In re S.A., D.H., and B.M., Minors

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 29 de diciembre de 2025, CA Illinois (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Respondent cited a fictitious quote from In re A.S., asserting 'Reasonable progress does not require complete agreement with the Department's version of events,' which the court found not present in that decision.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Respondent attributed a fabricated quote to In re J.L., claiming 'Parents may dispute details of the incident while still making progress toward correcting the conditions that led to removal,' which the court said J.L. did not address.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Respondent drew a fictitious conclusion from In re M.A., quoting that termination "cannot rest on a parent's personality traits or imperfect cooperation unless those conditions prevent the parent from safely parenting," which the court found was not in M.A.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Respondent attributed the quote 'A parent is not required to parrot the agency's exact narrative.' to In re Brianna B.; the court found the quote fictitious and not addressed in that opinion.

Desenlace

Warning. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1230/In_re_SA_USA_29_December_2025_-_ECF_96.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.