A committee of MPs has rejected claims that courts are deliberately biased against fathers.

In a report released on Wednesday the Commons constitutional affairs committee concluded that the authorities should do as much as possible to resolve family disputes through mediation and keep child contact cases out of the courts.

The committee argued that even special family courts should only be used as last resort, as cases are stressful and damaging for all concerned.

With campaigners such as Fathers4Justice gaining considerable media attention in recent months, including a stunt on the walls of the Foreign Office this week, the committee rejected the group's main claims.

The MPs found that the family courts are not "consciously biased against either fathers or non-resident parents" and stopped short of recommending that there should be a presumption of 50-50 access between separated parents.

However the report did concede that non-resident parents, most often the male, are often disadvantaged and should be given more legal rights.

Transparency

The MPs concluded legislation should be amended to ensure arbitrators encourage contact between both parents and that decisions are made more transparent in a bid to improve public confidence.

"This has been a complex and emotive inquiry involving issues on which very strong views are held. But one fact is abundantly clear; the family justice system must have the child's best interest at its core," committee chairman Alan Beith said.

"At the moment, far too many contact and residency cases are being dealt with by the courts when they could be better resolved through professional mediation and negotiation. This situation has to change.

"The court system should only be used as a last resort, where mediation and negotiation have completely broken down or where issues of abuse or domestic violence need to be dealt with.

"This will help to reduce delays and improve the lives of many children across the country. Where the courts must be involved we need to see greater effort made to enforce court orders and also to encourage greater contact between children and non-resident parents.

"The inquiry also looked closely at whether family proceedings should be made more transparent. We concluded that if they are to shake off accusations of bias, more openness is urgently needed."