Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1Y7LC8VGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Volesky v. Department of Child Safety

CA Arizona · Jan 21, 2026

Jurisdiction
state
Court
CA Arizona
Record ID
volesky-v-department-of-child-safety-2026-01-21
Observed outcome
The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the petition with prejudice.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Hallucinated_case_law
  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Family
  • Appellate
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
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.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The source identifies the citation as a hallucination, implying AI usage.

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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.