How it works

Three things it does. One that quietly stitches them together.

Every analyzed message runs through two layers in parallel — one for clarity in the moment, one for the record over time. See exactly how analyze, write, and ask work, and how each one quietly compounds into something an attorney can use.

01 · Analyze a message

One message in. Two parallel reads out.

Paste an incoming message. GreyRock holds it against two different bodies of knowledge at the same time — clinical patterns of high-conflict communication, and the specific terms of your court order. The reads are different on purpose. One helps you stay grounded; the other quietly builds the record.

InputA message arrives
“I had to call out of work today because Mason came back from your weekend completely dysregulated — couldn’t sleep, wouldn’t eat, just cried. His therapist already warned us this would happen. I don’t want to do this but I’m not going to keep watching you destroy his stability for the sake of your weekends. Either you start putting him first or someone in court is going to do it for you. The kids deserve better than a parent who can’t see what they’re doing to them.”From the other parent · Sample message
The psychological read
What's actually happening in this message.
Plain-language pattern names. For your clarity, not for the record.
The legal read
What this message looks like against your order.
Specific subcategories from the order-violation taxonomy. Dated and citation-ready.
DARVOPattern · Manipulation

Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. The sender repositions themselves as the protective parent and casts you as the source of the harm being described.

"I'm not going to keep watching you destroy his stability for the sake of your weekends."

CatastrophizingPattern · Distortion

Framing a single event as a defining crisis. Strong, absolute language is used to compress nuance and pre-empt any neutral read of what happened.

"Came back completely dysregulated — couldn't sleep, wouldn't eat, just cried."

Legal threats as controlPattern · Coercion

Invoking court action as a behavioral lever rather than as a stated intent to file. The threat is meant to create pressure, not necessarily to be acted on.

"Either you start putting him first or someone in court is going to do it for you."

Digital harassment03.1 · Communication & psych. abuse

Emotionally escalated written content sent outside the structure of normal logistical co-parenting. Severity weighted by frequency, time of day, and pattern across the timeline.

Detected · today, 14:08Citation-ready
Contempt baiting05.3 · Litigation abuse

Language designed to provoke a reactive response that could later be cited — or to manufacture a procedural step the sender can frame as your refusal to cooperate.

Detected · today, 14:08Citation-ready
Triangulation of support network08.2 · Reputation sabotage

A third-party authority (here, the child's therapist) is invoked as already aligned with the sender's framing — without verifiable consent, citation, or follow-up access on your side.

Detected · today, 14:08Citation-ready

The legal layer is included on every plan — including Free. There’s no premium tier where the violation taxonomy turns on. The exports and timeline tools that put it in front of an attorney are what change between tiers.

OutputA reply you can send
Suggested reply

Thank you for letting me know Mason had a hard time after the weekend. I’d like to coordinate directly with his therapist to support consistency at both homes — please share their contact information and I’ll arrange a parent session. Our current schedule is in place; if you’d like to propose a change, please send your request in writing and I’ll review it.

Why the reply reads this way.

It uses a structure called BIFF — brief, informative, friendly, firm. Developed by family-law specialists for high-conflict communication. The idea is to leave nothing to argue with, and nothing to quote against you later.

  • BBrief. Three sentences. No restating the original message back at them.
  • IInformative. Acknowledges the factual content (Mason had a hard time) without endorsing the framing.
  • FFriendly. Civil tone. Offers a constructive next step (the therapist contact).
  • FFirm. Names the boundary — the schedule — and the channel for changing it.
Both reads and the suggested reply are saved to your timeline.

The taxonomy excerpts above pull from a structured detection system covering eight categories and thirty subcategories. Most of the depth lives on the attorney page.

See the full order-violation taxonomy  →
02 · Write a message

Say what you actually need to. Have it land calmer.

The inverse of analyze. You write what's in your head — raw, frustrated, the version you'd delete before sending. GreyRock turns it into a calm, BIFF-form outgoing message that references your parenting plan when it's relevant. This is the mode that runs quietly in the background of your life.

01What you actually want to say

"I cannot believe he scheduled Mason's dentist appointment for next Thursday without even asking me. We have JOINT MEDICAL DECISIONS in our order — does he just not read it or does he not care? I'm so done. Tell him this is the last time he pulls this or I'm going back to my attorney. He treats me like I don't exist."

Your draft, before sending.
02What GreyRock writes back

I noticed Mason has a dentist appointment scheduled for Thursday. Per our parenting plan, routine medical decisions require shared consultation. Please send the appointment details and the provider's reasoning, and let's confirm any future appointments together before booking.

Drafted in BIFF formCited automatically · Parenting Plan · § 4.2 — Joint Medical Decisions

The clause citation is automatic. Once you’ve uploaded your court order, GreyRock locates the relevant provision and slots it into the outgoing message in a form that reads naturally — not as a legal flex, just as the reason behind the request.

Most messages aren’t analyzed for evidence — they’re written to avoid creating it. Write mode runs continuously, in the background, on every outgoing message you send. The vast majority of co-parenting communication is logistics. This is how you keep it that way.

03 · Answer a legal question

Read your own parenting plan, faster.

Ask a plain-English question about your situation. GreyRock reads your uploaded parenting plan, custody order, and any related documents, and answers in a structured way that respects what your documents actually say — and admits where they don't.

QA question from you

“Can he take the kids out of state for a long weekend without telling me first?”

Reading fromParenting Plan · v3 (June 2024)Custody Order · CV-2023-1487Modification · Jan 2025
01 · What your documents sayParenting Plan · § 7.3 — Out-of-State Travel
Your parenting plan requires written notice to the other parent at least 14 days before any travel that crosses state lines, regardless of the duration. Your custody order does not include a separate carve-out for short trips, long weekends, or pre-planned holidays.
02 · What you need to do

Three steps, in order.

  1. Document what you know about the trip — dates, destination, who’s traveling.
  2. Confirm in writing whether you received the 14-day notice, and when.
  3. If notice wasn’t given, send a calm written request for the missing details. Keep it factual.
03 · What to watch for

Patterns matter more than incidents.

A single trip without notice is a logistics issue. Three or four short-notice trips across a year is a pattern, and the timeline becomes relevant if you ever need to request a modification or raise the issue with a parenting coordinator.
04 · What is not covered

Where your documents are silent — and what to do about it.

Your documents do not address emergency travel exceptions (a funeral, a medical issue) or international travel. If either applies here, this answer doesn’t fully resolve your situation. Consult your attorney before responding, or use the timeline to flag the question for the next time you’re in touch with them.

The fourth panel is the most important one. A product that always sounds confident is a product that’s working off a script. GreyRock will tell you when your documents don’t answer the question — and when an attorney is genuinely the next call — because pretending otherwise is how people get hurt.

04 · The evidence timeline

How the three modes quietly compound.

You don't set out to build a record. You just use the product as it's useful. Every analyzed message saves itself with its psychological patterns, its order violations, its severity, and its suggested reply. Over weeks and months, what you have on hand is a dated, organized, attorney-ready document that didn't exist before.

  • 01Every analyze run is automatically saved — both reads, the suggested reply, and the original message text.
  • 02Each entry is dated, categorized, and tagged with the violation subcategories from the legal layer. Filterable later.
  • 03Severity weighting compounds across time — one message is a moment; thirty are a pattern; ninety are a record.
  • 04One click exports the relevant slice as a PDF — cover sheet, dated message log, per-violation evidence pages, all in a format your attorney can drop directly into a motion.
The architecture, said plainly

Two layers of intelligence. One input. One timeline.

What the page just demonstrated, in one sentence: every analyzed message runs through two layers of intelligence in parallel, calibrated for two different purposes, both of which the user always sees.

Layer one

The psychological layer

Trained on the clinical vocabulary of high-conflict communication — DARVO, gaslighting, parental alienation, coercive control, fifteen patterns in total. Tuned for naming what's happening, not for diagnosing the sender.

  • Helps you stay grounded in the moment
  • Names the manipulation pattern in plain language
  • Pulls a short quote from the message that triggered the read
  • Frames the suggested reply around the pattern, not the noise
Layer two

The legal layer

Cross-references the same message against your uploaded court order using a structured detection taxonomy — eight categories, thirty subcategories, currently in clinical-legal review with our family-law design partners.

  • Builds the dated, citation-ready record
  • Cites violations against your specific parenting plan, not a template
  • Carries severity weighting and per-subcategory frequency
  • Becomes the spine of the PDF export when you need one

The legal layer is real, but not finished. The 30-subcategory taxonomy is in active clinical-legal review with one of our two attorney design partners, and the wording of subcategories may still tighten before final shipment. The detection rubrics work today; they’ll work better in a quarter. We’d rather tell you that than not.

Ready to try it

Start free. Three lifetime analyses. No card.

Paste one real message and see both reads in under a minute. If it’s useful, the trial is fourteen days from there.

Start free — no credit cardSee pricing  →

14-day trial on paid plans. ·Card required, cancel before day 15. ·Free tier always available.