Duty of Support Among Relatives in Japan: Who is Obligated to Provide Financial Assistance and Under What Circumstances?

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 8 min read

The concept of familial support, or fuyō (扶養) in Japanese, is a significant aspect of Japanese family law, establishing legal obligations for relatives to provide financial assistance to one another under certain circumstances. This system of private support operates alongside public welfare programs, creating a framework where family responsibility is often the first port of call for individuals unable to sustain themselves. This article delves into the Japanese Civil Code's provisions on the duty of support, outlining who is obligated, the nature of these obligations, how they are determined, and their interaction with public assistance.

The Japanese Civil Code dedicates a specific chapter (Chapter 9 of Book IV) to the duty of support, laying down the fundamental rules. These rules are characterized by a degree of flexibility, often relying on mutual agreement between the parties or, failing that, the discretionary judgment of the Family Court.

A. Categories of Support Obligors (Article 877)

Article 877 of the Civil Code defines two main categories of relatives who may bear a duty of support:

  1. Direct Obligation (Paragraph 1): Lineal Blood Relatives and Siblings
    The primary and direct legal duty of support falls upon lineal blood relatives (直系血族 - chokkei ketsuzoku) and siblings (兄弟姉妹 - kyōdai shimai).This obligation arises automatically by virtue of the relationship if the conditions of need on one side and capacity to support on the other are met.
    • Lineal Blood Relatives: This includes ascendants (parents, grandparents, etc.) and descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.). The parent-child support obligation is the most fundamental and frequently encountered.
    • Siblings: Brothers and sisters also have a direct mutual duty of support.
  2. Court-Ordered Obligation (Paragraph 2): Relatives within the Third Degree of Kinship
    Beyond the direct obligors, the Family Court has the authority to impose a duty of support on other relatives within the third degree of kinship (三親等内の親族 - sanshintō-nai no shinzoku) if "special circumstances" (特別の事情 - tokubetsu no jijō) exist.
    • Scope: Relatives within the third degree include uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, and grandparents towards grandchildren (if parents, who are closer lineal relatives, cannot provide support).
    • "Special Circumstances": This is a discretionary determination by the court. Examples of "special circumstances" might include situations where the person needing support had previously provided significant care or financial assistance to the relative from whom support is now sought, or where there is a history of close cohabitation and mutual reliance, and no closer obligated relatives have the capacity to support. Courts tend to interpret "special circumstances" strictly, meaning this type of court-ordered support is not commonly imposed without compelling reasons.

B. Determining the Order, Extent, and Method of Support (Articles 878, 879)

When multiple individuals are obligated to provide support, or when multiple individuals require support from a single obligor with limited capacity, the Civil Code provides a flexible mechanism for determination:

  • Priority of Agreement: The order in which support is to be provided, as well as the extent and method of support, should first be determined by agreement among all relevant parties (i.e., all potential obligors and obligees) (Article 878, Article 879).
  • Family Court Adjudication: If no agreement can be reached, or if discussion is impossible, any interested party can request the Family Court to make a determination. The court will consider:
    • The needs of the person requiring support (obligee).
    • The financial capacity and resources of the person(s) obligated to provide support (obligor).
    • "All other circumstances," which can include the history of the relationship between the parties, their conduct, age, health, and social standing (Article 879).
  • Methods of Support: While monetary payments are the most common and judicially enforceable method, support can also be provided by "taking in" the obligee and providing direct care (hikitori fuyō - 引取扶養). However, this form of support generally cannot be compelled against the obligor's will due to the personal nature of cohabitation and care.

C. The Nature of the Support Duty: Seikatsu Hoji Gimu vs. Seikatsu Fujo Gimu

A crucial, albeit somewhat traditional and academically debated, distinction in Japanese support law is between two levels of obligation:

  1. Seikatsu Hoji Gimu (生活保持義務 - Duty to Maintain a Similar Standard of Living):
    This is a higher level of support duty. It implies that the obligor must ensure the obligee can maintain a standard of living comparable to their own, essentially sharing their resources. This duty is generally considered to apply:
    • Between spouses (as part of their mutual duties of cooperation and support under Articles 752 and 760).
    • From parents to their minor (unemancipated) children.
      The classic description, originating from Professor Zennosuke Nakagawa, is the duty to share "even the last slice of meat and the last grain of rice."
  2. Seikatsu Fujo Gimu (生活扶助義務 - Duty to Provide for Minimum Living Needs):
    This is a more limited duty of support. It generally applies to other obligated relatives, such as:
    • Adult children supporting their elderly parents.
    • Siblings supporting each other.
      Under this duty, the obligor is typically required to provide support only from their "surplus" after maintaining their own socially appropriate standard of living. The aim is to ensure the obligee's minimum living needs are met.

While this distinction is deeply rooted in Japanese family law scholarship and has influenced court practice, some modern commentators argue its practical utility is diminishing, viewing the difference more as a spectrum of intensity rather than a rigid dichotomy. Nevertheless, it reflects an underlying principle that the core family unit (spouses, parents and minor children) bears a stronger, more encompassing support obligation than more distant relatives.

D. Inalienability and Personal Nature of the Right to Support (Article 881)

The right to receive support (fuyō o ukeru kenri) is considered highly personal to the individual in need. Article 881 of the Civil Code states that this right cannot be disposed of. This means:

  • It cannot be assigned to a third party.
  • It generally cannot be waived in advance (though specific agreements on the amount or method of support, once circumstances for support arise, are possible).
  • It is not subject to inheritance by the obligee's heirs, except for specific installments of support that have already accrued and become due but remain unpaid at the time of the obligee's death.
  • It generally cannot be seized by the obligee's creditors or subjected to set-off.

This inalienability underscores the purpose of support: to provide for the immediate and ongoing essential needs of the recipient.

II. Specific Support Relationships

The general principles of support are applied differently depending on the specific relationship involved.

A. Parents' Duty to Support Minor Children

The duty of parents to support their minor children is fundamental and is primarily a seikatsu hoji gimu. This obligation exists regardless of whether the parents are married, divorced, or if one parent has sole parental authority (shinken). Even a non-custodial parent retains the financial duty to contribute to the child's upbringing. Disputes regarding child support are very common in divorce cases and are handled by the Family Court, often based on standardized child support calculation tables.

B. Adult Children's Duty to Support Elderly Parents

With Japan's rapidly aging population, the support of elderly parents by their adult children has become an increasingly significant social and legal issue.

  • Nature of Duty: This is typically considered a seikatsu fujo gimu. Adult children are expected to provide support if their parents are in need and if the children have the financial capacity to do so after meeting their own and their immediate family's needs.
  • Multiple Children: If there are multiple adult children, they are generally all obligated according to their respective capacities. The Family Court can determine the specific contribution of each child if they cannot agree. One child cannot simply claim to be responsible for only a pro-rata share if other siblings are unable to contribute their part; the primary obligation is to ensure the parent's needs are met, with internal apportionment among the children being a secondary issue.
  • Homemaker Spouse's Obligation: If an adult child is a homemaker and does not have independent income, their capacity to support their parents may be assessed based on the overall financial situation of their household and their access to disposable funds derived from their spouse's income. For example, a Tokyo Family Court decision on November 7, 1968 (東京家審昭和43年11月7日家月21巻3号65頁) considered the funds freely available to the wife from her husband's income in assessing her support capacity.
  • Past Support: Claims for past unpaid support from adult children to parents are generally possible, but courts may be more inclined to consider the duty as arising from the time a clear demand for support was made, especially since it's a seikatsu fujo gimu.

C. Sibling Support (兄弟扶養 - Kyōdai Fuyō)

Siblings have a direct legal duty to support one another under Article 877(1). This obligation, while legally established, can create considerable hardship, particularly where one sibling sacrifices personal opportunities (like marriage or career advancement) to support a dependent brother or sister.
The interaction of this duty with the Public Assistance Act's "household unit principle" (setai tan'i no gensoku) – where eligibility for public aid is often assessed based on the entire household's income – can mean that a needy sibling is denied public assistance if their cohabiting sibling has even a modest income. This area of support law is often cited by legal scholars as needing review, with arguments that the burden of sibling support should perhaps be less stringent than that between parents and children, and that public support should be more readily available in such cases.

III. Interaction with Public Assistance (生活保護 - Seikatsu Hogo)

A critical aspect of Japan's support system is the relationship between private familial support and public assistance provided under the Public Assistance Act.

The Principle of Subsidiarity (補足性の原則 - Hosokusei no Gensoku)

Article 4 of the Public Assistance Act establishes the "principle of subsidiarity," which effectively prioritizes private support (from the individual's own assets and abilities, and from obligated relatives) over public aid. This means:

  • Individuals are generally expected to exhaust private means of support before becoming eligible for public assistance.
  • Welfare authorities often inquire about the capacity of relatives to provide support when an application for public assistance is made.

However, if obligated relatives, despite having the capacity, fail to provide necessary support and the person is in "urgent need" (kyūhaku na jiyū), public assistance can be granted (Article 4, Paragraph 3, Public Assistance Act). In such cases, the government entity that provided the assistance can then seek reimbursement from the obligated relatives for the amount of support they should have provided, up to the extent of their legal duty (Article 77, Public Assistance Act). This reimbursement can be determined by agreement or by Family Court adjudication.

The precise interpretation and application of this subsidiarity principle, particularly the extent to which it acts as a strict eligibility barrier versus a factual priority, has been a subject of debate.

IV. Procedural Aspects and Enforcement

  • Role of the Family Court: The Family Court is the central venue for resolving disputes regarding the duty of support when parties cannot reach an agreement. It handles matters through conciliation and adjudication.
  • Claims for Past Support: As discussed, claims for past due support are generally permissible. For duties characterized as seikatsu hoji gimu, the obligation is seen as arising continuously with the need. For seikatsu fujo gimu, it's often considered to crystallize upon a demand for support, so retroactive claims might be limited to the period after such demand.
  • Reimbursement Among Obligors (Kyūshō - 求償): If one support obligor provides support that should have been shared by other co-obligors, they can seek reimbursement from the others for their respective shares. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in a decision on February 13, 1951 (最判昭和26年2月13日民集5巻3号47頁), reasoning that a more compassionate relative should not be solely burdened. Such claims for reimbursement among co-obligors are typically handled by the Family Court. If a third party (not a legal obligor) voluntarily provides support, they may also seek reimbursement from the actual obligors, usually through ordinary civil litigation based on unjust enrichment or benevolent intervention in another's affairs (jimu kanri).

V. Conclusion

The Japanese Civil Code establishes a comprehensive, albeit flexible, system for the private duty of support among relatives. It prioritizes close family ties—lineal blood relatives and siblings—while allowing for court-ordered support from a wider circle of kin in special circumstances. The distinction between the higher-level seikatsu hoji gimu and the more limited seikatsu fujo gimu reflects a nuanced approach to the expected intensity of support based on the nature of the relationship.

The Family Court plays a crucial role in tailoring support arrangements to the specific needs and capacities of the individuals involved when mutual agreement fails. While this system of private support is given priority, it operates in the context of public assistance programs, creating an ongoing dialogue about the appropriate balance between familial responsibility and state welfare provision, particularly in light of Japan's aging society and evolving family structures.