Abstract
It is now widely believed that the funds of a person who lacks capacity should not for any reason be regarded as a family resource, and. more importantly, that the right to self-decision (autonomy) should be respected carefully all through the society, even between family members. Furthermore, in the last 10 years, a theoretical change has been emerging that emphasizes the importance of empowering people with limited mental capacity towards their own decision-making and is now becoming recognised in many jurisdictions.
In this new culture, families are not automatically treated as advocates for other family members simply due to their relation to the person by birth or marriage. Families must be chosen by the person formally (eg. through the power of attorney), or must apply to the courts for the legal authority to act as deputies for the person lacking capacity (e.g. a guardianship order). In this sense, it seems that no special status is conferred upon families in modem adult guardianship law. If so. where have they gone? It might be said that, under the contemporary adult guardianship system, families have become only one part of the caring society which maintains an alertness to the welfare of its members. The concept of Civil Society is showing its appearance here.
In this paper, through a comparative study of the laws and practices of the UK and Japan. I will reconsider the role of families, and explore their interrelationship with Civil Society and the State in the contemporary adult guardianship system. Particularly, through an analysis of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the UK. I will find the operation of the 'Civil Society' which the State tries to encourage, strengthen and sometimes utilize.
https://ror.org/00bx6dj65 
