There have been significant developments over the past two decades that have expanded our understanding of the dynamics of parent-child contact problems post-separation, which have resulted in some changes in judicial processes to respond to these cases. One significant advancement is a more sophisticated differentiation of the nature and severity of contact problems, which better assists legal and mental health professionals to provide more suitable legal and clinical interventions. However, the issue of innovative court processes has received limited attention. The authors describe a subgroup of families within the "severe" category, for whom an expanded intervention model, referred to as a Blended Sequential Intervention is proposed. This approach involves a reversal of care with court mandated therapeutic support for the rejected parent and child, but also involves the favored parent in the therapeutic plan from the outset, and is intended to avoid a permanent "parentectomy" of the child from either parent. The authors discuss how the courts should respond to these cases, and posit that until all therapeutic treatments are exhausted, interim orders should be preferred to final determinations, and judges should maintain oversight. The authors discuss the critical role of judicial leadership in working with lawyers and mental health professionals to manage and address the issues in these high conflict cases. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Authors provide a review of the state of the research literature with respect to differentiation and available treatment approaches for resist-refuse contact cases.Authors propose the use of the Blended Sequential Model, an innovative clinical model developed for severe cases of resist-refuse dynamics.Authors describe the important role of judicial leadership in resist/refuse contact cases. Authors argue the need to develop heterodox models of interim judicial decision making in resist-refuses cases.Corresponding: shely.polak@utoronto.ca † This paper was written for and published in the context of continuing professional education only. Any and all views expressed are expressed in an academic nature rather than judicial capacity.