JAPAN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Kenji Yano, Tokyo Kokusai Partners Law Office
greements. The amended law addresses both these issues. Scope of permissible sole exercise of parental authority Where parents exercise joint parental authority (wheth ‑ er during marriage or after divorce), parental authority is exercised jointly, in principle. However, one parent may exercise parental authority alone in the following circumstances. • Urgent circumstances – eg, evacuation from domestic violence, emergency medical treatment, enrolment procedures subject to deadlines. • Impossibility of exercise by the other parent – eg, disappearance or loss of parental authority. • Routine daily matters – routine acts concerning custody and education (eg, meals, clothing, extra ‑ curricular activities, minor medical treatment). According to legislative explanations, matters such as relocation, choice of school and significant medical treatment do not constitute “routine daily matters”. Accordingly, absent urgency, such matters require joint decision-making. Mechanisms for resolving parental disagreements Under the former law, as noted above, no specific procedure existed to resolve disagreements between parents concerning the exercise of parental authority. In practice, such disputes were addressed primarily through proceedings for: • the designation of a custodian (Article 766); or • a change of parental authority (Article 819 (6)). These mechanisms were not designed to resolve dis ‑ crete individual issues, but rather to allocate custody or parental authority comprehensively. The 2026 Amended Civil Code introduces a new pro ‑ vision addressing disagreements between parents in the joint exercise of parental authority (Article 824-2). Disputes may now be resolved through the proce ‑ dures set out below. While the designation of a custodian continues to be available as before, where the disagreement concerns
only a specific matter, it is envisaged that designation of the parent authorised to exercise parental authority with respect to that specific matter, or an allocation of custody responsibilities, may in some cases be suf ‑ ficient. Designation of the parent exercising parental authority with respect to a specific matter (2026 Amended Civil Code, Article 824-2 (3)) Where the parents disagree on a matter that does not constitute a “routine daily matter” and are unable to resolve the issue through consultation, the Family Court may, if necessary for the child’s best interests, designate one parent as the parent authorised to exer ‑ cise parental authority with respect to that specific matter. In such a case, the designated parent may exercise parental authority unilaterally in relation to that matter. This mechanism is envisaged to apply to specific issues such as change of residence, educational deci ‑ sions, management of the child’s property, or signifi ‑ cant medical treatment. Allocation of custody responsibilities (2026 Amended Civil Code, Article 766) Under the former Civil Code, the court could des ‑ ignate a custodian or determine necessary matters concerning custody, but there was no express provi ‑ sion addressing the allocation (or division) of custody responsibilities between parents. The 2026 Amended Civil Code clarifies that, after divorce, the court may provide for an “allocation of custody responsibilities”. Allocation of custody responsibilities refers to a divi ‑ sion of caregiving functions between the parents. Two principal patterns are envisaged: • temporal allocation – eg, one parent during school holidays and the other during regular school terms, or alternating custody on weekdays and week ‑ ends; and • subject matter allocation – eg, one parent being responsible for educational matters and the other for medical matters. This mechanism allows for more tailored arrange ‑ ments than a full designation of a custodian with
167 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook