In re Termination of Parental Rights as to H.K.
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One · Ariz. Ct. App. · Arizona bar guidance
Conduct
Here the prevailing mother's answering brief quoted statutes and two cases for language the court could not find in them.
Consequence
No sanction; the court affirmed and said it will forward its decision to the State Bar of Arizona about Mother's counsel.
Lesson
Here the defective quotations were in the winning side's brief, and the court announced a referral even though the court affirmed in that party's favor.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- In re Termination of Parental Rights as to H.K., No. 1 CA-JV 25-0131, Memorandum Decision (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2026) (Paton, J.)
- Decided
- February 25, 2026
Summary
Father appealed, self-represented with advisory counsel, from a Mohave County juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to H.K. on abandonment grounds. After affirming on the merits, the Division One panel (Judge Angela K. Paton, joined by Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins) turned to Mother's answering brief, which it said "contains what appear to be hallucinated quotations from statutes and cases." The brief quoted A.R.S. Section 8-531(1) as stating that "[a]bandonment is measured by a parent's conduct, not the parent's subjective intent," and Section 8-533(B)(1) as requiring a failure to maintain a relationship "without just cause"; the court said "[t]hese statutes do not contain the language Mother quotes." A quotation attributed to Raymond F. v. Department of Economic Security, 224 Ariz. 373 (App. 2010), "does not exist in the case," and the court was "unable to find" two quotations attributed to JS-501568 (cited as 177 Ariz. at 577). The court cited counsel's duty of candor (Rule 42, ER 3.3) and duty to certify that representations to the court are accurate (Rule 11(b)).
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the decision says Mother's answering brief contains "what appear to be hallucinated quotations" but does not mention AI or name a tool)
- Amount or terms:
- None; the court will forward its decision to the State Bar of Arizona
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
The court affirmed the termination order and stated: "We will forward this decision to the State Bar of Arizona to determine whether Mother's counsel violated any rules of professional conduct." It imposed no monetary sanction, did not strike the answering brief, and made no finding that counsel violated any rule; whether a violation occurred is left to the State Bar. The decision is a memorandum decision marked "NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION" and not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).
Why does In re Termination of Parental Rights as to H.K. matter for law firms using AI?
H.K. illustrates that citation review cuts both ways on appeal. Father’s opening brief had its own defects: the court noted it contained no legal or record citations, but declined to find waiver because a child’s best interests were at stake, and affirmed the termination on the merits. The citation problem the court singled out was in the brief of the party who won.
Part IV of the decision catalogues what the court could not verify in Mother’s answering brief: language attributed to A.R.S. Sections 8-531(1) and 8-533(B)(1) that the statutes do not contain, a quotation from Raymond F. v. Department of Economic Security that “does not exist in the case,” and two quotations from JS-501568 the court was “unable to find.” The court introduced the section with a hedge, saying the brief contains “what appear to be hallucinated quotations,” and did not mention artificial intelligence.
The court then cited counsel’s duty of candor under ER 3.3 and the certification duty under Rule 11(b), cited Mangan v. Mangan, which it described as sanctioning counsel for misrepresenting the record and relying on inappropriate legal authorities, and stated it would forward the decision to the State Bar “to determine whether Mother’s counsel violated any rules of professional conduct.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court made no finding of its own and left that question to the Bar.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify statutory quotations against the statute text. Here the court found that two Arizona statutes quoted in the brief do not contain the quoted language.
- Review the answering brief with the same care as the opening brief. The court addressed the problem in a separate section after deciding the appeal for the appellee.
- Track bar referrals separately from sanctions. This court said it will forward its decision to the State Bar and made no finding of its own.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference: the decision describes "what appear to be hallucinated quotations" but does not mention artificial intelligence or name a tool.
- The decision refers only to "Mother's counsel" and does not say which attorney prepared the answering brief; the entry names no one.
- The outcome of any State Bar review is not known.