Matter of Julien v Arthur; Matter of Arthur v Julien
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
The appeal involved both child custody and parental access under Family Court Act article 6 [governing custody and parental access proceedings] and an important appellate practice issue: whether a pro se litigant's unverified use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to draft a brief containing a fabricated case citation constitutes frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [court rule authorizing sanctions and costs for frivolous conduct in civil litigation].
The Family Court granted the mother's petition for sole legal and residential custody of the parties' child and awarded the father certain parental access.
Nothing was overturned. The Appellate Division affirmed the order insofar as appealed from and separately imposed a $250 sanction on the father for filing a brief containing fabricated legal authority.
The appellate court found that the record provided a sound and substantial basis for awarding sole legal and residential custody to the mother because she had been the child's primary caretaker, the father assaulted the mother in the child's presence, and the father at times failed to return the child as ordered. The court also held that citing a nonexistent case generated through unverified GenAI use was frivolous conduct, even for a self-represented litigant.
Background
The unmarried parties are the parents of a child born in June 2020. In 2021, the father sought parental access and the mother sought sole legal and residential custody. Temporary parental access was granted to the father. In 2023, the mother also filed family offense petitions under Family Court Act article 8 [governing family offense proceedings], alleging that the father failed to return the child after visits and assaulted members of her family during an exchange. A temporary order of protection was later issued, and the mother filed another family offense petition alleging its violation. After a consolidated hearing, the Family Court credited evidence that the mother had been the child's primary parent, that the father assaulted the mother in the child's presence, and that the father failed to return the child on scheduled occasions, requiring a writ for the child's return. On appeal, the father, acting pro se, filed a brief that appeared to have been drafted with GenAI assistance and cited a nonexistent appellate case to support his claim of judicial bias.
Lower Court Decision
The Family Court determined that the mother had been the child's primary parent since birth, had addressed the child's needs, and was better situated to provide stability. It found that the father had done little to ensure the child's needs were met, had assaulted the mother in the child's presence, and had refused to return the child as ordered. Based on the child's best interests, the court awarded the mother sole legal and residential custody and granted the father certain parental access.
Appellate Division Reversal
There was no reversal. The Appellate Division affirmed the custody and parental access order insofar as appealed from. It rejected the father's factual and bias arguments, holding that the findings were supported by hearing testimony, that the bias claim was unpreserved, and that the record showed the Family Court treated the parties fairly. The court separately granted its order to show cause to the extent of directing the father to pay a $250 sanction for frivolous conduct based on the fabricated citation in his appellate brief.
Legal Significance
The decision establishes in the Appellate Division, Second Department that unverified reliance on GenAI in drafting an appellate brief can amount to frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [court rule authorizing sanctions and costs for frivolous conduct in civil litigation] when it results in false legal authority, even if the filer is pro se. The court emphasized that self-represented status does not excuse a litigant from checking whether cited cases actually exist and support the propositions asserted. At the same time, the court indicated that the sanction amount will be calibrated to the circumstances, including the number of fabricated citations, whether the party persisted after notice, and whether the party acknowledged the error and showed remorse.
A litigant may use GenAI as a drafting aid only if the resulting legal authorities and factual assertions are independently verified. Filing even one fabricated citation can trigger sanctions, and pro se status will not bar relief. On the merits, custody determinations grounded in credibility findings and the child's best interests will be upheld when supported by a sound and substantial record.