The independent study was ordered by the government after it rejected calls to introduce a legal presumption to give non-resident parents contact in the Children and Adoption Act 2006.
The study, carried out by the Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, examined 308 cases in what is the most comprehensive investigation into the matter to date.
It rejected claims that the family courts and the Child and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcass) were biased against non-resident parents. Instead it highlighted how concerns about the child's welfare explained many of the decisions to refuse contact.
The researchers also found that resident parents who did not want the other parent to have contact were able to drag out proceedings so non-resident parents gave up their battle for access due to the emotional and financial cost of fighting the case. The findings suggested decisions in 10 per cent of the cases could be seen as unfair for the non-resident parent but the researchers said this "is not an enormous number and certainly does not suggest that a substantial proportion of non-resident parents are getting a poor deal".
Jon Davies, the chief executive of Families Need Fathers, said he was surprised by the study's conclusion. "It really doesn't accord with the hundreds of calls we receive each week and does not describe the situation for many men and women. There's a disconnection because even when contact orders are used they often break down later and parents give up due to the difficult of enforcing them."
Family law minister Bridget Prentice said: "The wellbeing of children is at the heart of the family justice system. Courts should be the last resort for people involved in contact disputes, as mediation can be quicker and less stressful. Clearly in some circumstances, such as where there is poor parenting or even abuse, contact can be very damaging. The government firmly believes that children should not be denied meaningful contact with their other parent, where this is safe."
- www.cypnow.co.uk/doc.
