In re M.A.L.B.

Why this matter is tracked

Record details

Tracked discrepancy record

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

1. Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited “In re A.R., 2017-Ohio-833 (4th Dist.)” as authority, but that citation led to the different case In re B.Y., 2017-Ohio-833 (9th Dist.). The court treated the authority as nonexistent in the cited form.
2. False Quotes: Legal Norm | The brief attributed the phrase “genuine, good-faith efforts” to R.C. 2151.419, but the statute does not contain those words. The court found that the brief patently misquoted the statute.
3. Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief cited In re M.P. as holding that an agency’s failure to explore relative placement led to reversal of a reasonable-efforts finding. The court explained that In re M.P. instead found the agency connected the parent with services and that the parent failed to establish a lack of reasonable efforts.
4. Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Peck as 145 Ohio St.3d 382, 2016-Ohio-747 and used it to support a conflict-of-interest proposition. The court stated that Peck’s correct citations were 150 Ohio St.3d 130 and 2017-Ohio-2961, that the supplied citations led to other cases, and that Peck did not contain the asserted phrase or support the proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re M.A.L.B.?

Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited “In re A.R., 2017-Ohio-833 (4th Dist.)” as authority, but that citation led to the different case In re B.Y., 2017-Ohio-833 (9th Dist.). The court treated the authority as nonexistent in the cited form. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Why does In re M.A.L.B. matter for legal AI risk?

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Appeal dismissed in CA Ohio (4d). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

What does the public record establish about In re M.A.L.B.?

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Which source supports this In re M.A.L.B. 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.