In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children
CA Ohio · Nov 25, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Ohio
- Record ID
- in-re-tf-pf-and-ss-minor-children-2025-11-25
- Observed outcome
- The court overruled all assignments of error and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Ohio, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Appellate
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from a judgment of the Vinton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, dismissing the appellant's motions for lack of standing.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court identified multiple fictitious citations and false quotes, characteristic of AI-generated hallucinations.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.