AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesIn re: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

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

CA Indiana · Oct 30, 2025

IN / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamilyWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the pro se litigant regarding the use of AI-generated legal research. The court explicitly cautioned that AI-generated citations must be independently verified, noting that the appellant's reliance on non-existent cases and misapplied statutes hindered the appellate review process.

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

In this appellate matter, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the trial court's denial of a pro se litigant's motions regarding custody and restraining orders. The appellate court noted that the appellant's briefs contained numerous non-existent case citations and misapplied statutory authority. The appellant admitted to using ChatGPT to prepare her pleadings. The court cautioned both attorneys and pro se litigants against using AI for legal research without independent verification, noting that such errors severely hindered the court's review of the issues. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision and denied the appellant's request for attorney's fees, emphasizing that pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as trained attorneys.

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
Explore INOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Indiana
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit7th Circuit
DateOct 30, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court affirmed the trial court's orders and issued a formal warning regarding the use of AI in legal drafting.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The appellant admitted to using ChatGPT for pleadings.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a trial court's denial of motions for a Parenting Time Coordinator, termination of a restraining order, and ADA accommodations.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se litigant regarding the use of AI-generated legal research. The court explicitly cautioned that AI-generated citations must be independently verified, noting that the appellant's reliance on non-existent cases and misapplied statutes hindered the appellate review process.
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 citationsCingel v. FerreriCA Indiana · Sep 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsJean-Paul B. Kalonji v. State of IndianaCA Indiana · May 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsNicole Olbera, et al. v. Tiara SykesCA Indiana · Mar 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsA.K. v. M.R.CA Indiana · Mar 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsWilcox v. GingrichCA Indiana · Jan 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations