to the Hague Child Abduction Convention.