In re W.B.
CA California (5d) · Apr 29, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA California (5d)
- Record ID
- in-re-w-b-2026-04-29
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the termination of parental rights and issued a warning regarding the use of generative AI in future filings.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant regarding the risks of using generative AI in legal filings, specifically highlighting the dangers of hallucinated citations and the potential breach of confidentiality when inputting sensitive case information into public AI systems.
The court reasoned that the use of generative AI in legal briefing poses risks of inaccurate information and misleading citations, which impede the court's ability to address claims efficiently. Additionally, the court identified a significant privacy risk when confidential dependency case details are input into public AI systems.
This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of pro se litigants using generative AI, emphasizing the dual risks of legal inaccuracy and the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information in sensitive family law proceedings.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Family
- Appellate
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative Artificial Intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights.
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 inferred the use of a generative AI system based on the appellant's statement and the brief's content.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Review all AI-generated content for accuracy and verify every citation against primary legal sources.
- Ensure that no confidential or sensitive case information is input into public generative AI platforms.
- Consult court-specific guidance on the use of AI in legal filings, such as the California Appellate Courts' 'Using AI? Read This First' resource.