In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children

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

El 25 de noviembre de 2025, CA Ohio (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited "Sain v. Roo, 2018-Ohio-2878, ¶ 19," which the court found to be fictitious (no case assigned to that citation).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited "In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio App.3d 213 (1987)," but the court found this citation to be incorrect/fictitious (36 Ohio App.3d 213 is State v. Arvanitis).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant relied on "In re M.M., 2015-Ohio-2571" and another similar citation, which the court identified as fictitious/misassigned and not supporting appellant's propositions.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Appellant attributed a quotation to Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (1999), but the court found the quoted language does not appear in Braatz.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited "In re K.W., 2016-Ohio-5272, ¶ 16," which the court determined was mis-cited / assigned to a different case and did not support his claim.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited "In re J.J., 2017-Ohio-5467, ¶ 29," but the court noted no case is assigned to that citation.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellant referenced "State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-1234," but the court observed that citation is assigned to a different case (In re Z.L.) and does not support appellant's asserted proposition.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited "In re G.C., 2020-Ohio-4092" for legal propositions, but the court found that citation is assigned to an unrelated case (Oregon v. Gaughan) and does not support his claims.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Appellant attributed a quotation/supportive language to In re Guardianship of Hollins, 114 Ohio St.3d 434 (2007), but the court found no such quotation in Hollins.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellant relied on In re Bonfield, 2002-Ohio-6660, but the court found the case did not support the specific standing arguments appellant advanced.

Desenlace

Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1153/In_re_TF_PF_and_SS_Minor_Children_USA_25_November_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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