Recent Legislative Reform and Scope of This Chapter

In May 2024, Japan enacted a major amendment to the Civil Code, which is scheduled to take effect on 1 April 2026 (the “2026 Amended Civil Code”). The reform introduces optional joint parental authority after divorce, and represents a structural shift in Japanese family law.

This chapter primarily explains the law as it currently stands. However, where the amendments are expected to have significant practical impact, reference is made to the 2026 Amended Civil Code. For further details of the reform, see the Japan Trends & Developments chapter in this guide.

Grounds for Divorce

Types of divorce

Under Japanese law, divorce is categorised into three principal forms:

• divorce by agreement (kyōgi rikon), which is effected by filing a notification with the municipal authority;
• divorce by mediation (chōtei) or adjudication (shimpan) before the Family Court; and
• divorce by judicial proceedings (by judgment or court settlement).

Approximately 90% of divorces are concluded by agreement without substantive judicial determination. Accordingly, statutory grounds for divorce become legally decisive primarily in judicial divorce proceedings. Nevertheless, in practice, allegations relating to the causes of marital breakdown are often taken into account in mediation and negotiation.

Statutory grounds for judicial divorce (Civil Code, Article 770(1))

The Civil Code provides five statutory grounds for judicial divorce:

• adultery;
• malicious abandonment;
• uncertainty as to life or death for three years or more;
• severe mental illness (to be deleted under the 2026 Amended Civil Code from 1 April 2026); and
• other grave grounds rendering continuation of the marriage difficult.

In practice, the majority of cases are argued under “other grave grounds”.

Meaning of “grave grounds rendering continuation of the marriage difficult”

This ground requires the marital relationship to have broken down irretrievably, with restoration being substantially impossible.

In assessing breakdown, courts consider:

• subjective factors, such as the absence of intention by both spouses to continue the marriage; and
• objective factors, such as prolonged separation demonstrating factual breakdown.

The length of separation is an important consideration. A prolonged separation of approximately five years generally gives rise to a strong inference of marital breakdown, although recent practice indicates a tendency toward shorter periods. Where the separation is relatively short, more specific proof of breakdown is required.

Divorce claims by the spouse at fault

The Supreme Court has held that divorce claims brought by the spouse primarily responsible for the marital breakdown are, in principle, restricted. However, such a claim may be permitted where the marriage has already broken down irretrievably and granting the divorce would not contravene the principle of good faith (Supreme Court, 2 September 1987, Minshu Volume 41, No 6, p 1423).

In such cases, a longer period of separation is generally required.

Judicial discretion to dismiss (Civil Code, Article 770(2))

Even where a statutory ground other than “grave grounds rendering continuation of the marriage difficult” is established, the court may dismiss the divorce claim after considering all circumstances.

Same-sex partners

Japanese law does not recognise same-sex marriage or civil partnerships. Accordingly, the divorce provisions of the Civil Code do not apply to same-sex couples.

Procedure and Duration of Divorce

Procedure

Divorce in Japan does not necessarily require judicial proceedings. A divorce by agreement is effected by filing a divorce notification with the relevant municipal authority.

Where the parties are unable to reach agreement, an application for divorce mediation needs to be filed with the Family Court (mandatory mediation requirement under the Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act, Article 257). If mediation fails, divorce litigation may be commenced.

Duration

The duration of proceedings varies significantly depending on the issues in dispute (such as parental authority, property division, or damages) and the degree of conflict between the parties. As a general indication:

• mediation takes approximately six to eight months; and
• divorce litigation takes approximately one to two years.

Requirement of separation

There is no formal statutory minimum period of separation required for divorce. However, in judicial divorce proceedings, the length of separation constitutes an important factor in determining whether the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

Service in Divorce Proceedings

Divorce by agreement

No service is required.

Mediation (Family Court)

In mediation proceedings, a copy of the petition is served on the respondent by the Family Court (Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act, Article 256).

Divorce litigation

In divorce litigation, formal service of the complaint is required (Code of Civil Procedure, Article 138). Where the respondent’s whereabouts are unknown, service by publication may be permitted.

Service on a party residing abroad is effected in accordance with international judicial assistance mechanisms, including the Hague Service Convention. In practice, international service may take several months and, in some cases, more than one year.

Religious Marriages and Divorces

Japanese law recognises only civil marriage and divorce, pursuant to the Civil Code and related statutes. Religious marriage or divorce, in and of itself, has no legal effect under Japanese law.

However, where foreign law is applicable as the governing law of divorce, and that foreign law recognises divorce effected through religious procedures, Japanese courts will determine the validity of the divorce in accordance with that foreign law (Act on General Rules for Application of Laws, Article 27).

Such foreign law will not be applied where its application would be contrary to Japanese public policy.

Other Procedures for the Termination of Marriage

In addition to divorce, Japanese law provides for nullity and rescission of marriage.

Nullity of marriage (Civil Code, Article 742)

A marriage is void where there was no genuine intention to marry. “Intention to marry” refers to the intention, as understood in social terms, to establish a marital cohabitation.

Confirmation of nullity is sought through mediation or litigation before the Family Court.

Rescission of marriage (Civil Code, Article 743 et seq)

A marriage may be rescinded where statutory grounds exist, including bigamy, prohibited degrees of kinship, violation of the minimum marriage age, or marriage procured by fraud or duress.

Rescission is pursued through Family Court proceedings.

Judicial separation

Japanese law does not provide for a system of judicial separation. However, spouses may agree to live separately, and such agreement may be recorded in mediation proceedings.

Jurisdiction in Divorce Proceedings

In Japan, the rules on international jurisdiction differ between mediation proceedings and divorce litigation.

Mediation (domestic relations case procedure)

Under Article 3-13 of the Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act, Japanese courts have international jurisdiction where:

• the Japanese courts have jurisdiction over the divorce litigation;
• the respondent has a residence in Japan; or
• the parties agree to conduct mediation in Japan.

A distinctive feature of mediation is that jurisdiction may be established by agreement of the parties.

Divorce litigation (personal status litigation)

Under Article 3-2 of the Personal Status Litigation Act, Japanese courts have international jurisdiction where:

• the defendant has a residence in Japan;
• the plaintiff resides in Japan and the parties’ last common residence was in Japan;
• both parties are Japanese nationals; or
• special circumstances justify jurisdiction in light of fairness and the proper administration of justice.

The final ground is exceptional and narrowly applied.

Unlike mediation, jurisdiction cannot be established by agreement in divorce litigation.

Domestic venue

Once international jurisdiction is established, the question of which Family Court within Japan has territorial competence is determined separately under domestic venue rules.

Same-sex partners

As Japanese law does not recognise same-sex marriage or civil partnerships, issues of divorce jurisdiction do not arise in that context.

Domicile, Residence and Nationality

Japanese law does not adopt the common law concept of “domicile”.

Residence (Civil Code, Article 22)

The central concept for determining international jurisdiction in divorce proceedings is residence. Residence is defined as the “centre of one’s life”, meaning the place where a person’s social life is primarily based.

Place of stay (Civil Code, Article 23(1))

Where a person has no residence, the supplementary concept of place of stay applies. This refers to a place where a person resides continuously for a certain period, although it does not constitute the centre of that person’s life.

Nationality

Nationality is not, in principle, a primary connecting factor for jurisdiction. However, where both parties are Japanese nationals, nationality may constitute a jurisdictional ground under the relevant statutory provisions.

Objection to Jurisdiction

A party may raise an objection on the ground that the Japanese courts lack international jurisdiction.

The court examines international jurisdiction ex officio. If it finds that international jurisdiction is lacking, the petition for mediation or the action will be dismissed.

Where international jurisdiction exists but a domestic venue is improper, the case may be transferred to the competent court in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.

Stay of Proceedings in Favour of Foreign Divorce Proceedings

Under Japanese law, there is no automatic stay of proceedings merely because divorce proceedings are pending in a foreign jurisdiction.

However, where a foreign judgment may subsequently become subject to recognition and enforcement in Japan, the court may adjust the progress of the proceedings as appropriate, within its case management discretion.

Jurisdiction to Commence Financial Proceedings

In Japan, financial disputes arising out of divorce primarily concern property division (Civil Code, Article 768). A claim for property division may be brought either:

• independently after the divorce has been finalised; or
• as an ancillary claim in divorce litigation.

Independent application (mediation or adjudication)

Under Article 3-12 of the Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act, Japanese courts have international jurisdiction where:

• the respondent has a residence in Japan;
• both parties are Japanese nationals;
• the parties’ last common residence was in Japan; or
• special circumstances exist such that Japan is an appropriate forum from the standpoint of fairness and proper administration of justice.

2026 Amended Civil Code

The limitation period for bringing a claim for property division will be extended from two years to five years after divorce.

Ancillary claim in divorce litigation

Where Japanese courts have jurisdiction over the divorce itself, and the requirements noted under Independent application (mediation or adjudication) above are satisfied, jurisdiction over the property division claim is likewise recognised (Personal Status Litigation Act, Article 3-4(2)).

Objection to Jurisdiction

See 1.2 Choice of Jurisdiction in Divorce Proceedings (Objection to Jurisdiction).

Stay of Proceedings in Favour of Foreign Divorce Proceedings

See 1.2 Choice of Jurisdiction in Divorce Proceedings(Stay of Proceedings in Favour of Foreign Divorce Proceedings).

Financial Claims Following a Foreign Divorce

Where the Japanese courts have international jurisdiction, a claim for property division may be brought in Japan even after a divorce has been granted abroad.

However, this presupposes that the foreign divorce is recognised in Japan. If the foreign divorce is not recognised, the parties must first obtain a divorce in Japan before pursuing a claim for property division.

Service in Financial Proceedings

The service structure in property division proceedings mirrors that applicable in divorce proceedings; see 1.1 Grounds, Timeline, Service and Process (Service in Divorce Proceedings):

• for conciliation and adjudication, a copy of the petition is served on the opposing party (Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act, Article 67); and
• for ancillary claims in litigation, the general service provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply.

Service abroad may take several months or longer, depending on the jurisdiction and the method used.

Procedure and Duration of Financial Proceedings

Independent application (conciliation and adjudication)

Following the finalisation of divorce, where the parties are unable to reach agreement, either party may file a petition for property division before the Family Court. If conciliation fails, the matter proceeds to adjudication, in which the court determines whether division is appropriate, as well as the amount and method.

In practice, conciliation and adjudication together generally require six months or more. In complex cases – such as those involving substantial assets, valuation disputes or overseas property – the proceedings may extend beyond one year.

Ancillary claim in divorce litigation

Where property division is sought as an ancillary claim in divorce litigation, the duration broadly follows that of the divorce proceedings; see 1.1 Grounds, Timeline, Service and Process (Procedure and Duration of Divorce).

However, if property division constitutes a principal issue in dispute, it is common for proceedings to take approximately 18 months until judgment.

Basic Approach of the Court to Property Division

Property division in Japan is primarily designed to effect a settlement of the property accumulated throughout the marital partnership. Its legal nature is understood to comprise three elements (Supreme Court, 23 July 1971, Minshu Volume 25, No 5, p 805):

• settlement element – liquidation of property acquired through the parties’ joint marital efforts;
• support element – post-divorce maintenance considerations; and
• compensatory element – damages-like considerations arising from marital misconduct.

In practice, the settlement element forms the core of the system.

Analytical structure in practice

Japanese courts typically proceed in the following order.

Determination of the cut-off date

The court first determines the cut-off date for identifying divisible assets. This is generally the date on which substantive economic co-operation between the spouses ended – usually the date of separation.

Identification of marital property

The court identifies property existing as of the cut-off date. Only marital property is subject to division; separate property (eg, premarital assets or inherited property) is, in principle, excluded.

Valuation of assets

Assets are then valued. As a general rule, valuation is made as of the conclusion of the oral argument, although the relevant valuation date may vary depending on the nature of the asset. For example, real property and shares are typically valued at market value at the close of proceedings (or at a date close to settlement in consensual cases). Bank deposits are ordinarily calculated by reference to the balance at separation.

Assessment of contribution (division ratio)

The court determines each spouse’s contribution to the formation of marital property. Judicial practice has established a rebuttable presumption of equal contribution (the so-called “50/50 rule”). A party seeking a different ratio bears the burden of proving that a departure is justified. In practice, deviation from equal division is rare.

2026 Amended Civil Code

The Amended Civil Code codifies this practice by introducing a presumption of equal contribution (Article 768(3)).

Determination of amount and method

On this basis, the court determines the amount of property division and the appropriate method of distribution.

Financial Orders

Determination of the amount

Japanese law adopts a settlement-based model, under which property division is grounded in the liquidation of assets accumulated during the marriage. In practice, the court identifies the assets and liabilities held in each spouse’s name, calculates each party’s net assets, and then determines the total net marital estate. As a general rule, the total net assets are divided equally (50/50). Outstanding debts, including mortgage liabilities, are deducted in calculating net value.

Method of division

As a rule, the court orders payment in money. Monetary adjustment is the standard approach, and in-kind division is exceptional.

In relation to real property, however, the court may order the transfer of ownership (including delivery and registration formalities) where this is necessary and appropriate. In assessing such necessity, the court considers factors such as the parties’ intentions, the legal status of the property, and its actual use.

In consensual settlements and mediation, more flexible solutions are common, including sale of property and distribution of the proceeds.

Identification of Assets and Disclosure

In property division proceedings, each party is, in principle, expected to disclose their own assets and submit supporting documentation.

Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that assets exist in the other party’s name but voluntary disclosure is not forthcoming, a party may apply for a court inquiry (Code of Civil Procedure, Article 186). If it considers it necessary and appropriate, the court may make inquiries to third parties such as financial institutions. Through this mechanism, information such as the existence of bank accounts and account balances may be confirmed.

However, such court inquiries require a certain degree of specificity in the applicant’s allegations and do not permit broad or exploratory asset investigations.

2026 Amended Civil Code

A new order for disclosure of financial information has been introduced (Amended Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act, Article 152-2). If a party refuses disclosure, without just cause, or submits false information, the court may impose a civil fine of up to JPY100,000.

Matrimonial Property Regime and Property Division

Structure of the matrimonial property regime in Japan

In principle, Japanese law adopts a system of the separation of property between spouses (Civil Code, Article 762). Property acquired during a marriage belongs to the spouse in whose name it is held, and each spouse manages his or her own property.

At the same time, spouses owe each other duties of co-operation and mutual support in maintaining the marital relationship (Article 752). They are required to share the expenses arising from marital life in accordance with their respective financial capacities (Article 760), and are jointly liable for debts incurred in the ordinary course of household affairs (Article 761).

Accordingly, although the formal regime is one of separation of property, the economic unity of the marital partnership is recognised to a certain extent within the legal framework.

Relationship with property division

The distinctive feature of the Japanese system lies in its two-stage structure: separation of property during marriage, followed by a settlement upon divorce.

The Supreme Court has stated that legislative arrangements, including property division upon divorce and inheritance rights, are designed to ensure substantive fairness in light of the spouses’ mutual contributions during marriage (Supreme Court Grand Bench, 6 September 1961, Minshu Vol 15, No 8, p 2047).

As noted under Basic Approach to Property Division, above, judicial practice generally applies a presumption of equal contribution, resulting in an equal (50/50) division as the starting point.

Trusts

Trusts are recognised under Japanese law as an independent property law institution governed by the Trust Act. However, they rarely play a central role in family court practice.

In principle, assets formally placed in trust are not excluded from consideration in property division proceedings. Where trust assets are substantively attributable to the marital partnership, they may be treated as part of the divisible marital estate.

General Approach to Spousal Maintenance

During marriage

While the marital relationship continues, spouses owe each other duties of cohabitation, co-operation and mutual assistance (Civil Code, Article 752). Correspondingly, expenses arising from the marital community are to be shared by the spouses in light of their respective assets, income and all other relevant circumstances (Civil Code, Article 760).

This obligation to share marital expenses is understood as a duty to maintain the other spouse at a standard of living comparable to one’s own. It extends beyond basic living costs such as food, clothing and housing, and includes education, recreation and the child’s living and educational expenses, as well as all other costs ordinarily necessary to maintain marital life.

After divorce

As a general rule, Japanese law does not provide for ongoing spousal maintenance following divorce.

Post-divorce financial adjustment is addressed primarily within the framework of property division, and any maintenance-oriented considerations arise only exceptionally as part of that mechanism (see Court Powers Regarding Post-Divorce Spousal Maintenance, below).

Marital Expenses After Breakdown of the Relationship

Under Japanese law, as long as the marital relationship formally continues, a spouse may apply for an order allocating marital expenses pending the final determination of divorce.

In practice, the amount of marital expenses is commonly calculated by reference to “Child Support and Spousal Maintenance Calculation Tables” published by the courts. These tables serve as guidelines only; adjustments may be made in light of case-specific circumstances, such as private school tuition or extraordinary medical expenses.

The Family Court may also reduce the amount where strict application of the standard would be inequitable. In extreme cases, a claim may be restricted on the basis of abuse of rights or the principle of good faith.

Court Powers Regarding Post-Divorce Spousal Maintenance

Post-divorce economic adjustment is, in principle, addressed through property division.

However, where one spouse faces difficulty achieving economic self-sufficiency after divorce, the court may, exceptionally, take into account a maintenance element within the framework of property division. This may include, for example, periodic payments for a limited period or temporary rent-free use of the former matrimonial home.

Whether such maintenance-oriented property division is granted, and its scope, are determined through a comprehensive assessment of factors such as whether one spouse was primarily engaged in homemaking, the age and health of the parties, the financial need of the recipient, and the paying spouse’s financial capacity. In practice, cases in which courts actively order maintenance-oriented property division remain exceptional; such considerations are more commonly addressed through negotiation or mediation between the parties.

Legal Status of Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements

In Japan, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements are not widely used in practice.

The Civil Code expressly recognises a marital property agreement (Articles 755 et seq of the Civil Code) as a means by which the parties may agree upon a matrimonial property regime other than the statutory separate property system; see 2.3 Division of Assets (Matrimonial Property Regime and Property Division).

However, a marital property agreement must be concluded prior to the filing of the marriage registration, and must be registered. In principle, it cannot be modified after marriage. Owing to these strict formal requirements, such agreements are used only in limited circumstances in practice. Moreover, if the content of an agreement contravenes the principle of spousal equality or the essential nature of marriage, it may be held void as contrary to public policy.

So-called postnuptial agreements concluded after marriage may also be valid as ordinary contracts; however, their enforceability may likewise be restricted on grounds of public policy and fairness.

Treatment by the Courts

There is no established Supreme Court precedent expressly holding that prenuptial or postnuptial agreements are determinative or strictly binding on the court in divorce proceedings. In practice, the content of such agreements is generally regarded as one factor among others to be taken into account in the court’s overall assessment, rather than as conclusive.

Dissolution of Unmarried Relationships and Division of Property

De facto marriage (Naien)

For unmarried couples, the statutory rules on division of property under Article 768 of the Civil Code do not apply, in principle.

However, case law has recognised that, where a de facto marital relationship (naien) satisfies certain requirements, it may be treated as a relationship equivalent to marriage, and the rules on division of property may be applied by analogy (Tokyo Family Court, 25 July 1956, Family Court Monthly Report Volume 9, No 10, p 39).

That said, a de facto relationship is not treated as being identical to a legal marriage. Whether division of property is available and, if so, its scope and content are determined at the court’s discretion in light of the specific circumstances of the parties.

Requirements for the establishment of a de facto relationship

For a de facto relationship to merit legal protection, the following elements are generally required:

• mutual intention to marry; and
• the existence of a marital relationship in substance (ie, a stable and continuous cohabitation reflecting a marital union).

Effect of Cohabitation Period and the Existence of Children

The length of cohabitation or the mere existence of children does not, in itself, automatically give rise to legal rights.

However, long-term cohabitation and the joint upbringing of children are often regarded as significant factors supporting the inference that a legally protectable de facto marital relationship has been established.

Enforcement Measures

Where a party fails to comply with an order for property division or child support made by way of mediation or judgment, the entitled party may seek measures to secure performance.

First, an application may be made to the Family Court for a recommendation for performance (Personal Status Litigation Act, Article 38; Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act, Article 289). A recommendation for performance is a measure by which the court urges voluntary compliance; although it does not carry direct coercive force, it is considered to have a certain practical and psychological effect.

If compliance is still not forthcoming, the creditor may initiate compulsory execution under the Civil Execution Act. This may include the attachment and sale of real property (land and buildings), the attachment and collection of bank deposits or salary claims, and execution against movable property.

2026 Amended Civil Code

With respect to child support claims, a statutory lien has been introduced (Amended Civil Code, Article 308-2), and a system for orders requiring the disclosure of income information has also been established. These reforms are expected to enhance the effectiveness of enforcement.

International Enforcement of Financial Orders

A judgment or order rendered by a foreign court does not automatically have enforceability in Japan. However, financial orders – including orders concerning property division or child support – may be enforced in Japan if certain requirements are satisfied.

In practice, the party seeking enforcement must first obtain an execution judgment from a Japanese court with respect to the foreign judgment, and thereafter proceed under the Japanese Civil Execution Act (Article 24). In order to obtain an execution judgment, the foreign judgment must be final and binding, and must satisfy the statutory requirements for recognition under Japanese law (Code of Civil Procedure, Article 118; Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act, Article 79-2).

The principal requirements for recognition are as follows:

• the foreign court must have had internationally recognised jurisdiction;
• the defeated defendant must have been duly served (excluding service by publication or equivalent methods), or must have appeared in the proceedings;
• the content of the judgment and the proceedings must not be contrary to public policy in Japan; and
• reciprocity must exist between Japan and the foreign jurisdiction.

This framework applies equally to financial orders arising from family law proceedings, including property division and child support.

Media Access and Transparency

Financial disputes, including property division, are handled either as domestic relations proceedings before the Family Court (conciliation or adjudication), or as ancillary claims within divorce litigation (personal status litigation). The level of publicity differs accordingly.

Domestic relations proceedings (conciliation and adjudication)

Family Court proceedings are, in principle, closed to the public. Attendance at hearings and access to court records are restricted. As a result, media coverage of the substance of these proceedings is extremely limited in practice.

Personal status litigation (ancillary financial claims in divorce proceedings)

In principle, oral hearings and the delivery of judgments in personal status litigation are public. Court records are generally open to inspection (Code of Civil Procedure, Article 91). However, where the records contain serious private matters, the court may order restrictions on access (Article 92).

Anonymity of Proceedings

Domestic relations proceedings (conciliation and adjudication) are conducted in private, and privacy is institutionally protected.

By contrast, Japanese law does not provide a general mechanism allowing parties to conduct litigation anonymously. In personal status litigation, the parties’ names are, in principle, stated in the court record. However, the court may order restrictions on access to the record where it contains serious private matters (Code of Civil Procedure, Article 92). In published decisions, the names of the parties and children are ordinarily anonymised.

Out-of-Court Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

In property-related disputes, Bar Association ADR centres and private ADR institutions are available as out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms.

Whether ADR Is Mandatory

There is no statutory requirement mandating the use of ADR in property-related disputes, nor are there any sanctions for failing to attempt ADR.

Family court conciliation is widely used in practice as a consensus-oriented procedure. However, it is a judicial procedure conducted within the court system and is, strictly speaking, distinct from ADR.

Legal Status of Settlement Agreements

An agreement reached through ADR is valid as a contract between the parties, but it does not in itself have enforceability.

To make the agreement enforceable, it must be either incorporated into a notarised deed containing an enforcement clause, or formalised in a Family Court conciliation record or court judgment.

Jurisdiction to Commence Child-Related Proceedings

International jurisdiction

In respect of child-related proceedings, including custody, contact (visitation) and child support, the jurisdictional framework differs depending on whether or not the claim is made in connection with divorce proceedings.

Where filed as ancillary relief to divorce proceedings

If a Japanese court has international jurisdiction over the divorce action, it will also have jurisdiction over ancillary matters such as designation of parental authority, custody and contact (Personal Status Litigation Act, Article 3-4).

Where filed independently of divorce proceedings

Where child-related proceedings are brought independently of divorce, Japanese courts will, in principle, have international jurisdiction if the child’s residence is in Japan (Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act, Article 3-8).

Domestic venue

Once international jurisdiction is established, the question of which Family Court within Japan has venue is determined separately under the applicable domestic venue rules.

Domicile, Residence and Nationality

See 1.2 Choice of Jurisdiction in Divorce Proceedings (Domicile, Residence and Nationality).

Court Proceedings Concerning Residence and Contact

Where the parents cannot agree

If the parents are unable to agree on the child’s residence or contact (visitation), either parent may file a petition with the Family Court for mediation or adjudication concerning contact (Civil Code, Article 766).

Where the dispute concerns the child’s residence, including proposed relocation, the matter is typically addressed through procedures such as designation of the custodian (Civil Code, Article 766) or change of the parent holding parental authority (Civil Code, Article 819(6)). In particular, Japanese law does not provide for a formal “relocation permission” procedure. Instead, relocation disputes are resolved indirectly through the framework of determining which parent should exercise custody or parental authority, thereby effectively determining the child’s place of residence.

Judicial standard

In determining matters concerning a child’s care, the court must give paramount consideration to the best interests of the child (Civil Code, Article 766(1)).

In practice, the court conducts a holistic assessment, taking the following into account in particular:

• safety (eg, abuse, domestic violence, risk of abduction or other threats to the child’s well-being);
• the child’s circumstances (age, physical and psychological condition, living environment, and wishes);
• each parent’s circumstances (physical and mental condition, caregiving capacity, financial situation, and attitude toward facilitating contact);
• the parent–child relationship (the pre-separation relationship and the history of contact); and
• inter-parental and environmental factors (ability of the parents to co-operate, sibling relationships, remarriage, and support from extended family).

Content of contact orders

The court may determine the following, in light of the child’s best interests:

• direct contact (in-person meetings);
• indirect contact (online communication, telephone, email, social media, etc); and
• other forms of involvement (eg, sending gifts).

Even in high-conflict cases, the court may explore the possibility of maintaining contact through phased arrangements or the involvement of third-party organisations, with a view to ensuring the child’s safety while preserving the parent–child relationship.

2026 Amended Civil Code

The amended legislation clarifies the framework for trial contact during pending proceedings, providing an explicit statutory basis for implementing contact on a provisional basis where appropriate (Amended Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act, Article 152-3; Amended Personal Status Litigation Act, Article 34-4).

Legal Approach to Custody and Parental Authority Following Marital Breakdown

Basic structure

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:
1. the rights and obligations to care for and educate the child (Article 820);
2. the right to determine the child’s residence (Article 822); and
3. the right to permit the child to engage in an occupation (Article 823).
• Property management (Article 824)
1. the right to manage the child’s property; and
2. the authority to represent the child in property-related legal acts and to consent to such acts.

Framework for resolving disputes following breakdown

Where the marital relationship has broken down, disputes concerning custody and parental authority are typically dealt with through proceedings for designation of the custodian (Civil Code, Article 766) or a change of the parent holding parental authority (Article 819(6)). In either case, the governing standard is the best interests of the child.

Importantly, these procedures do not directly determine whether a specific act (such as relocation) is permitted; rather, they determine which parent should exercise custody or parental authority, including decisions on the child’s residence.

In judicial practice, while giving primary consideration to the child’s safety, the court conducts an overall assessment by reference to the following factors.

• Past caregiving arrangements – who has been the primary caregiver, the amount and quality of care, etc.
• Caregiving capacity and environment – the parent’s physical and mental condition, willingness to care, understanding of and commitment to the child’s welfare, living environment, economic and educational circumstances, availability of support from others, consideration of sibling relationships, etc.
• Parent–child relationship – the current parent–child relationship, potential for change, the child’s wishes and feelings, emotional bonds, etc.
• Attitude toward the child’s relationship with the other parent – willingness to support continued parent–child contact, etc.

2026 Amended Civil Code

The 2026 Amended Civil Code introduces optional joint parental authority after divorce. It also clarifies the circumstances in which parental authority may be exercised unilaterally, and introduces mechanisms to resolve parental disagreements, including designation of the parent exercising parental authority for a specific matter (Amended Civil Code, Article 824-2(3)) and allocation of custody responsibilities (Amended Civil Code, Article 766).

Court Powers in Making Orders on Residence and Parent–Child Contact

Where the parents cannot agree on the child’s residence or parent–child contact, either parent may apply to the Family Court (Civil Code, Article 766).

The court must give primary consideration to the best interests of the child, and may determine the child’s living arrangements and the frequency and modalities of contact. Even in high-conflict cases, Japanese courts often seek to secure both feasibility and safety through measures such as phased contact and the involvement of third-party institutions.

However, there is no general mechanism under Japanese law by which the court can directly compel a parent to reside in a particular area. Disputes concerning relocation are typically addressed indirectly through proceedings such as designation of the custodian or designation of the parent exercising parental authority for a specific matter.

As to enforcement, compliance with contact arrangements is secured primarily through indirect enforcement measures (eg, monetary pressure orders).

Definition of Child Support

Child support refers to the expenses necessary for the care of a minor child, which are to be borne by the non-residential parent (Civil Code, Article 766(2)).

Under Japanese law, the obligation to pay child support is understood as a duty to maintain an equivalent standard of living, meaning that the child is entitled to a standard of living commensurate with that of the parent. Child support therefore includes not only ordinary living expenses (food, clothing and housing), but also educational and medical expenses.

Assessment of Child Support

In practice, child support is calculated primarily by reference to the “Child Support and Spousal Maintenance Calculation Tables” published by the courts. The principal factors are the respective incomes of the parents, the number of children, and their ages.

However, these tables serve only as standardised guidelines. The court may adjust the amount in light of specific circumstances, such as private school tuition, extraordinary medical expenses, or particular features of the parties’ maintenance obligations.

2026 Amended Civil Code

The Amended Civil Code introduces a statutory child support scheme (hōtei yōikuhi), under which a minimum level of support arises by operation of law until a specific amount is agreed or judicially determined.

Agreements on Child Support

Parents may agree on child support without recourse to the court. Such an agreement is valid as a contract. However, in order to obtain enforceability, it must be embodied either in a notarial deed containing a clause consenting to compulsory execution or in a court mediation record (Civil Execution Act, Article 22).

Even where an agreement has been reached, if its terms are manifestly unreasonable, or if there is a subsequent change in circumstances (such as a material change in either party’s income), the Family Court may modify the arrangement in the future.

Orders for Child Support and Duration

The Family Court may issue orders requiring the payment of child support.

The obligation is based on the duty of maintenance toward a non-self-supporting child. Its duration is not determined by a fixed age limit, but by whether the child has achieved social and economic independence. Accordingly, support may extend beyond the age of majority (18) – eg, where the child is enrolled in higher education or where illness or other circumstances make self-support difficult.

Claims by the Child for Financial Support

Under Article 877 of the Civil Code, a child may claim maintenance from his or her parents.

In practice, however, post-divorce child support under Article 766 of the Civil Code is ordinarily claimed by the residential parent on behalf of the child. Where the child is a minor, the right is exercised by the child’s legal representative.

Even after reaching the age of majority (18), a child may bring a claim for maintenance if he or she qualifies as a non-self-supporting child – eg, while enrolled in higher education or otherwise lacking social and economic independence.

Accordingly, there is no formal minimum age requirement; entitlement depends on whether the child is in fact non-self-supporting.

Orders Concerning Specific Disputes Between Parents

Under the current Civil Code, where parents exercising joint parental authority disagree on specific matters – such as relocation, choice of school, or significant medical treatment – there is no independent procedure designed solely to resolve that discrete issue. In practice, such disputes are addressed indirectly through broader procedures, such as the designation of a custodian (Civil Code, Article 766) or a change of the parent holding parental authority (Civil Code, Article 819(6)), thereby determining comprehensively which parent should exercise parental authority.

2026 Amended Civil Code

The Amended Civil Code introduces a new mechanism allowing the Family Court to designate one parent as the decision-making parent with respect to a specific matter (Amended Civil Code, Article 824-2(3)). Following its implementation, courts will be able, within a defined scope, to resolve particular disputes directly on an issue-by-issue basis.

Parental Alienation

Japanese courts do not treat “parental alienation” as an independent legal concept, nor apply it as a distinct doctrinal framework. However, in determining matters such as custody and parent–child contact, conduct by one parent that unjustifiably interferes with the child’s relationship with the other parent may be taken into account as a relevant factor.

When assessing the child’s wishes, the court carefully examines whether those wishes reflect the child’s genuine intent, whether they may have been influenced or induced, and whether they are consistent with the child’s objective best interests.

Hearing the Child’s Views

It is legally possible for a child to give evidence as a witness in court, but this is exceptional in practice. In most cases, the child’s views are ascertained through interviews conducted by a Family Court investigator.

Article 65 of the Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act provides that the child’s statement shall be heard in accordance with the child’s age and degree of development. Furthermore, where the child is 15 years of age or older, the court is required to hear the child’s statement in proceedings concerning custody and related matters (Article 152(2) of the same Act).

The child’s views are assessed carefully, taking into account the child’s level of maturity and the context of the parental conflict. In general, greater weight is given to the wishes of older children. In particular, from approximately lower secondary school age (around 12–13 years and above), the courts tend to give significant weight to the child’s views, provided that they reflect the child’s genuine intention and are not clearly contrary to the child’s best interests.

Out-of-Court Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

For an overview of out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms available in child-related disputes, see 2.9 ADR in Financial Matters (Out-of-Court Dispute Resolution Mechanisms).

Mandatory Use of ADR

There is no statutory requirement for the parties to engage in ADR; see 2.9 ADR in Financial Matters (Whether ADR Is Mandatory).

Legal Status of Agreements

See 2.9 ADR in Financial Matters (Legal Status of Settlement Agreements).

Media Access and Transparency

See 2.8 Media Access and Transparency in Financial Proceedings.

In cases concerning children, particular caution is exercised in practice, in order to safeguard the child’s best interests.

Anonymisation of Proceedings

See 2.8 Media Access and Transparency in Financial Proceedings (Anonymity of Proceedings).