CASES where children are being denied contact with a parent after separation or divorce should be treated as seriously as situations where they are being harmed or abused, according to a charity.

Families Need Fathers (FNF) Scotland said delays in the court process risk permanently harming the relationship between non-resident parents and their children. "All contact cases should be conducted to a far stricter timescale, as there already is in court actions where children are being protected from harm," the charity said.

FNF Scotland, which campaigns on behalf of separated fathers and mothers, and argues for shared parenting wherever possible after a marital break-up, was speaking after the ruling in a contact case threw the law into further confusion.

Earlier this month, the Sheriff Appeal Court allowed an appeal to progress over the failure of a sheriff to take any action against a mother found in contempt of court after she stopped her former partner from seeing their child.

The ruling by Sheriff Fiona Tait at Perth Sheriff Court was influenced directly by the case of a woman who revealed last week that she had been acquitted of contempt of court charges which saw her jailed.

In January, the Court of Session threw out the judgement on the woman (who cannot be named for legal reasons) - in a case also presided over by Sheriff Tait - after the womanr had failed on five occasions to obey a court order.

In upholding the appeal, a panel headed by Lord Glennie criticised the three month sentence imposed by Sheriff Tait, on the grounds that she had not exhausted other options less serious than imprisonment.

However, it has emerged that subsequently, at the end of a case in which Sheriff Tait took no further action against a mother held in contempt for obstructing contact, the father appealed over her failure to act. Sheriff Tait had cited the Court of Session ruling in the earlier case, saying it left her unable to impose any sentence despite the "continuing, wilful and ... flagrant disregard for the authority of the court".

At a preliminary hearing over the father's appeal, the Sheriff Appeal Court concluded there might be grounds for appeal because Sheriff Tait had chosen to make no order whatsoever, despite having decided the contempt was "so flagrant" that an admonishment would be too lenient.

Ian Maxwell, of Families Need Fathers, said the case highlighted contradictions in the law and the near impossibility some parents face in enforcing court-mandated contact arrangements.

"This means that there are two recent cases in which contempt of court decisions have gone unpunished," he said. "These recent judgements seem to leave a gaping hole in the power of Scottish family courts to ensure that contact orders are actually carried out.".

While most non-resident parents have no desire to see their former partner imprisoned - not least because children may blame them if this happens - there have to be alternatives if court orders are to be meaningful, he said.

While actions for contempt do succeed in persuading some parents to comply with a contact order, other cases have dragged on for years without effective enforcement, meaning children don't see their fathers.

Mr Maxwell said: "We agree that imprisoning parents in these circumstances may not be appropriate, but something must change to uphold the authority of the court."

Parents could be given a limited time to 'purge' the contempt of court by ensuring a child sees the other parent, he said, but if contact doesn't happen within a short time the offending parent should be given a community payback order. "This can be timed so that the other parent looks after the child while the CPO is carried out," Mr Maxwell added. "Failing this, the care of the child should be switched to the other parent."