Senate begins deliberations on joint custody; Seeking clarification of the role of the family court and the decision-making process

The Legal Affairs Committee of the House of Councilors began deliberations on Thursday on a bill for the revision of the Civil Code, aimed at proposing the introduction of a system of joint custody, under which both parents have legal custody of their children after divorce. have a child or children.

Opposition parties are calling for clarification of the criteria for a family court to determine whether to grant joint or sole custody, and to specify the circumstances in which one parent can exercise independent parental rights, among other demands.

According to the current Civil Code, parental authority is awarded to only one of the parents after divorce. The bill revises the current system to allow divorced parents to choose joint custody if they agree.

If the bill is passed into law during the current parliamentary session, the new system will be implemented by the 2026 financial year, allowing couples who were separated before implementation to switch to joint custody by filing a request in a family court.

“We will revise the current provision to safeguard the best interests of the child, taking into account circumstances such as the increasingly diverse ways of raising children,” Justice Minister Ryuji Koizumi said.

Opposition parties see the proposed criteria for the family court to choose sole custody as problematic.

Under the bill, a family court will determine custody arrangements if parents are unable to agree on custody of their child or children after the divorce. The bill also stipulates that, if there is a risk of domestic violence or child abuse, the court must opt ​​for sole custody.

During Thursday’s deliberations, there were many questions about how the risk of domestic violence or child abuse would be recognized.

Hiroe Makiyama, member of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, pointed out that the family court does not always make the right decisions, as it is often difficult to find evidence of damage incurred behind closed doors.

“Different circumstances must be taken into account, regardless of whether objective evidence is present or not,” Koizumi said.

Regarding the information provided by public institutions where suspected abuse victims sought help, “Such information will be taken into account as an important element to establish the facts,” Koizumi said.