A new green paper backed away from enshrining "shared parenting" in law.

But it pledged better information for parents, in-court conciliation and mediation and stronger powers for judges to enforce court orders.

Government Response: Department for Constitutional Affairs

Lord Falconer, constitutional affairs secretary, said: "We have taken a thoughtful, radical look at the current system. This is a strong package of proposals which will make a significant difference. We intend to implement the necessary changes as soon as possible.

"The law states that the child’s interests are paramount. That will not change. The government strongly believes that children need both parents - these proposals will make it more likely that children will continue to have two parents."

Government Response: Department for Education

Education secretary Charles Clarke said: "The green paper paves the way for improved services for families undergoing separation and providing the necessary support to help them and their children through a very difficult time. That is why our focus is on what children need and how the government can help parents in meeting that need.

"We know that mediation and conciliation can often make a real difference to resolving contact issues and preventing couples from going to court in the first place which is far better for both the parents and the child.

"That is why CAFCASS (Children And Family Court Advisory And Support Service) will play a major role in delivering these services, concentrating their resources on contact for children, both during the time of court applications and beyond, including the prompt return of cases to the courts when a ruling has not been followed."

Party Response: Conservative Party

Theresa May, shadow secretary of state for the family, said : "Rather than address the real problems at the heart of our family justice system, this government would rather attempt to paper over the cracks. This is just another false dawn for all those many heartbroken parents and grandparents trapped for years in the courts and denied contact with their children.

"This has meant that parents with residence have found it far easier to obstruct the other parent's access to their children and their ability to have a say in how those children are brought up. Government must redress that imbalance.

"The government has failed to grasp the real problem at the heart of the current system. What parents want is proper quality parenting time with their children, not the availability of more contact centres and warm words about ‘parenting plans'.

"Children need to have contact with their mothers and fathers if at all possible. The best parent is both parents. We need to ensure that children grow up with mother and father, and where ever possible Grandparents playing a full and active role in their upbringing."

Party Response: Liberal Democrats

Home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "The break up of a family can be devastating for children, but these tragedies can’t be made better by rigid quotas or targets on access for parents.

"Every child is different, and every divorce settlement must reflect the needs of the whole family.

"Settlements should try to maintain access for both partners, but it is vital that the courts have flexibility at the same time."

Natasha Finlayson, ChildLine's director of policy and communications, said: "In an ideal world children would have perfect relationships with mothers and fathers. But the reality is different and at ChildLine we hear from thousands of children every year who are profoundly affected by the separation of the adults who have been caring for them.

"These children tell us that when parents separate and contact arrangements are made, they feel that no one has listened to them and no one has taken the time to find out what they want.

"When parents are fighting over these issues CAFCASS and the courts must consider what is best for the child and their welfare, which may not necessarily be best for the parents.

"In extreme cases when children’s voices are not heard, they are forced to spend time with parents they do not want to see, and with parents who may terrify them because they have abused them. In less extreme cases children are often obliged to sacrifice their own interests and occupations to spend prescribed times with one or other carer.

"It is time the debate moved from an adversarial one of mothers' versus fathers' rights to a system in and out of the courts which genuinely allows children to express their views and have them listened to and taken into account."