A private family matter and an ordinary day at work

Some employees go to work while also supporting a relative whose health requires attention. One person may need time for medical appointments; another may eventually need a longer break. Deciding what to tell an employer can be as difficult as deciding which support to ask for.

On October 9, 2026, Japanese company Beta Trip published an online survey of 322 members of the 'encourage' community for relatives of people experiencing conditions such as depression and bipolar disorder. The survey ran from August 25 to September 7, and 275 respondents were employed. Among those working respondents, 40% had not told anyone at work about the relative's situation.

Among employed respondents, 43% said workplace support did not exist or they did not know whether it existed. Some 67% said they would use, or consider using depending on its content, a workplace consultation channel for family concerns. Among respondents who had used support, 69% said it was helpful. The distinction between having a benefit and being able to find it is worth examining.

The sample matters: 40% is not a statistic about every Japanese employee

The respondents came from a specific, voluntary family-support community, not a probability sample of Japan's workforce. Across the 322 people surveyed, 63% were spouses or partners of the person receiving support, 23% were parents and 10% were children. Their experiences cannot be treated as representative of all employees or of all people with caregiving responsibilities.

The denominators also differ. The 40%, 43% and 67% statistics refer to the 275 employed participants. The 69% figure applies to those who had already used a workplace benefit; it is not evidence that 69% of workers had accessed support. The 43% combines respondents who said no program existed with those who did not know if one existed.

With those caveats, the findings still raise a practical question: when someone has not told a manager or HR about a family situation, what route exists for them to learn about possible support before making a sensitive disclosure?

Not disclosing is not proof that people distrust their employer

Fear of effects on a career, reluctance to share sensitive family information, or no immediate need to seek adjustments could all be reasons someone stays silent. But the study does not establish why those 40% did not tell anyone. It would be unwarranted to label all of them ashamed, afraid or dissatisfied with management.

Employees also need different forms of help. One person may need a temporary leave, another only an hour to accompany a relative to a clinic, and another may simply want reliable information about eligibility. Knowing a family member's diagnosis does not automatically reveal what support would be appropriate.

The objective should not be making every employee share a complete medical history. It should be allowing people to learn what choices exist, while respecting their decision about how much family information to disclose. Access to information is not a mandate for intimate disclosure.

Japan expanded employers' caregiving-information duties in April 2025

Revisions to Japan's Child Care and Family Care Leave Act took effect on April 1, 2025. When a worker informs the employer that they face caregiving responsibilities, the employer must individually explain relevant leave and work–care reconciliation arrangements, where to apply and caregiving-leave benefit information, and confirm the employee's intentions. The explanation may not discourage use.

Employers must also take at least one of four workplace measures: training on caregiving leave and support, setting up a consultation structure, providing examples of employees using the arrangements, or communicating a policy encouraging their use. The law does not require every employer to establish a separate specialist help desk if another prescribed measure is used.

Importantly, these are not only duties triggered by an employee's disclosure. Employers must also provide information about available arrangements within the statutory period around employees turning 40. Early general information and individualized guidance when care needs arise are distinct obligations.

What happens before an employee tells HR?

The duty to give individualized information often begins when an employee tells the employer that caregiving responsibilities have arisen. Yet 40% of the employed respondents in this particular survey had not communicated the family situation at work. There can be a gap between a regulation that activates following notification and an individual deciding to notify.

That does not prove that all 40% were eligible for statutory leave or that their employers failed in a legal duty. Having a relative with a mental illness is not identical to the statutory condition of needing continuing care. The employer's pre-disclosure information and workplace-environment duties also remain important regardless of particular employees' circumstances.

Still, the combined 43% who reported support as unavailable or unknown matters operationally. It cannot be used to calculate a company-law violation rate. It can prompt a narrower, useful inquiry: can a person find the correct policy and contact without first having to give a personal account of a relative's condition?

Mental disabilities can qualify, but a diagnosis alone does not establish leave entitlement

Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare defines the qualifying care-needs condition as a family member requiring continuous care over a period of at least two weeks owing to injury, illness, or physical or mental disability. It is not limited to caring for an elderly parent with a physical illness. Qualifying relatives include spouses (including de facto partners), parents, children, grandparents, siblings, grandchildren and parents-in-law.

Subject to the employee's legal eligibility, statutory family caregiving leave can total up to 93 days per qualifying family member, split into no more than three periods. A separate caregiving absence entitlement can cover activities such as accompanying a relative to an appointment: generally five days per year for one qualifying relative, ten for two or more, normally taken by day or hour. Paid or unpaid treatment depends on the employer's rules.

A mental-health diagnosis by itself is not a universal leave entitlement. The actual level and duration of care needed, qualifying family relationship and the employee's work status and other requirements must be assessed. The two-week definition describes the care-needs condition; it is not a requirement to take at least two weeks of continuous leave.

A company cannot impose a blanket doctor's-certificate requirement

MHLW guidance for employers says they may ask an employee applying for caregiving leave for documents demonstrating that the family member meets the relevant care-needs condition. Such proof is not limited to a doctor's certificate; the documents should be ones the employee can reasonably provide.

The ministry also explains that company rules cannot impose a doctor's certificate as a uniform mandatory attachment to every caregiving-leave application. This does not mean that no supporting documentation can ever be requested. It means verification should be proportionate and based on the applicable rules, not an automatic demand for a particular medical document.

Employers can distinguish an initial confidential conversation about work scheduling from a subsequent eligibility check for a statutory benefit. That may reduce unnecessary distribution of private family information. It is Banseog's operational suggestion derived from the public evidence, not an intervention validated by the survey.

BANSEOG VIEW | Eligibility, awareness, access and benefit are separate questions

In this study, 40% of employed respondents had said nothing to anyone at work about their family's situation and 67% would consider a workplace consultation point. Those figures do not establish that adding a help desk would cause greater disclosure or by how much. Nor do they mean that disclosure itself must be the ultimate goal.

An employer can examine four distinct stages: whether people know the policy exists, whether they can ask about it without needless disclosure, whether eligible workers can actually apply, and whether those who use an arrangement find it useful. Low application counts alone cannot distinguish low need, lack of awareness, ineligibility and a conscious decision not to use support.

The stronger management question is not 'Which employees have a mentally ill relative?' It is 'Could an employee who wants to keep family matters private still find out where to go if support becomes necessary?' The existence of a benefit and its practical reach are different measures of workforce resilience.

BANSEOG VIEW

Banseog View — A support policy existing does not prove that employees can reach it

The 40% non-disclosure and 67% consultation-interest figures reflect different responses; neither gives a causal estimate of what a new support channel would change.

Japan's April 2025 reform requires both individualized information after notice and earlier general information and workplace readiness.

Employers should examine discovery, confidential access and practical support without systematically collecting personal family medical histories.

SOURCES

Primary sources and references

As of October 11, 2026. Beta Trip's online survey ran August 25–September 7 among 322 self-selected members of a specific community for relatives of people with mental illness; it is not representative of all Japanese workers or caregivers. The 40%, 43%, 67% are among 275 employed respondents. Reasons for non-disclosure were not established. The 43% combines 'no support policy' and 'does not know'. The 69% is helpfulness reported by prior support users, not a usage rate across the 275. The 2025 reform includes pre-disclosure employer obligations as well as individualized guidance after an employee reports caregiving needs. A mental illness diagnosis alone does not automatically meet statutory caregiving eligibility; the care-needs condition and employee qualifications matter. Employers cannot make a doctor's certificate a blanket condition, but may reasonably request certain evidence. Banseog's access and workforce-policy implications are analysis, not verified causal effects or individual legal/medical advice.