HomeCasesIn re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children

CA Ohio · Nov 25, 2025

OH / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Sain v. Roo, 2018-Ohio-2878, ¶ 19," which the court found to be fictitious (no case assigned to that citation).

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Sain v. Roo, 2018-Ohio-2878, ¶ 19," which the court found to be fictitious (no case assigned to that citation). || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio App.3d 213 (1987)," but the court found this citation to be incorrect/fictitious (36 Ohio App.3d 213 is State v. Arvanitis). || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on "In re M.M., 2015-Ohio-2571" and another similar citation, which the court identified as fictitious/misassigned and not supporting appellant's propositions. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation to Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (1999), but the court found the quoted language does not appear in Braatz. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re K.W., 2016-Ohio-5272, ¶ 16," which the court determined was mis-cited / assigned to a different case and did not support his claim. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re J.J., 2017-Ohio-5467, ¶ 29," but the court noted no case is assigned to that citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant referenced "State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-1234," but the court observed that citation is assigned to a different case (In re Z.L.) and does not support appellant's asserted proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re G.C., 2020-Ohio-4092" for legal propositions, but the court found that citation is assigned to an unrelated case (Oregon v. Gaughan) and does not support his claims. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation/supportive language to In re Guardianship of Hollins, 114 Ohio St.3d 434 (2007), but the court found no such quotation in Hollins. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on In re Bonfield, 2002-Ohio-6660, but the court found the case did not support the specific standing arguments appellant advanced.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Ohio, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Sain v. Roo, 2018-Ohio-2878, ¶ 19," which the court found to be fictitious (no case assigned to that citation).

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Ohio, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

OhioSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Ohio

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit6th Circuit

DateNov 25, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Sain v. Roo, 2018-Ohio-2878, ¶ 19," which the court found to be fictitious (no case assigned to that citation).
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio App.3d 213 (1987)," but the court found this citation to be incorrect/fictitious (36 Ohio App.3d 213 is State v. Arvanitis).
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on "In re M.M., 2015-Ohio-2571" and another similar citation, which the court identified as fictitious/misassigned and not supporting appellant's propositions.
False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation to Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (1999), but the court found the quoted language does not appear in Braatz.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re K.W., 2016-Ohio-5272, ¶ 16," which the court determined was mis-cited / assigned to a different case and did not support his claim.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re J.J., 2017-Ohio-5467, ¶ 29," but the court noted no case is assigned to that citation.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant referenced "State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-1234," but the court observed that citation is assigned to a different case (In re Z.L.) and does not support appellant's asserted proposition.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re G.C., 2020-Ohio-4092" for legal propositions, but the court found that citation is assigned to an unrelated case (Oregon v. Gaughan) and does not support his claims.

Show 2 additional discrepancies

False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation/supportive language to In re Guardianship of Hollins, 114 Ohio St.3d 434 (2007), but the court found no such quotation in Hollins.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on In re Bonfield, 2002-Ohio-6660, but the court found the case did not support the specific standing arguments appellant advanced.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Sain v. Roo, 2018-Ohio-2878, ¶ 19," which the court found to be fictitious (no case assigned to that citation).
Why does In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Ohio, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children?: 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 T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children 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.

South Central Ohio Job and Family Services v. Corey MasonCA Ohio · Nov 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Souders v. LazorCA Ohio · Oct 8, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Teresa Jewel Whitten v. Kristopher Brian EverittCA Kentucky · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Ex parte A.I.F.-H. f/k/a A.I.F.CA Alabama · Jun 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Young v. YoungCA Minnesotta · Jun 8, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)K.C. v. D.R.CA Texas · Apr 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

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 Open jurisdiction map

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

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Sain v. Roo, 2018-Ohio-2878, ¶ 19," which the court found to be fictitious (no case assigned to that citation).

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio App.3d 213 (1987)," but the court found this citation to be incorrect/fictitious (36 Ohio App.3d 213 is State v. Arvanitis).

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on "In re M.M., 2015-Ohio-2571" and another similar citation, which the court identified as fictitious/misassigned and not supporting appellant's propositions.

False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation to Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (1999), but the court found the quoted language does not appear in Braatz.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re K.W., 2016-Ohio-5272, ¶ 16," which the court determined was mis-cited / assigned to a different case and did not support his claim.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re J.J., 2017-Ohio-5467, ¶ 29," but the court noted no case is assigned to that citation.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant referenced "State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-1234," but the court observed that citation is assigned to a different case (In re Z.L.) and does not support appellant's asserted proposition.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re G.C., 2020-Ohio-4092" for legal propositions, but the court found that citation is assigned to an unrelated case (Oregon v. Gaughan) and does not support his claims.

Show 2 additional discrepancies

False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation/supportive language to In re Guardianship of Hollins, 114 Ohio St.3d 434 (2007), but the court found no such quotation in Hollins.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on In re Bonfield, 2002-Ohio-6660, but the court found the case did not support the specific standing arguments appellant advanced.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Sain v. Roo, 2018-Ohio-2878, ¶ 19," which the court found to be fictitious (no case assigned to that citation).

Why does In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Ohio, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

What does the public record establish about In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children?

Which source supports this In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children 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.