Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
State ex rel. J.G. v. Anderson
, No. 25-1022 (June 10, 2026)
Case details
Full caption
State of Iowa ex rel J.G. v. Mynesia A. Anderson
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Iowa (IA)
Court
Iowa Supreme Court
Decided
June 10, 2026
Majority
Buller (J.) (unanimous Court)
1
IN
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS
OF
IOWA
_______________
No.
25-1022
Filed
June
10,
2026
_______________
State
of
Iowa
ex
rel
J.G.,
Petitioner–Appellee,
v.
Mynesia
A.
Anderson,
Respondent–Appellant,
_______________
Appeal
from
the
Iowa
District
Court
for
Black
Hawk
County,
The
Honorable
David
F.
Staudt,
Judge.
_______________
APPEAL
DISMISSED
_______________
Mynesia
Anderson,
Greenville,
Mississippi,
self-represented
appellant.
Brenna
Bird,
Attorney
General,
and
Terra
K.
Wood,
Gary
J.
Otting,
and
Kimberly
Meyer,
Assistant
Attorneys
General,
attorneys
for
appellee
Child
Support
Services.
_______________
Considered
without
oral
argument
by
Ahlers,
P.J.,
and
Buller
and
Sandy,
JJ.
Opinion
by
Buller,
J.
2
BULLER,
Judge.
Mynesia
Anderson
appeals
from
a
ruling
denying
her
2025
motion
to
vacate
a
2019
child-support
order.
In
reviewing
the
briefs,
we
discovered
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
’
s
fi
l
i
n
g
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
w
h
a
t
p
u
r
p
o
r
t
e
d
t
o
b
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
q
u
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
a
t
least
eight
appellate
decisions,
but
those
quotes
did
not
actually
appear
in
the
decisions.
Her
briefs
also
cited
two
Iowa
cases
that
do
not
exist;
the
reporter
citations
provided
are
for
other
states
and
cases
unrelated
to
the
cited
propositions.
W
e
h
a
v
e
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
t
h
i
s
p
h
e
n
o
m
e
n
o
n
—
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
a
t
i
c
fi
l
i
n
g
s
a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
l
y
“
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
”
b
y
a
r
t
i
fi
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
l
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
(
A
I
)
—
i
n
o
t
h
e
r
c
a
s
e
s
.
See
Nisland
Asset
Inv.,
LLC
v.
Gericke
,
No.
25-0659,
2026
WL
1162553,
at
*1
(Iowa
Ct.
App.
Apr.
29,
2026);
In
re
W.G.
,
No.
25-1916,
2026
WL
892837,
at
*2–3
(Iowa
Ct.
App.
Apr.
1,
2026);
In
re
R.A.
,
No.
24-1629,
2025
WL
2793560,
at
*2–4
(Iowa
Ct.
App.
Oct.
1,
2025);
Luke
v.
Dep’t
of
Health
&
Hum.
Servs.
,
29
N.W.3d
635,
636
(Iowa
Ct.
App.
2025);
Turner
v.
Garrels
,
No.
24-0895,
2025
WL
2537738,
at
*1
n.1
(Iowa
Ct.
App.
Sep.
4,
2025).
Most
pertinent
here,
using
AI
in
legal
matters
carries
the
risk
of
AI
“hallucinating”
or
fabricating
legal
authorities
that
do
not
actually
exist.
See
Thomas
A.
Mayes,
A
r
t
i
fi
c
i
a
l
I
n
t
e
l
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
,
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
Education,
and
the
Law:
Risks,
Rewards,
and
Opportunities
for
Leadership
,
20
J.
B
u
s
.
&
T
e
c
h
.
L
.
1
1
5
,
1
2
1
–
2
2
(
2
0
2
5
)
(
“
[
A
I
]
m
a
y
ʻ
s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
e
v
e
n
m
a
k
e
u
p
facts.’
This
includes
fabricating
case
citations,
even
if
the
proposition
it
is
citing
the
case
for
is
correct
or
misstating
the
holding
of
a
case
that
exists.”
(footnotes
omitted)).
W
i
t
h
t
h
i
s
b
a
c
k
d
r
o
p
,
w
e
o
r
d
e
r
e
d
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
t
o
e
i
t
h
e
r
(
1
)
fi
l
e
c
o
p
i
e
s
o
f
the
ten
decisions
with
the
portions
she
relied
on
highlighted;
or
(2)
submit
“a
statement
indicating
whether
the
appellant’s
brief
or
reply
brief
were
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
a
r
t
i
fi
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
l
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
t
o
o
l
s
.
”
3
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
fi
l
e
d
a
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
b
u
t
i
t
w
a
s
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
.
I
n
a
fi
f
t
e
e
n
-
p
a
g
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
,
s
h
e
r
e
p
e
a
t
e
d
l
y
a
s
s
e
r
t
e
d
s
h
e
w
a
s
n
o
t
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
the
court’s
jurisdiction
before
writing:
“I
asked
a
friend
to
help
with
the
brief
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
y
b
r
i
e
f
s
o
I
c
a
n
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
fi
r
m
o
r
d
e
n
y
t
h
e
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
a
r
t
i
fi
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
l
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
.
”
W
e
fi
n
d
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
f
a
i
l
e
d
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
o
u
r
o
r
d
e
r
.
W
e
h
a
v
e
,
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
c
e
n
t
p
a
s
t
,
s
t
r
i
c
k
e
n
o
ff
e
n
d
i
n
g
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
b
r
i
e
f
s
a
n
d
petitions
containing
a
few
AI-generated
citations.
See,
e.g.
,
W.G.
,
2026
WL
892837,
at
*3;
In
re
R.A.
,
2025
WL
2793560,
at
*4.
We
decline
to
follow
that
p
a
t
h
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
t
w
o
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
.
F
i
r
s
t
,
t
h
e
o
ff
e
n
d
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
i
n
W.G.
and
R.A.
both
complied
with
our
order
and
expressed
remorse
for
submitting
fabricated
citations;
Anderson
has
done
neither.
Second,
in
both
of
those
cases
we
could
at
least
arguably
sift
out
the
hallucinated
authorities
and
decide
what
remained
of
proper
legal
argument;
we
cannot
do
so
here
given
the
depth
and
breadth
of
the
fabricated
case
citations.
See
Nisland
,
2026
WL
1162553,
at
*1.
Given
Anderson’s
failure
to
comply
with
our
order
or
supply
a
legal
argument
upon
which
we
could
decide
this
appeal,
we
conclude
the
only
available
remedy
is
dismissal.
L
a
s
t
,
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
i
n
h
e
r
fi
l
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
w
e
h
a
v
e
n
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
t
o
t
h
e
b
r
i
e
f
fi
l
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
h
i
l
d
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
C
S
S
)
unit
as
appellee.
In
fact,
we
applied
exactly
the
same
standard.
All
of
the
cases
cited
in
CSS’s
brief
are
real
cases
and
the
quotations
are
accurate.
APPEAL
DISMISSED.
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access