The family court, established on January 1, 1945 as part of the post-war judicial reform, is a court specialized in dealing comprehensively with the cases of domestic disputes and juvenile delinquencies and crimes by conducting conciliation proceedings and determination proceedings. The family court system has been hailed as one of the most successful examples of the post-war judicial reform, together with the success of the Legal Training and Research Institute, which was established to provide a uniform education and training system for the three branches of the legal profession––namely, attorneys, public prosecutors, and judges.
The summary court is sometimes described as the successor of district courts that existed under the Act of the Constitution of Courts. Although the description may be true as to its formality, the summary court was in effect established, based on democratic principles, to make the courts system more accessible to the general public as a forum for resolving common disputes. The summary courts have jurisdiction over civil cases, conciliation proceedings, etc. involving claims under a certain monetary amount, and minor criminal cases.
|
In the Recommendations of the Justice System Reform Council - For a Justice System to Support Japan in the 21st Century published by the government in June of 2001, the following three points were recommended as part of the reinforcement of the functions of the family courts and summary courts: (i) The consolidation in family courts of actions related to personal status, etc.; (ii) the securing of diverse sources of persons to serve as conciliation members, judicial commissioners, and court councilors, etc.; (iii) the expansion of the jurisdiction of summary courts and substantial increase in the upper limit on the amount in dispute in procedures for small-claims litigation.
With respect to (i), actions related to personal status, etc. (jinji sosho jiken), such as matters of divorce and acknowledgment of a child, were consolidated into family courts in April of 2004. Before that time, in those actions, a petition for family conciliation in principle had to be filed first in the family court, seeking to settle the dispute through conciliation. If the family conciliation failed and the dispute was to be settled through litigation, the case had to be filed in the district court. This division of jurisdiction into the conciliation procedure of the family court and the procedure for actions related to personal status of the district court was difficult to understand for the public, and the reform measure was implemented to resolve this problem. In addition, unlike in family courts, no domestic matter examiners were stationed in district courts to provide expertise on psychology and other sciences of human relationships. This made the hearings by district courts inadequate for certain disputes, such as those involving the determination of parental custody over a child, and it was suggested that those cases should be handled by family courts where the examiners were stationed.
As to (ii), due to the efforts of judicial authorities, much improvement has been made in securing diverse sources of persons from the private sector to serve as conciliators in civil and family conciliation proceedings, judicial commissioners in civil cases in the summary court, and court councilors in family affairs adjudication proceedings, etc. In addition, the new system of court councilors was introduced to coincide with the transfer of actions related to personal status to the jurisdiction of family courts mentioned above.
With regard to (iii), the summary courts now have jurisdiction over civil cases involving claims for amounts not exceeding 1,400,000 yen, raised from 900,000 yen previously in force. The maximum limit in small-claims cases has also been raised to 600,000 yen from the previous limit of 300,000 yen.
The family courts and summary courts have the characteristic of being closer to the people than any other courts. Their mission to build “a more accessible, user-friendly, easily understandable, and reliable justice system for the people” has been well underway, and the courts, as the courts for the people, are expected to make continuous efforts in implementing the reform in the future.
|