Volesky v. Department of Child Safety
CA Arizona · Jan 21, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court identified that the pro se appellant included a fabricated legal citation in her appellate brief. While the court addressed the merits of the underlying discovery petition, it explicitly noted the invalidity of the cited authority in a footnote, characterizing it as a mix of a Washington case name and an unrelated Arizona reporter citation.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Dependency of D.F.-M., 236 Ariz. 33, 36 (App. 2014)'; the court explained the name corresponds to a Washington juvenile case (157 Wash.App.179) while the Arizona reporter citation refers to an unrelated Arizona criminal case (State v. Flores), concluding the citation is incorrect/fabricated.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Arizona, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
In this appellate decision, the court affirmed the dismissal of a pro se litigant's petition for pre-litigation discovery. The appellant sought medical records related to a 2011 parental rights termination, alleging fraud. The court held that the appellant lacked a legal interest in the records due to the finality of the termination and that any fraud claims were time-barred. In her briefing, the appellant cited 'In re Dependency of D.F.-M., 236 Ariz. 33, 36 (App. 2014).' The court noted in a footnote that this citation is fabricated, as the case name corresponds to a Washington state juvenile decision, while the Arizona reporter citation refers to an unrelated criminal case.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Arizona, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The source identifies the citation as a hallucination, implying AI usage.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Mohave County; the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's petition with prejudice.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Dependency of D.F.-M., 236 Ariz. 33, 36 (App. 2014)'; the court explained the name corresponds to a Washington juvenile case (157 Wash.App.179) while the Arizona reporter citation refers to an unrelated Arizona criminal case (State v. Flores), concluding the citation is incorrect/fabricated.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Volesky v. Department of Child Safety?
- The court identified that the pro se appellant included a fabricated legal citation in her appellate brief. While the court addressed the merits of the underlying discovery petition, it explicitly noted the invalidity of the cited authority in a footnote, characterizing it as a mix of a Washington case name and an unrelated Arizona reporter citation.
- Why does Volesky v. Department of Child Safety matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Arizona, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about Volesky v. Department of Child Safety?
- 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 Volesky v. Department of Child Safety 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.