Parental authority ― joint and sole parental authority from April 2026, the custodial parent, and visitation

The Civil Code amendment that came into force on 1 April 2026 made it possible to choose \"joint parental authority\", with both parents holding parental authority after divorce. Sole parental authority, as before, can also be chosen. This article sets out what has changed (the content of parental authority, the custodial parent who handles daily care, agreement on important decisions, urgent cases), how it is decided (by agreement, or by the family court if there is none), how domestic violence and abuse are handled, how to arrange visitation, and what happens to people who divorced before the amendment.

About this translation ― This page is an English translation of an article originally written in Japanese by KuraLab's operator, a licensed real-estate transaction specialist (宅地建物取引士) and administrative scrivener (行政書士) in Japan. The Japanese original is the authoritative text; where the two differ, the Japanese version prevails. The article explains Japanese law and procedure in general terms as of the date shown. It is not legal, tax or immigration advice for your situation ― please confirm with a licensed professional in Japan. Japanese terms are kept in parentheses so you can search for them. Read the Japanese original

The consultation came two months after the amendment took effect. The couple had agreed to divorce, and their child was eight. "Joint parental authority is better, isn't it?" said the husband, and the wife asked, "If it's joint, do I need his permission every time I decide anything?" Both had misunderstood the system, and in opposite directions. The husband thought of joint parental authority as "a right to be involved with the child"; the wife thought of it as "a mechanism that ties me to my ex-husband." Both were only half right. This article fills in each of those halves.

At divorce, if there is a minor child, the notification will not be accepted unless a holder of parental authority (親権者) is decided. Until March 2026, only one of the father or mother could be chosen (sole parental authority, 単独親権). On 1 April 2026 the Civil Code amendment came into force, and it became possible to choose "joint parental authority" (共同親権), with both parents holding parental authority after divorce. Here I write about what the system contains and how it is decided, from the viewpoint of practice since it took effect.

Parental authority (親権) is the right and duty to look after a child's daily life and education (physical custody, 身上監護) and to manage the child's property and act for the child in legal matters (property management, 財産管理). Since the amendment, at divorce the parents decide by agreement between "joint parental authority" and "sole parental authority." If they cannot agree, the family court decides. The family court must choose sole parental authority where joint parental authority would harm the child's interests (where one parent is at risk of abusing the child, or where domestic violence or the like makes it hard for the parents to exercise parental authority together).

The amendment also set out how parental authority is exercised when it is joint. Important matters such as the child's education, place of residence and medical care are in principle decided jointly by the parents. However, "everyday acts" (meals, clothes, regular lessons and so on) and cases with "urgent circumstances" (an emergency operation, escaping domestic violence and so on) can be decided by one parent alone. When the parents' opinions clash and they cannot decide, the family court can provide that one of them may decide that matter alone.

Even with joint parental authority, it is decided which parent the child mainly lives with. The parent who handles daily care can be designated the "custodial parent" (監護者). The custodial parent can on their own carry out the custody and education of the child and decide and change the child's place of residence, and the other holder of parental authority must not obstruct this (Civil Code Article 824-3). On top of that, there is also the form in which the parents agree to consult and decide together on big things such as schooling and moving house.

Joint and sole parental authority (after the amendment in force from April 2026). Holder of parental authority: joint, both parents; sole, the father or the mother. Important matters (residence, schooling, medical care): joint, decided by the parents together, and if they clash the family court designates the one who may decide alone; sole, decided by the holder of parental authority. Everyday acts and urgent circumstances: joint, either parent can decide alone; sole, decided by the holder. Custodial parent: joint, can be designated (that parent alone handles custody, education and deciding residence); sole, normally the holder of parental authority is also the custodial parent. Cases where the family court must choose sole authority: risk of abuse, or domestic violence or other situations where cooperation between the parents is difficult. Child support and visitation: decided separately, whatever the form of parental authority, in both cases.

I will not write a general rule on which to choose. What I tell people in consultations are the axes for deciding. One: will the parents, after divorce, be in a relationship where they can contact and consult each other about the child? Joint parental authority is a system that presupposes that relationship. Two: are there facts of, or fears about, domestic violence, moral harassment or abuse? If so, sole parental authority, and the family court will decide the same way. Three: are opinions on residence or schooling likely to split? If a split is likely, even with joint authority the family court will be more involved. Four: child support and visitation. Whatever the form of parental authority, child support is paid, as described in the article on child support, and visitation takes place. Parental authority is "a right to be involved in decisions," a separate matter from "being able to see the child" and "paying."

On visitation (面会交流). It is the parent living apart from the child meeting and spending time with the child, and it is decided at divorce separately from the form of parental authority. Frequency (once or twice a month is common), length, the place and method of handover, whether there are overnight stays, school events, phone and video calls. As described in the article on the divorce agreement, fix a minimum frequency and means of contact, neither too detailed nor too vague. If it cannot be decided, it is decided by conciliation at the family court. Continuing to refuse visitation without good reason can lead to indirect compulsory enforcement (an order to pay money for each refusal), but the child's wishes and safety come first, and where there is domestic violence or the like, visitation is restricted.

What about people who divorced before the amendment? Parents who divorced with sole parental authority before it took effect can also, after it took effect, apply to the family court to change the holder of parental authority and switch to joint parental authority. However, the family court decides by the child's interests, so it does not become joint automatically.

Sorting it out in the case. First, I asked about this couple's relationship. The reason for divorce was a difference in values; there was no violence or verbal abuse. Both attended the child's school events, and they could contact each other normally on LINE. When I asked, "After divorce, do you think you'll be able to consult each other about your child?", both answered, "Yes." The premise of joint parental authority lies here, and this couple met it.

Next, I wrote out concretely what daily life would look like with joint parental authority. The child lives with the mother. The mother is designated the custodial parent. Everyday acts, that is meals, clothes, taking the child to and from lessons and minor visits to the doctor, the mother decides on her own. The father's permission is not needed. What the parents decide together are important matters such as changing school, where to go for further education, major operations and moving abroad. The wife's "permission every time" was a misunderstanding as far as daily life is concerned. The husband's "being involved with the child" was right in the sense of being involved in important decisions, and wrong in the sense of seeing the child more often. Visitation is decided separately from the form of parental authority.

In the agreement we wrote: "A and B shall make both parents the holders of parental authority over their eldest son, [name], and designate B (the mother) as the custodial parent. B shall consult A in advance on important matters concerning the child's residence, schooling and medical care." The mother, as custodial parent, would in principle be able to decide on her own, but this couple promised each other to talk things over and decide. Then, in separate clauses, they set visitation at twice a month and child support at 50,000 yen a month. This couple chose joint parental authority.

I will note another consultation too. It came from a wife living apart from her husband because of his moral harassment: "My husband is insisting on joint parental authority." In this case, the family court will not grant joint parental authority. The amended law states that where there are circumstances making it hard for the parents to exercise parental authority together (domestic violence, abuse, a controlling relationship), the court must choose sole parental authority. The wife did not take part in negotiations, sought sole parental authority through conciliation, and things are moving in that direction. The system having become one where you "can choose" is not the same as "either will do."

On parental authority, the system has only just changed, and practice (in what cases the family court accepts joint authority and in what cases it chooses sole authority) will build up from now on. I will revise this article too as practice becomes clearer. The provisions themselves can be checked in the Ministry of Justice's guidance; individual judgements are the territory of a lawyer if there is a dispute, and of an administrative scrivener if there is agreement and it is to be put in writing.

The two misunderstandings of the first day, "a right to be involved" and "a mechanism that ties me," when written out, both converged on a single point: "deciding important matters together." Joint parental authority is a system that guarantees that one point in law. It is neither how often you see the child nor how much you pay. When I wrote, as the fourth axis for deciding in this article, "parental authority is a right to be involved in decisions, a separate matter from being able to see the child and paying," it was this couple's two misunderstandings turned into one sentence.

Written by: 長澤湊（licensed real-estate transaction specialist, administrative scrivener, assistant surveyor）　Content checked on: 2026-10-24

This article is a general explanation of Japanese rules and procedures, not advice on an individual case. Figures and rules are as of the date shown. For your own situation, consult a lawyer, judicial scrivener, tax accountant or administrative scrivener in Japan.

All translated articles · Read the Japanese original

Parental authority ― joint and sole parental authority from April 2026, the custodial parent, and visitation

More from KuraLab in English