Child’s Best Interest Trumps Sanction for Possibly Hallucinated Case Citation
A Court’s Standing Order on A.I.
March 14, 2026Maryland’s Proposed Anti-Hallucination Rule
March 16, 2026A child’s best interest is always paramount in a termination of parental rights case. In In re A.R. and N.R., Minors v. Sarah B., 2026 Ill. App. (2d) 250299-U (Appl. Ct. Ill. 2nd Dist. Mar. 10, 2026), the court wrote:
Further, respondent cites a case, In re K.B., 2019 IL App (3d) 180086, which does not exist. The citation is therefore erroneous, which could be due to a transcription error (see, e.g., In re K.B., 2019 IL App (4th) 190496) or reliance on an artificial intelligence (AI) research tool. Although the use of AI is not prohibited, litigants remain responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their filings. In re Baby Boy, 2025 IL App (4th) 241427, ¶ 131. Citation to a nonexistent authority is grounds for striking a brief and dismissing an appeal. Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Board, 2025 IL App (2d) 240416-U, ¶ 29. Despite respondent’s failure to comply with Rule 341(h) and her erroneous citations, we will address her arguments on the merits because a biological parent’s right to raise his or her child is a fundamental liberty interest, and the involuntary termination of parental rights is a drastic measure (In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill. 2d 340, 353 (2005)). In re C.R., 2024 IL App (4th) 231441-U, ¶ 20 (addressing termination on the merits despite briefing failures).
Id. at *10.
In Kadish v. Kadish, 254 Md. App. 467 (2022), the Court was faced with egregious discovery violations in a child custody case. Simply stated, the child’s mother failed or refused to provide discovery responses several times, failed to appear for depositions on three separate occasions, and also violated a series of escalating court orders compelling discovery. However, in a custody case, the best interests of the child must be fully considered. The Appellate Court wrote that parental rights “sink to insignificance” before the best interests of the child standard. See generally Maryland’s Special Rule for Discovery Sanctions in Child Custody Cases (Aug. 6, 2022).
That rule as also applied in Thomas v. Steele, 2025 WL 2601801 (Appl. Ct. Md. Sep. 9, 2025)(unreported). See Maryland’s Special Rule for Discovery Sanctions in Child Custody Cases – cont. (Sep. 12, 2025). There, the Court recognized an independent obligation to children and required a proffer before excluding any testimony.
