Prepared for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General, and other Government
Departments and Committees
Author: Daniel Madden
Date: 05 July 2025
Why I’m Writing
This policy brief supplements my earlier submission titled Policy Brief: Strengthening Australia’s
Consular Response to Parental Separation in Japan, prepared in June 2025 for Senator the Hon Penny
Wong. That document focused on immediate reforms and prospective policy changes to protect Australian families currently at risk under Japan’s sole custody regime.
This brief addresses the ongoing harm suffered by families who remain permanently separated under Japan’s past laws.
Japan’s recent decision to pass legislation allowing joint custody after divorce has been widely reported as a significant reform. However, these changes are prospective and have not yet come into force, with implementation expected by 2026 (Asahi Shimbun, 2024; ABC News Australia, 2024).
Moreover, they offer no remedy for parents like me who have already suffered permanent separation from our children under Japan’s previous legal framework (Civil Code of Japan, Art. 819).
NGOs and media reports estimate significant numbers of international parental child abduction cases globally, though precise figures vary and remain difficult to confirm. At least 90 Australian parents are formally recorded by DFAT as permanently estranged from their children in Japan. I am one of them.
My daughter, Matilda Haruka Madden, was born in Bowral, NSW, in 2007 and is an Australian citizen by birth. We moved to Japan as a family in 2010. Following our divorce in 2013, her mother retained sole custody under Japanese law. Since 2016, I have been wholly cut off from any contact with my daughter. Matilda turned 18 this year, and I cannot even confirm whether she is alive.
Japan’s new laws create no pathway for reconnecting families already affected. Many parents and now-adult children have been left without legal ties, contact, or any official acknowledgment of the harm caused.
Background
Japan’s family law has long operated on a system of sole custody following divorce. Under Article 819 of the Civil Code, non-custodial parents lose all legal standing, including rights to visitation or decision-making in their child’s life (Civil Code of Japan). The administrative koseki (family registry) system further complicates matters. Unlike Japanese nationals, foreign parents do not hold a koseki of
their own and may appear only as annotations in the Japanese parent’s koseki. After divorce, children are typically registered solely under the Japanese custodial parent’s koseki, and the foreign parent’s name may no longer appear prominently, if at all (Ministry of Justice, Japan, 2025).
While it is legally possible for a foreign parent to request access to a child’s koseki if they can prove paternity and know the child’s honseki, such access is often practically denied or administratively
Policy Brief: Japan’s Sole Custody Legacy – Recognition, Reconnection, and Redress
Prepared by Daniel Madden, June 2025
obstructed. Moreover, the koseki does not necessarily provide information about the child’s current whereabouts. The result is an administrative and social barrier that reinforces alienation and complicates any effort at reconnection.
Even after Japan acceded to the Hague Convention in 2014, practical enforcement of contact or return orders has remained limited, particularly in international cases (U.S. Department of State, 2023). Japanese courts have often prioritised the status quo, rarely compelling contact or return to non custodial parents – especially when allegations of domestic violence or emotional distress are raised. Courts retain broad discretion in such cases and may act without strict evidentiary requirements,
making it difficult to challenge these claims or secure enforcement.
In May 2024, Japan’s parliament passed reforms introducing an option for joint custody following
divorce. However:
• The law is not yet in force, with implementation pending until at least 2026.
• It applies only to future divorces, with no confirmed retroactive effect.
• Joint custody will require both parents’ agreement or a family court ruling; if one parent objects, courts can still deny shared custody.
• Courts retain broad discretion and may prioritise existing sole custody arrangements, especially where allegations of domestic violence or emotional harm are raised.
• The law sets no strict evidentiary standard for such allegations, allowing decisions to be made without formal proof, and potentially excluding joint custody based on untested claims.
Parents of Adult Children
For parents like me, whose children have now reached adulthood, the situation remains unchanged. Under Japanese law, parental rights end entirely when a child turns 18 (previously 20). There is no legal mechanism for state-facilitated contact once a child becomes an adult, and Japanese authorities treat the matter as strictly private (Civil Code of Japan).
The consequences are profound:
• Parents have no avenue for state-supported contact or even basic confirmation of whether their adult child is alive.
• Many adult children may believe that one parent abandoned them, having grown up hearing only a single narrative.
• There is no official record or tracing mechanism to help adult children reconnect with the
erased parent.
In most Western countries, while the state does not enforce contact between adult children and parents, the legal bond remains intact. In Japan, the combination of sole custody laws and the koseki system has severed both legal and social ties, leaving parents and children isolated (Ministry of Justice, Japan, 2025).
The Need for Acknowledgment and Redress
Policy Brief: Japan’s Sole Custody Legacy – Recognition, Reconnection, and Redress
Prepared by Daniel Madden, June 2025
Japan’s recent reforms do nothing for families already harmed by the sole custody system. To date,
there has been no official acknowledgment of the harm suffered by parents or children who were
permanently separated. There are no official systems in Japan to help reconnect adult children with
left-behind parents, nor has there been significant discussion of:
• Official apologies.
• Symbolic recognition of past injustices.
• Financial or psychological support for affected families (U.S. Department of State, 2023;
Ministry of Justice, Japan, 2025).
Globally, other nations have recognised past injustices, such as Australia’s acknowledgment of forced adoptions and Canada’s redress for residential schools. Acknowledgment and redress can include:
• Official apologies.
• Financial compensation.
• Truth and reconciliation processes.
• Practical tracing services to reconnect families.
No country has yet established reparations specifically for families separated under sole custody laws, although reparations have been offered in other contexts such as forced adoption (Australian Senate Community Affairs References Committee, 2012).
From a human rights perspective, there is a compelling argument that past harm should not simply be ignored because laws have changed.
Policy Recommendations
I believe the Australian Government should support:
• Diplomatic engagement with Japan to:
o Encourage an official acknowledgment of the harm caused by Japan’s sole custody
laws.
o Develop a tracing system to help reconnect adult children and estranged parents.
o Advocate for official communications to adult children explaining that their
estrangement was caused by legal structures rather than parental abandonment, and
clarifying that many estranged parents remain open to reconnecting.
• Official recognition domestically that:
o Japan’s new laws, while positive, do not resolve past injustices.
o Australians affected by prior custody laws deserve support, acknowledgment, and
practical assistance.
• Public guidance to warn Australian families that:
o The new joint custody system, although passed into law, is not yet in force, with
implementation expected by 2026.
Policy Brief: Japan’s Sole Custody Legacy – Recognition, Reconnection, and Redress
Prepared by Daniel Madden, June 2025
o The new joint custody system is not retroactive.
o The legal and practical risks of permanent estrangement remain significant.
• Practical support measures, including: o Psychological counselling for parents and adult children seeking to reconnect,
recognising that years of one-sided narratives may have shaped beliefs and identities.
o A structured system for neutral messaging from parents willing to reconnect, with clear
protocols for offering these messages if an adult child comes forward.
o Legal and emotional guidance for Australian parents attempting to re-establish ties
under Japanese law.
• Exploration of symbolic or financial redress, acknowledging the deep emotional and
psychological harm suffered by left-behind parents and children.
Why This Matters
My daughter was born here. She is both an Australian and a Japanese citizen. I have done nothing wrong. And yet, I cannot contact her, cannot hear from her, and cannot even confirm whether she is alive.
There are other Australian parents like me – some known to DFAT, others likely not. Some are still fighting. Others have exhausted their legal options. Some parents involved in similar cases globally have passed away without ever regaining contact with their children.
These measures are not simply legal remedies. They are essential to repairing the emotional damage caused when a child grows up exposed only to one parent’s narrative, believing the other parent abandoned them. They create the possibility that parents and children might still find one another and build relationships as adults. Without these efforts, the harm inflicted by Japan’s sole custody system risks becoming permanent and irreparable.
I am not pursuing litigation or adversarial legal action. Instead, I seek constructive policy and diplomatic measures to prevent further parental separations and to help reconnect those Australian families already affected.
While I speak only for myself, I know there are other Australian parents who share these experiences. I
believe we deserve better than silence. So do our children.
References
1. Civil Code of Japan, Article 819. [Available via Japanese Law Translation, Ministry of Justice,
Japan.]
2. Asahi Shimbun. “Japan’s parliament passes bill to introduce joint custody after divorce.” The
Asahi Shimbun, 17 May 2024.
3. ABC News Australia. “Japan passes joint child custody law for divorced parents.” ABC News
Australia, 18 May 2024.
4. U.S. Department of State. 2023 Annual Report on International Child Abduction – Japan.
Policy Brief: Japan’s Sole Custody Legacy – Recognition, Reconnection, and Redress
Prepared by Daniel Madden, June 2025
5. Ministry of Justice, Japan. “About the Family Register System (Koseki).” Accessed June 2025.
http://www.moj.go.jp/EN/MINJI/minji06.html
6. Australian Senate Community Affairs References Committee. Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices, 2012.
7. Australian Government. National Apology for Forced Adoptions, 21 March 2013.
8. Government of Canada. Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report, 2015.