In re S.A., D.H., and B.M., Minors
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District · Ill. App. 2d Dist. · Illinois bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- In re S.A., D.H., and B.M., 2025 IL App (2d) 250280-U, Nos. 2-25-0280, 2-25-0281, 2-25-0282 cons. (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Dec. 29, 2025)
- Decided
- December 29, 2025
Summary
Pro se respondent-appellant Diamond H., appealing the termination of her parental rights, filed an appellate brief that cited four real Illinois cases for fictitious quotations and holdings. The fabricated quotes were attributed to In re Brianna B., 334 Ill. App. 3d 651 (2002); In re A.S., 2014 IL App (3d) 140060; In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329 (2010); and In re M.A., 325 Ill. App. 3d 387 (2001). Justice Mullen, writing for the panel (with Presiding Justice Kennedy and Justice Jorgensen concurring), observed that the "fictitious language was likely hallucinated by artificial intelligence" and noted that the brief's reliance on fabricated authority violated supreme court rules and could be grounds for striking the brief and dismissing the appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(a).
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
The court declined to strike the brief or impose monetary sanctions, citing the fundamental liberty interest at stake in a parental rights termination, and instead addressed the merits and affirmed the termination. The opinion reiterated the Illinois Supreme Court's AI policy requiring users to "thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding" and warned that "flagrant and unprincipled use of AI without ensuring the accuracy of the generated response is an abuse of the adversary system."
Why does In re S.A., D.H., and B.M., Minors matter for law firms using AI?
This case is notable on two fronts for firms tracking AI hallucination jurisprudence. First, it extends the pattern of AI-fabricated authority into pro se appellate briefing in child welfare proceedings, where the litigant is unrepresented and the stakes are a fundamental liberty interest. Second, the Second District declined to impose sanctions or strike the brief solely because of the constitutional weight of the underlying matter, while still publishing the fabrications and naming the cited cases. The opinion is a useful in-state companion to In re Baby Boy, 2025 IL App (4th) 241427, which it quotes, for any Illinois firm documenting how appellate panels are now treating suspected AI use.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.