In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children
CA Ohio · Nov 25, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the appellant's motions for lack of standing. The court explicitly identified multiple fictitious case citations and misrepresented legal authorities used by the pro se appellant in his appellate brief, noting that the appellant failed to provide valid legal support for his claims.
- 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
In this appellate matter, the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of various motions filed by a pro se litigant, Corey Mason. The court identified a pattern of litigation misconduct, specifically noting that the appellant relied on numerous fictitious case citations and misrepresented legal authorities to support his arguments. The court found that the appellant lacked standing to file the motions because he was no longer a party to the case. The court overruled all five of the appellant's assignments of error, concluding that the appellant failed to provide valid legal authority and that his arguments were without merit. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and ordered the appellant to pay costs.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Ohio, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court identified multiple fictitious citations and false quotes, characteristic of AI-generated hallucinations.
Appeal from a judgment of the Vinton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, dismissing the appellant's motions for lack of standing.
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?
- The court affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the appellant's motions for lack of standing. The court explicitly identified multiple fictitious case citations and misrepresented legal authorities used by the pro se appellant in his appellate brief, noting that the appellant failed to provide valid legal support for his claims.
- 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.