A.C. v. H.D. & J.C.: Pennsylvania Court Warns AI Citations Risk Argument Waiver in Custody Appeal

Background: Stepmother’s Custody Battle and a Suspect Brief

A.C. — identified in the opinion as “Stepmother” — had lived with children K.D. and A.D. for approximately three years, from 2019 to 2022, before the relationship with the children’s biological father ended. In February 2024, she filed a custody petition under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5324(2), which allows custody claims by non-parents who have “stood in loco parentis” to the child. The trial court sustained the biological mother’s preliminary objections and dismissed the petition with prejudice on standing grounds.

A.C. appealed pro se, raising five issues including standing, due process, Kayden’s Law application, and alleged judicial bias. Her brief was lengthy and legally sophisticated in structure — raising the court’s suspicion that it was AI-drafted.

The AI Issue: Wrong Proposition, Suspect Brief

The court found that Commonwealth v. Lyons — cited three times in the brief — did not stand for the proposition A.C. attributed to it and did not appear at the reporter citation provided. In a footnote, the court stated directly: “Based upon our review of Stepmother’s brief and the cases cited therein, we suspect she used generative artificial intelligence in drafting it.” The court then cited Saber v. Navy Federal Credit Union, 2026 WL 194332 (Pa. Super. Jan. 14, 2026), which had discussed AI “hallucinations” where programs make up cases that do not exist.

The court’s warning on the consequences of AI citations was particularly pointed: “all litigants using generative artificial intelligence must ensure that the citations in their briefs are to real cases, or they risk waiving them for failure to cite to ‘pertinent’ authority” under Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). This is a significant practical consequence: AI-generated citation errors don’t just earn a warning — they can result in the waiver of entire legal arguments on appeal.

Holdings

1. Custody petition dismissal affirmed. Stepmother lacked standing to file a custody petition; the in loco parentis doctrine did not apply on the facts.
2. AI suspicion stated in footnote. The court expressly suspected AI drafting based on the brief’s citation characteristics.
3. Waiver risk for AI citations declared. AI citations that are not “pertinent” — i.e., do not actually support the cited proposition — can result in waiver of the argument they purport to support under Pennsylvania appellate rules.

“All litigants using generative artificial intelligence must ensure that the citations in their briefs are to real cases, or they risk waiving them for failure to cite to ‘pertinent’ authority.”

— Pennsylvania Superior Court, A.C. v. H.D. and J.C., March 13, 2026

India Angle: AI Citations and the Risk of Argument Waiver

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s warning about argument waiver for AI citation errors has a direct Indian law parallel: under the Supreme Court’s practice, High Court rules, and the Code of Civil Procedure, arguments not properly supported by cited authority may be treated as not raised, waived, or abandoned. An AI-hallucinated citation that does not support the claimed proposition could cause an Indian court to disregard the entire argument it was intended to support.

Relevant Indian Law

• CPC Order XXI / Supreme Court Rules 2013: Written submissions and arguments in Indian appellate courts require citation of authority. Arguments without authority support, or supported by authority that does not actually support the proposition, may be disregarded.
• Kayden’s Law parallel — child welfare proceedings: India’s Juvenile Justice Act 2015 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 deal with child welfare in ways analogous to Pennsylvania’s Kayden’s Law (trauma-informed custody). AI errors in these proceedings could be particularly harmful given the vulnerability of children involved.

Three Practical Tips

1. Check that your cited authority actually supports your proposition — not just that it exists. An AI tool can cite a real case for the wrong proposition. Read the relevant passage in the original judgment to confirm it supports your argument.
2. Argument waiver is a real consequence of AI citation errors in Indian appellate practice. If you cite a case for a proposition it does not stand for, opposing counsel may raise this at the appellate hearing and the court may treat your argument as not properly supported — with the same practical effect as waiver.
3. In in loco parentis and custody matters, extra precision is required. Child custody precedents are nuanced; the difference between a case decided under one statute versus another can be outcome-determinative. AI tools conflate precedents across jurisdictions and statutes; manual verification in the relevant statutory and factual context is essential.

Quick Takeaways

• Pennsylvania courts can waive appellate arguments supported only by AI-hallucinated citations — a consequence more severe than an admonishment or even a monetary sanction.
• Judicial suspicion of AI drafting can be based on a brief’s structure and citation pattern alone, without any admission from the litigant.
• The Pennsylvania Superior Court now has an internal AI citation standard (Saber v. Navy Federal Credit Union) that it actively applies to detect and address AI-impacted briefs.
• In India: unsupported or improperly cited arguments risk being treated as waived or abandoned — AI citation errors create this risk regardless of whether the court takes additional remedial action.