HomeCasesIn re: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. 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: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson

CA Indiana · Oct 30, 2025

IN / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamily

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Mother's briefs included multiple cited cases that the court found do not exist; the court attributed the errors to AI-assisted drafting. Outcome: Warning. The court observed that Mother's briefs included many cited authorities that do not exist and that one statute she cited was not on point. Mother admitted using Chat GPT to prepare pleadings. The court affirmed the trial court's orders and warned litigants to verify AI-generated citations.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Mother's briefs included multiple cited cases that the court found do not exist; the court attributed the errors to AI-assisted drafting. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Mother relied on Indiana Code §31-17-2-16 for authority to appoint a parenting coordinator, but the court found the statute does not govern that point (misapplied legal norm).
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

IndianaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCA Indiana

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit7th Circuit

DateOct 30, 2025

AI toolChatGPT

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGPT 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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Mother's briefs included multiple cited cases that the court found do not exist; the court attributed the errors to AI-assisted drafting.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Mother relied on Indiana Code §31-17-2-16 for authority to appoint a parenting coordinator, but the court found the statute does not govern that point (misapplied legal norm).

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson?: Fabricated: Case Law | Mother's briefs included multiple cited cases that the court found do not exist; the court attributed the errors to AI-assisted drafting. Outcome: Warning. The court observed that Mother's briefs included many cited authorities that do not exist and that one statute she cited was not on point. Mother admitted using Chat GPT to prepare pleadings. The court affirmed the trial court's orders and warned litigants to verify AI-generated citations.
Why does In re: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about In re: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson?: 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: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson 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.

Mutugu v. KiarahoCA Indiana · Feb 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Cingel v. FerreriCA Indiana · Sep 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Jean-Paul B. Kalonji v. State of IndianaCA Indiana · May 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Nicole Olbera, et al. v. Tiara SykesCA Indiana · Mar 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations A.K. v. M.R.CA Indiana · Mar 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Wilcox v. GingrichCA Indiana · Jan 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

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

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Mother's briefs included multiple cited cases that the court found do not exist; the court attributed the errors to AI-assisted drafting.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Mother relied on Indiana Code §31-17-2-16 for authority to appoint a parenting coordinator, but the court found the statute does not govern that point (misapplied legal norm).

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson?

Why does In re: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.

What does the public record establish about In re: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson?

Which source supports this In re: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson 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.