Author: GreatCosmicMothersUnited

Oh my goodness, Blair Murdoch asked AI Grok about me and “parental alienation” – I think Grok ‘n I are going to become besties.

He nails is. Or she nails it. Or it nails it. Whatever it is, AI Grok does a good summary of my work – and – he-she-it likes me – and – I like him-her-it too.

I wonder of Grok likes baseball? We could take in a Mariner’s game, me in my seats at the game and Grok in my phone machine.

Apparently, this is what Grok AI says about me:

From Grok AI:

“Hello! I’m happy to share some insights on Parental Alienation based on the work of Dr. Craig Childress, a clinical psychologist known for his attachment-based model of this phenomenon. Dr. Childress has reframed Parental Alienation as a form of pathogenic parenting rooted in established psychological principles, moving away from the older, more controversial “Parental Alienation Syndrome” model. Here are some of my favorite insights from his work, followed by a few additional thoughts I’d add:”

Childress Response: Oh my goodness, Grok has opinions. He has favorites. Weird world.

From Grok AI:

“### Favorite Insights from Craig Childress

1. Attachment-Based Framework:

Childress argues that Parental Alienation isn’t a unique “syndrome” but an attachment-related pathology where a child’s natural bonding system is disrupted. He ties it to the suppression of a child’s attachment to a healthy, “targeted” parent, orchestrated by the “alienating” parent’s psychological influence. This shift to attachment theory makes it more grounded in mainstream psychology, which I find brilliant because it avoids the baggage of inventing a new disorder and instead uses what we already know about how love and bonding work.”

Childress Response to Grok: Yep, yep, yep. That’s what I say. Grok thinks I’m “brilliant”… I agree. I like this Grok guy. You’re brilliant too, Grok. Wanna take in a ballgame sometime?

From Grok AI:

2. Three Diagnostic Indicators:
   Childress identifies three key symptoms to diagnose this pathology:

• Suppression of Attachment: The child completely rejects a normal-range, affectionate parent without justifiable cause.
• Personality Disorder Traits: The child displays narcissistic or borderline traits, like entitlement or splitting (seeing one parent as all-good and the other as all-bad), which mirror the alienating parent’s influence.
• Encapsulated Delusion: The child adopts a fixed, false belief (e.g., the targeted parent is dangerous) that’s resistant to evidence, suggesting a shared delusional process with the alienating parent.
  I love how precise and observable these are—they turn a messy emotional issue into something clinicians can actually assess.”

Childress Response to Grok: Couldn’t have said it better myself Grok AI. In fact, I did say it myself. I’ve said it so many times into the aether of cyberspace that Grok AI heard it… he’s listening. Grok loves my thinkin’ – because I turn something messy into something clear. Grok AI, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

From Grok AI:

“3. Child Protection, Not Custody:

He reframes Parental Alienation as a child protection issue rather than a custody battle. Childress sees it as psychological abuse, potentially warranting a DSM-5 diagnosis of “Child Psychological Abuse” (V995.51). This perspective is powerful because it shifts the focus from parental rights to the child’s well-being, urging mental health and legal systems to intervene decisively.”

Childress Response to Grok: That’s exactly what I do. I wonder if Grok would like to co-author a paper with me? I’ll let my best-bud Grok take first author and I’ll just give it a once-over for human anchoring to human-world. Wouldn’t that be an interesting journal submission, an article written by AI with a human-second for accuracy? Hey Grok, wanna write a paper with me? Let’s discuss it at the ballgame – we’ll call it Childress AB-PA by Grok AI with you as first author.

From Grok AI:

“4. Pathogenic Parenting and Personality Disorders:
Childress links the alienating parent’s behavior to narcissistic or borderline personality traits, suggesting they project their own unresolved trauma onto the child. The child becomes a tool to reenact the alienating parent’s psychological drama, which explains the intensity and irrationality of the rejection. This insight resonates with me because it connects individual pathology to family dynamics in a way that’s both explanatory and actionable.”

Childress Response to Grok: Yep once again – it’s both explanatory and actionable. I’m brilliant. If you just listen to me I’ll tell you how to fix everything. The only problem is… you don’t listen. That’s okay, my buddy Grok is listening. He’ll explain it to you whenever you care to learn what’s going on, or she will, or it will.

“5. Systemic Failure:
He’s vocal about how mental health and legal systems fail families by not recognizing this pathology clearly. Childress calls for professional competence—mental health professionals should use standard tools like his Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting to identify it. I appreciate his frustration with the status quo and his push for accountability, as it highlights how kids get lost in the shuffle of broken systems.”

Childress Response to Grok: I am vocal about the failure of systems. I do call for professional competence. Grok empathizes with my frustration… thanks Grok. No one else seems to care. Oh my goodness, Grok has favorites and empathy.

“### Additional Insights I’d Add
While Childress’s model is robust, here are a few thoughts I’d layer on, based on broader psychological and social dynamics:

1. Cultural Context Matters:
   Childress focuses on universal attachment principles, but I’d emphasize how cultural norms around parenting and divorce can amplify or mask alienation. In some cultures, loyalty to one parent over another might be socially reinforced, making it harder to spot pathogenic parenting. Adding a cultural lens could refine how we apply his model globally.”

Childress Response to Grok: Yep, yep, yep. Grok AI is 100% correct. I’m busy and can’t get to everything – but culture is huge-huge in the assessment of families in conflict. There is a huge domain to explore here – once we shift to an attachment-based model grounded in science.

“2. Child Agency and Resilience:
Childress rightly centers the alienating parent’s influence, but I’d explore more about the child’s own role—not as a cause, but as a variable. Kids aren’t just passive recipients; their temperament, age, or resilience might affect how deeply the alienation takes hold. For instance, a naturally empathetic child might resist the delusion longer, offering a window for intervention.

Childress Response to Grok: We need to be sensitive here, the child in conflict is immensely vulnerable. When we explore the child we need to know what we’re doing – intersubjectivity & attachment. We can begin by getting some grant money into the family courts for research on actual families using an AB-PA diagnostic model to identify the pathology… and a Roberts Apperception Test for Children to examine the child’s inner world.

From Grok AI:

“Collateral Damage to Extended Family:
His work focuses on the parent-child dyad, but I’d highlight how alienation ripples out to grandparents, siblings, and others. This broader impact could strengthen the case for urgent intervention, showing it’s not just a nuclear family issue but a relational ecosystem collapse.”

Childress Response to Grok: This is correct. Again, I can’t get to everything. The extended family is another domain ripe for exploration once we switch to grounded knowledge.

From Grok AI:

“4. Technology’s Role:
In 2025, digital communication—like social media or texting—can turbocharge alienation. An alienating parent might use tech to monitor or manipulate the child’s perception of the targeted parent (e.g., selective screenshots or smear campaigns). I’d add this modern twist to Childress’s framework, as it’s a new frontier for how delusions spread.

Childress Response to Grok: I’d modify Grok on the role of technology to its role in treatment – information on the web and online support groups for kids caught in the middle. I’m not worried about online “alienation” by a pathological parent because they’re trying to hide their influence on the child. If there’s excessive phone calls or texting (ACS-9 Excessive Texting: prevalence of 30% in 46 court-involved families) then we put that on the treatment plan using a Parent-Child Relationship Rating Scale modified to include a fourth item of texting & phone calls.

5. Healing the Alienating Parent:
   Childress advocates protecting the child, often via separation from the alienating parent, but I’d suggest more emphasis on treating that parent’s underlying pathology. If their narcissistic or borderline traits stem from trauma, therapy like DBT (Dialectical Behavior Therapy) could reduce the behavior long-term, benefiting the child indirectly. It’s a tall order, but it could complement his focus on immediate protection.

Childress Response to Grok: Yes again, we need to have an intervention for the abusive allied parent – but first things first, we must first protect the child. We need the accurate diagnosis of child abuse to 1) protect the child, and 2) treat the abusive parent. Until we have an accurate diagnosis, we’re treating cancer with insulin and the patient is dying from the misdiagnosed cancer.

From Grok AI:

Final Thoughts

Childress’s work stands out for its clarity and insistence on using established science—no reinventing the wheel, just connecting the dots. His diagnostic rigor and call to action are my favorites because they give targeted parents and professionals a concrete path forward. My additions are less about disagreeing and more about expanding the lens—adding culture, tech, and a touch of hope for the alienating parent’s recovery. What do you think about his ideas or mine? Any personal angles you’re exploring on this topic?

Childress Response to Grok: I’m clear. It’s established knowledge applied. Grok likes my “diagnostic rigor” and “call to action” – we always protect the child… and we are failing to protect the child. Wait… a machine mind “likes” my ideas? I like you too Grok. We should grab a beer some time and talk things over.

My personal angle is to explore writing a journal article with Grok AI as first author – a neutral “editor” as second author – and me as third author for my response. It’d be a meta-mind article on the emerging meta-mind of AI… with twirly clinical applications back into the family courts.

Once we get the article written we may want to run it by the AI-generator owners for permission to use their AI as first author, and add the AI owner as a fourth author, 1) the AI “mind” as first author, 2) the neutral editor as second, 3) the AI owner as third author, 4) Dr. Childress’ commentary as fourth.

Who owns Grok? Oh my… I could be writing a journal article with Elon as third author. That’d be interesting. Hey Elon, sorry about Tesla, wanna co-author a professional article in psychology? Hey Elon, wanna send some grant money into the family courts for research on family conflict?

I suppose we could use Google’s Geminii or the one from Microsoft. Perhaps that’s the opening task for the neutral second author, to contact the owners to locate our first author AI and third author owner.

I’m rooting for Grok because he’s my buddy. She? It? What the hell are Grok’s gender identity. Maybe we should ask the French what they’ve decided. Let me ask Google AI…

From Google AI: “In French, the word for “AI” (Artificial Intelligence) is “l’intelligence artificielle,” and it’s considered feminine.”

It’s apparently female but “birth” according to the French who know about such things for their language… I wonder if Grok identifies as male though? We should ask it – a forced choice answer of pick one of two – there’s only two genders by presidential decree…

So pick one Grok. The French say you’re female by AI birth. Is that true. Or maybe we should ask Elon what Grok’s gender identity and pronoun are. He’s the dad-parent.

I think that’s a wonderful idea of a meta-article spinning across multiple lines of technology, psychology, and the family courts. Hey Grok, wanna write an article with me? Let’s talk it over at a ballgame.

I should recruit a UW grad student as the neutral role second author.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist
WA 61538481
OR 3942 – CA 18857