1. INTRODUCTION

It is evident that disputes over contact issues following divorce (or during separation) have increased in Japanese family courts over the years. This is largely due to parents’ failure to reach agreements on contact, and breaches of conditions, as in the case of those resulting from highly antagonistic relationships. In Japan, a divorcing mother, in most divorce cases, holds parental rights and duties, and continues to take care of the couple’s minor children following the divorce. Statistics in Japan show that 157,299 minors were involved in their parents’ divorce proceedings (59.9% of all divorces) in 2000, and 120,497 (57.8%) in 2018. In cases of divorcing parents with minors, 84.5% of mothers and 11.9% of fathers take parental rights and duties, whereas for cases decided in family courts, statistics point to 93.4% of mothers and 9% of fathers. As a consequence, it is commonly observed that a resident parent is usually the mother and a nonresident parent is usually the father. Under such circumstances, the importance of continuing contact between a minor and a non-resident parent is recognised among specialists working in child welfare contexts, and several research projects have been conducted exploring how ‘contact’ operates to promote the welfare of the child. In 2011, section 766 of the Civil Code (hereinafter cited as ‘Civ.’) was revised, and this now specifically refers to ‘contact’, requiring divorcing parents to tick the relevant box on the divorce notice form in order to confirm that custody arrangements have been made following divorce. Meanwhile, some non-profit organisations and self-help groups now provide various services for supporting parents and minors in relation to contact matters. At the present time, it could be said that no one would deny the importance of post-divorce contact between a minor and a non-resident parent from the viewpoint of achieving the interests of a minor, as long as contact is conducted in safe and comfortable settings. However, there are varieties of interpretation among lawyers regarding whether ‘contact’ is to be understood as the right, or a mere interest, of a minor and a non-resident parent.