Ex parte A.I.F.-H.

How did the court address the AI-related conduct?

The court granted the petition in part and denied it in part. Agreeing with the mother, it held that the father presented no evidence that he resided in Alabama when he filed, so the juvenile court lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; applying the Ex parte Safeway burden framework on de novo review, it held that the father also had not proved the factual predicates for other UCCJEA jurisdiction, so the mother had a clear legal right to dismissal, and it directed the juvenile court to vacate its order denying the mother's motion to dismiss and to dismiss the custody-modification action; it denied the request to order a transfer to Pennsylvania. Judges Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy concurred; Presiding Judge Moore concurred specially on the trial court's handling of jurisdictional evidence; Judge Bowden dissented. No sanction, warning, or other consequence was imposed for the petition's citations. The dissent cited the Supreme Court of Alabama's dismissal of an appeal as a sanction for AI misuse in Ibach v. Stewart and wrote that "[g]ranting the mother's petition sets an unfortunate precedent that parties are free to submit fake case citations without any repercussions." The dissent also disagreed on the merits: "I cannot agree that the mother has demonstrated a clear legal right to relief." Neither view commanded a majority.

Why does Ex parte A.I.F.-H. matter for law firms using AI?

Ex parte A.I.F.-H. is in the tracker because of a dissent. The main opinion granted the mother’s mandamus petition in part on jurisdictional grounds, agreeing with her that, because the father presented no evidence that he resided in Alabama and the mother and child lived in Pennsylvania, the juvenile court lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under the UCCJEA; the father also failed to prove any other basis for jurisdiction. The per curiam opinion said nothing about the authorities in the petition. Judge Bowden did, under a heading stating that “[t]he mother primarily relied on AI-generated hallucinations and misrepresentations of holdings in real cases.” In his view, “nearly all the caselaw presented in support of the mother’s arguments appear to be AI-generated hallucinations and misrepresentations of holdings in real cases,” and the petition “should have been dismissed for failing to comply with Rule 21(a)(1)(F).”

The dissent’s account is specific. The petition cited “Ex parte Holloway, 992 So. 2d 521, 524 (Ala. 2008),” a case that “does not exist,” whose reporter citation leads to a Louisiana decision on a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action. It offered a “quote” from Ex parte Siderius that Judge Bowden could not find in that case or, “to my knowledge, in any other case.” Two other cited cases were real but misdescribed, and the only accurately cited case stood for a general proposition. Judge Bowden tied the problem to the Supreme Court of Alabama’s recent dismissal of an appeal as a sanction in Ibach v. Stewart, and warned that granting relief here “sets an unfortunate precedent that parties are free to submit fake case citations without any repercussions.”

These are one judge’s findings, framed as what the citations “appear to be,” and the four judges who joined the main opinion did not adopt them or impose any consequence. Judge Bowden also disagreed with the majority on the merits, concluding: “I cannot agree that the mother has demonstrated a clear legal right to relief.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that a favorable result on jurisdictional grounds does not validate a filing’s citations, and that a published dissent can put the defects on the public record regardless of the outcome.