Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesIn re termination of parental rights (HK)
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

In re termination of parental rights (HK)

CA Arizona · Feb 25, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Arizona Court of Appeals referred Mother's counsel to the State Bar of Arizona for investigation after counsel included multiple fabricated statutory and case law quotations in an answering brief. The court determined these citations did not exist in the referenced authorities and cited ethical duties of candor.

Why the court cared
False Quotes: Case Law | Mother cited JS-501568, 177 Ariz. at 577, attributing multiple sentences the court could not find, including 'a parent's ability to maintain a relationship must be judged by what they do, not what another parent does or does not do' and 'minimal efforts do not preclude abandonment ... sporadic or infrequent contact is not normal parental contact.' The court concluded these quotes are not in that opinion. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Mother's brief quoted A.R.S. § 8-531(1) as stating: '[a]bandonment is measured by a parent's conduct, not the parent's subjective intent.' The court found this quoted statutory language does not appear in § 8-531(1). || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Mother's brief attributed language to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1) stating abandonment is established when a parent has failed to maintain a normal parental relationship 'without just cause.' The court found the statute does not contain the quoted phrasing. || False Quotes: Case Law | Mother's brief attributed a non-existent quote to Raymond F. v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 378, ¶ 21 (App. 2010): '[a] parent who creates barriers to contact through substance abuse cannot claim just cause for his failure to maintain a relationship.' The court found this quotation does not appear in Raymond F.
Why it matters now
Fabricated statutory quotes in termination-of-parental-rights briefs trigger bar referral — require second-attorney verification of every quote.

Why this matter is tracked

In an appeal regarding the termination of parental rights, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's order. During the proceedings, the court identified that the answering brief submitted by Mother's counsel contained multiple fabricated quotations from statutes and case law. Specifically, the brief included non-existent language attributed to A.R.S. § 8-531(1), A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1), Raymond F. v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., and JS-501568. The court noted that counsel has ethical duties of candor and certified that representations must be accurate. Consequently, the court referred Mother's counsel to the State Bar of Arizona to investigate potential violations of professional conduct rules regarding the misrepresentation of legal authorities.

Operational lesson

Fabricated statutory quotes in termination-of-parental-rights briefs trigger bar referral — require second-attorney verification of every quote.

Record details

ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore AZOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Arizona
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateFeb 25, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court affirmed the termination of parental rights and referred Mother's counsel to the State Bar of Arizona for investigation.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionReferral to the State Bar of Arizona for investigation of potential professional conduct violations.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a juvenile court's order terminating parental rights, resulting in an affirmance and a referral of counsel to the State Bar.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Mother cited JS-501568, 177 Ariz. at 577, attributing multiple sentences the court could not find, including 'a parent's ability to maintain a relationship must be judged by what they do, not what another parent does or does not do' and 'minimal efforts do not preclude abandonment ... sporadic or infrequent contact is not normal parental contact.' The court concluded these quotes are not in that opinion.
  2. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Mother's brief quoted A.R.S. § 8-531(1) as stating: '[a]bandonment is measured by a parent's conduct, not the parent's subjective intent.' The court found this quoted statutory language does not appear in § 8-531(1).
  3. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Mother's brief attributed language to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1) stating abandonment is established when a parent has failed to maintain a normal parental relationship 'without just cause.' The court found the statute does not contain the quoted phrasing.
  4. False Quotes: Case Law | Mother's brief attributed a non-existent quote to Raymond F. v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 378, ¶ 21 (App. 2010): '[a] parent who creates barriers to contact through substance abuse cannot claim just cause for his failure to maintain a relationship.' The court found this quotation does not appear in Raymond F.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re termination of parental rights (HK)?
The Arizona Court of Appeals referred Mother's counsel to the State Bar of Arizona for investigation after counsel included multiple fabricated statutory and case law quotations in an answering brief. The court determined these citations did not exist in the referenced authorities and cited ethical duties of candor.
Why does In re termination of parental rights (HK) matter for legal AI risk?
Fabricated statutory quotes in termination-of-parental-rights briefs trigger bar referral — require second-attorney verification of every quote.
What does the public record establish about In re termination of parental rights (HK)?
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 In re termination of parental rights (HK) 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.