Kyra the dog is staying put. Last Thursday, the California Court of Appeal upheld a San Diego family court ruling that denied a man's bid for shared custody and visitation of the pup, even after judges discovered that at least one of the cases cited in the paperwork did not exist and another was cited incorrectly. The opinion leaves the no-visitation order intact and highlights a growing mess for courts wrestling with unvetted internet research and AI-generated “hallucinated” case law.
Panel flags bogus and bungled case citations
In its published opinion, In re Domestic Partnership of Campos & Munoz (D085584), the appellate panel noted that the trial court's written Findings and Order After Hearing cited a supposed Marriage of Twigg case and a Teegarden decision that turned out to be unreliable or incorrect. The justices said the trial court had relied in material part on those authorities, but still left the denial of shared custody in place for other procedural reasons, according to the California Courts.
Appeal sinks on forfeiture, not fake law
The panel held that appellant Joan Pablo Torres Campos had forfeited his challenge because his own attorney drafted and submitted the proposed order that contained the bad citations, then failed to alert the court to the errors. Torres also urged the court to adopt a new multi-factor standard for pet custody under Family Code section 2605, but the justices said the record in this case was too thin to support creating fresh precedent, as reported by ABA Journal.
Sanctions, State Bar referral and AI in the spotlight
The court slapped respondent's counsel, Roxanne Chung Bonar, with $5,000 in sanctions and ordered that a copy of the opinion be forwarded to the State Bar. Bonar acknowledged that she had relied on a Reddit article and “online resources including artificial intelligence” while doing her research. The opinion explains that publishing the decision is meant to serve as a warning shot to judges and lawyers that, even in the age of AI-generated misinformation, they remain responsible for confirming that cited authorities are real and reliable, according to the California Courts.
What the ruling telegraphs to the legal world
Observers say the case fits into a broader wave of decisions across the country that are telling lawyers, in no uncertain terms, that leaning on AI tools or casual web surfing does not excuse the professional obligation to vet sources. Commentators have pointed to this San Diego fight over Kyra as a cautionary tale about how unchecked online research can slip bogus precedent into the record and trigger sanctions, a trend highlighted by coverage in Reason.
For now, Kyra stays with the respondent, and the family court's order stands. The opinion lands as a blunt reminder to litigants and their lawyers: whether a citation comes from a blog post, a forum thread or an AI assistant, human attorneys are the ones who must read, check and own the law they file in a California courtroom.
