S and T (Children: Domestic Abuse)
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Natural & Artificial Intelligence in Law; linked document: naturalandartificiallaw.com. What AI Vortex adds.
Family Court at Barnet · Jul 28, 2025
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The father’s AI-generated position statement contained 24 purported case references. The court could not find passages in the cited judgments supporting the propositions, and stated that some references might be hallucinations. Outcome: Both parties’ AI-generated authorities ignored. Both the applicant father and respondent mother used a large language model to generate parts of their written documents. Each included purported case references; the father cited 24 references, and the mother also included numerous AI-generated authorities. The judge found the references entirely worthless, noted that some might be hallucinations, and could not locate passages in the judgments supporting the propositions advanced. The court described the AI-generated case law as misleading and relied instead on the applicable statutes, Practice Directions, and authorities that it could verify. No professional or monetary sanction was imposed specifically for the AI misuse, although the documents were treated as distracting and unhelpful.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Both parties’ AI-generated authorities ignored. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Both parties’ AI-generated authorities ignored in Family Court at Barnet. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The father’s AI-generated position statement contained 24 purported case references. The court could not find passages in the cited judgments supporting the propositions, and stated that some references might be hallucinations. Outcome: Both parties’ AI-generated authorities ignored. Both the applicant father and respondent mother used a large language model to generate parts of their written documents. Each included purported case references; the father cited 24 references, and the mother also included numerous AI-generated authorities. The judge found the references entirely worthless, noted that some might be hallucinations, and could not locate passages in the judgments supporting the propositions advanced. The court described the AI-generated case law as misleading and relied instead on the applicable statutes, Practice Directions, and authorities that it could verify. No professional or monetary sanction was imposed specifically for the AI misuse, although the documents were treated as distracting and unhelpful.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Both parties’ AI-generated authorities ignored in Family Court at Barnet. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Both parties’ AI-generated authorities ignored
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The father’s AI-generated position statement contained 24 purported case references. The court could not find passages in the cited judgments supporting the propositions, and stated that some references might be hallucinations.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The mother’s AI-generated documents contained purported case references that the court found entirely worthless and distracting; the court likewise could not rely on them as authorities.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The court expressly stated that the AI-generated case law produced by both parties was “worthless” and “misleading,” and that the propositions attributed to the authorities appeared auto-generated without supporting paragraph references.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in S and T (Children: Domestic Abuse)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The father’s AI-generated position statement contained 24 purported case references. The court could not find passages in the cited judgments supporting the propositions, and stated that some references might be hallucinations. Outcome: Both parties’ AI-generated authorities ignored. Both the applicant father and respondent mother used a large language model to generate parts of their written documents. Each included purported case references; the father cited 24 references, and the mother also included numerous AI-generated authorities. The judge found the references entirely worthless, noted that some might be hallucinations, and could not locate passages in the judgments supporting the propositions advanced. The court described the AI-generated case law as misleading and relied instead on the applicable statutes, Practice Directions, and authorities that it could verify. No professional or monetary sanction was imposed specifically for the AI misuse, although the documents were treated as distracting and unhelpful.
- Why does S and T (Children: Domestic Abuse) matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Both parties’ AI-generated authorities ignored in Family Court at Barnet. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about S and T (Children: Domestic Abuse)?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this S and T (Children: Domestic Abuse) summary?
- The recorded source is naturalandartificiallaw.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.
This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.