HomeCasesD (A Child) (Recusal)

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

D (A Child) (Recusal)

Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 2025

GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamily

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Mother cited Re W [2010] UKSC 12 for the proposition that 'findings reached through a procedurally compromised process cannot stand', an attribution the court found to be incorrect. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Mother cited Re W [2010] UKSC 12 for the proposition that 'findings reached through a procedurally compromised process cannot stand', an attribution the court found to be incorrect. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Mother cited Re B [2008] UKHL 35 for a proposition it does not support (asserting it showed the father's wilful evasion); court recorded this as an incorrect attribution. || Fabricated: Case Law | Mother cited a non-existent case in her skeleton/recusal documents; father’s counsel identified the citation as fabricated and the court noted AI use.
Why it matters now: Pro-se family-law filers in UK appellate courts are now flagged for AI-fabricated authorities; verify every cite on opposing submissions.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Pro-se family-law filers in UK appellate courts are now flagged for AI-fabricated authorities; verify every cite on opposing submissions.

Record details

CourtCourt of Appeal

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateDec 9, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Mother cited Re W [2010] UKSC 12 for the proposition that 'findings reached through a procedurally compromised process cannot stand', an attribution the court found to be incorrect.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Mother cited Re B [2008] UKHL 35 for a proposition it does not support (asserting it showed the father's wilful evasion); court recorded this as an incorrect attribution.
Fabricated: Case Law | Mother cited a non-existent case in her skeleton/recusal documents; father’s counsel identified the citation as fabricated and the court noted AI use.

Questions this record answers

What happened in D (A Child) (Recusal)?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Mother cited Re W [2010] UKSC 12 for the proposition that 'findings reached through a procedurally compromised process cannot stand', an attribution the court found to be incorrect. Outcome: Warning.
Why does D (A Child) (Recusal) matter for legal AI risk?: Pro-se family-law filers in UK appellate courts are now flagged for AI-fabricated authorities; verify every cite on opposing submissions.
What does the public record establish about D (A Child) (Recusal)?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this D (A Child) (Recusal) summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Re A, B, C, D (Extension of assessment; Use of AI: hallucinations)Family Court Bournemouth · Mar 5, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified N… R… c. M… S…Québec SC · Feb 18, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified A.C. Appellant v. H.D. AND J.C.SC Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2026pro se + fake citations Jones v. Family Court at WhangareiSupreme Court · Feb 11, 2026pro se + fake citations Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of ClarkSC Nevada · Jan 13, 2026pro se + fake citations S… F… c. I… O…Québec SC · Oct 31, 2025pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Pro-se family-law filers in UK appellate courts are now flagged for AI-fabricated authorities; verify every cite on opposing submissions.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Mother cited Re B [2008] UKHL 35 for a proposition it does not support (asserting it showed the father's wilful evasion); court recorded this as an incorrect attribution.

Fabricated: Case Law | Mother cited a non-existent case in her skeleton/recusal documents; father’s counsel identified the citation as fabricated and the court noted AI use.

Questions this record answers

What happened in D (A Child) (Recusal)?

Why does D (A Child) (Recusal) matter for legal AI risk?

Pro-se family-law filers in UK appellate courts are now flagged for AI-fabricated authorities; verify every cite on opposing submissions.

What does the public record establish about D (A Child) (Recusal)?

Which source supports this D (A Child) (Recusal) summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.