Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
In re the Marriage of D.X. and S.P.
CA California · Sep 30, 2025
CA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfamilyappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited this case to argue suicidal ideation cannot constitute abuse under the DVPA; appellate court found 'Quinn v. Levine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 366' to be fictitious/unlocatable and did not rely on it. Outcome: Warning. The appellate opinion and editor's note identify numerous incorrect or non-existent case citations in the appellant's filings. The court treated those citations as unreliable, found several to be fictitious or unlocatable, and declined to credit them in resolving the appeals.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited this case to argue suicidal ideation cannot constitute abuse under the DVPA; appellate court found 'Quinn v. Levine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 366' to be fictitious/unlocatable and did not rely on it. Outcome: Warning. The appellate opinion and editor's note identify numerous incorrect or non-existent case citations in the appellant's filings. The court treated those citations as unreliable, found several to be fictitious or unlocatable, and declined to credit them in resolving the appeals.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA California
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateSep 30, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
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
Warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited this case to argue suicidal ideation cannot constitute abuse under the DVPA; appellate court found 'Quinn v. Levine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 366' to be fictitious/unlocatable and did not rely on it.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on this authority to support her position on DVPA scope; the court was unable to locate 'In re Marriage of L.B. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1076' and treated the citation as incorrect/unreliable.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited this decision in support of her arguments; the appellate court could not find 'In re Marriage of C.T. and R.T. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 982' and rejected reliance on it.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited this Supreme Court authority which the court could not locate as supporting authority; treated as an incorrect citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited this case for propositions on abuse/neglect; appellate court could not find 'In re Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1407' and did not accept it as authority.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on this citation for DVPA-related propositions; the court was unable to locate 'In re Marriage of Facter (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 526' and treated it as erroneous.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited this case (with inconsistent citations) to support claims about separation/date issues; the appellate court could not locate 'In re Marriage of Manfer (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 925' as cited and noted citation problems.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re the Marriage of D.X. and S.P.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited this case to argue suicidal ideation cannot constitute abuse under the DVPA; appellate court found 'Quinn v. Levine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 366' to be fictitious/unlocatable and did not rely on it. Outcome: Warning. The appellate opinion and editor's note identify numerous incorrect or non-existent case citations in the appellant's filings. The court treated those citations as unreliable, found several to be fictitious or unlocatable, and declined to credit them in resolving the appeals.
- Why does In re the Marriage of D.X. and S.P. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about In re the Marriage of D.X. and S.P.?
- 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 the Marriage of D.X. and S.P. 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.