My Child Was Caught with Cannabis in Japan: Family Court, Protective Measures and the Effect on Residence

Your child has been picked up for cannabis possession, and the police have called. It would be strange not to feel your mind go blank. If your family is living in Japan on a status of residence (在留資格), the worry runs deeper still. Juvenile cases do not proceed like adult criminal cases, and their relationship to grounds for deportation (退去強制) is not the same either. This article walks through how a juvenile case moves, when questions about residence can arise, and what a family can do.

Key points

• A juvenile case is in principle referred to the family court, and a protective measure is different in nature from a criminal conviction.
• Article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法24条4号チ) applies to a person who has been convicted, and a protective measure is not considered to fall within it.
• If, however, the case is referred to the prosecutor, tried, and results in a conviction, sub-item (chi) applies regardless of age.
• Article 24, item 4, sub-item (to) makes separate provision for juveniles sentenced to imprisonment whose long term exceeds three years.
• Among people under 20 arrested for cannabis offences, 85.4 per cent were first-time offenders, so most such cases are a first encounter with the system.

If my child receives a protective measure, will they be deported?

To take the conclusion first: a protective measure is not a criminal conviction, and it is therefore not considered to satisfy the requirement in article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act. That provision makes a person who has been convicted of violating the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, the Act on Regulation of Cannabis Plant Cultivation, the Opium Act, the Stimulants Control Act, the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act, or Chapter XIV of Part II of the Penal Code subject to deportation. What it captures is a finding of guilt in a criminal trial.

This concerns the entrance to the system, however, and it does not mean there is no effect at all. What happened and how the case unfolded may still be looked at as conduct-related circumstances when a future application to extend the period of stay is examined.

How does a juvenile case proceed in Japan?

After the investigating authorities have dealt with the matter, a juvenile case is in principle referred to the family court. A family court probation officer conducts an investigation, protective detention for assessment may be ordered where necessary, and the hearing ends in an outcome such as no measure, probationary supervision, or committal to a juvenile training school. Whereas an adult criminal trial is a procedure for imposing punishment, the juvenile process is built around the sound development of the young person, and that difference runs deep.

Depending on the nature of the case and the age of the young person, however, the family court may refer the case back to the prosecutor. This is what is generally called referral for criminal prosecution. In that event an ordinary criminal trial follows, and if it results in a conviction, the question under article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) arises squarely, whatever the person's age. It is not accurate to assume that because the person is a minor there can be no effect on residence.

About article 24, item 4, sub-item (to)

The Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act contains a separate provision for young people. Article 24, item 4, sub-item (to) makes a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Act who, on or after 1 November 1951, has been sentenced to imprisonment whose long term exceeds three years subject to deportation. It captures the situation where the young person was tried criminally and received a sentence of a certain weight.

For drug offences, sub-item (chi) operates separately from sub-item (to). Because sub-item (chi) contains no limitation as to type of sentence or length, and the fact of conviction is itself the requirement, a conviction following referral for criminal prosecution can give rise to a ground for deportation regardless of how heavy the sentence is. Whether the case is resolved within the family court process is therefore a major fork in the road from the residence standpoint as well.

What is the current picture for drug offences among young people?

According to the National Police Agency's report on the organised crime situation in 2025, the first-time offender rate for cannabis offences was 72.6 per cent, and among those under 20 it reached 85.4 per cent. In 2025, arrests for drug offences totalled 14,574, of which 6,832 involved cannabis, the highest figure on record.

What these numbers show is that most cannabis cases involving young people are a first arrest. It is not unusual for a young person to have been encouraged by those around them and to have tried it with little sense of the risk. Being a first offence does not automatically lead to lenient treatment, but there is a foundation on which the circumstances can be explained carefully. Rather than spending time blaming your child, we would encourage you to put your energy into understanding accurately what happened and into rebuilding the environment ahead.

What should families of students or dependants watch out for?

Where the status of residence carries a fixed period, losing the basis to stay does not require a ground for deportation; it is enough that an extension or change is not approved. Conduct is among the matters considered in that examination, and the nature of the case and the pattern of life afterwards will be looked at.

In addition, if the young person leaves school, the very activity underlying the status of residence becomes unstable. How to maintain the relationship with the school, and whether returning or transferring is possible, are matters to clarify early. Families find the process easier to manage when the following are organised in advance.

• Confirm the type of status of residence your child holds and when the period of stay expires
• Decide, after discussing with defence counsel, whether and how to explain matters to the school
• Assemble material showing who lives in the household, how the family is supported, and the basis of daily life
• Consider consulting a medical institution and putting a household structure in place to prevent relapse
• Understand your child's friendships and living environment as facts, rather than as grounds for blame

The family's own conduct carries weight throughout the process

In juvenile proceedings, the family's capacity to supervise and the home environment are examined directly. Being able to show concretely who will watch over the young person and how daily routines will be rebuilt bears on the outcome itself.

That work also carries over into the residence context. If special permission to stay (在留特別許可) is ever sought, article 50(5) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act provides for consideration of the reason for wishing to remain, family relationships, conduct, the length of stay, the need for humanitarian consideration and other matters. In addition, the grant and refusal examples published by the Immigration Services Agency (出入国在留管理庁) since 2004 are an accumulation of precedents in which the administration itself judged permission to be appropriate, and where permission has been granted in cases with similar circumstances, different treatment can be questioned under the principle of equality in article 14(1) of the Constitution.

Our office, and cases we have handled

At Funado International Law Office, attorney Daisuke Matsumura personally handles the matter from the first response through to the end of the process. Having the same lawyer meet the young person and work with the family allows arguments to be built around the actual situation at home. For Chinese we have a dedicated interpreter on staff who is experienced in cases involving foreign nationals, available as an interpreter working for the client, separate from the interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities. For languages other than Chinese, we arrange an interpreter according to the needs of the case. Extensions and other residence procedures after the case ends are handled together with an affiliated administrative scrivener.

Past matters include a woman in her twenties accused of withdrawing money as part of an organised fraud scheme, for whom a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) was obtained after we argued the subjective circumstances as a whole. In another, a client who had lost his status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted obtained special permission to stay on a single application through analysis of past grant examples. We also have experience in international criminal cases and cases tried before lay judges.

The juvenile process is built to support a young person in getting back on their feet, and what a family does is assessed directly within it. If the environment is rebuilt step by step, the road ahead is by no means closed. Setting a course early, together with defence counsel, opens the way. Please note that this article is a general explanation; for your own case, consult a lawyer directly. Past results reflect the particular circumstances of those cases and are not a guarantee of a similar outcome.

This article reflects the law as at August 2026.

About the author

Daisuke Matsumura, Attorney at Law
Dai-Ichi Tokyo Bar Association (registration no. 59077, admitted 2019)
Funado International Law Office (Fuse Building Main Wing 3F, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo)
Practice focused on criminal defence for foreign nationals and immigration proceedings.
Results include an acquittal in a Stimulants Control Act case (possession for the purpose of profit), non-prosecution in organised fraud cases, and special permission to stay in cases regarded as difficult.

Funado International Law Office
Website: https://matsumura-lawoffice.jp/
WeChat ID: matsumura1119