In re: the Marriage of Melinda Johnson v. Sabastian Johnson
CA Indiana · Oct 30, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Indiana
- Record ID
- in-re-the-marriage-of-melinda-johnson-v-sabastian-johnson-2025-10-30
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the trial court's orders and issued a formal warning regarding the use of AI in legal drafting.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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).
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Appellate
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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.
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 appellant admitted to using ChatGPT for pleadings.
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.