High Court rules AI-generated info on welfare benefits carries no weight in child return case.
A High Court judge has dismissed AI-generated material presented in a family case, ruling that it carried no evidential weight in deciding whether a young child should be returned to New Zealand.
The case concerned B, a three-year-old boy born in New Zealand in 2022. He lived there until his British mother, referred to as JV, brought him to the UK in 2024 for a family wedding with the father’s consent. After the event, the pair did not return to New Zealand. In May 2025, B’s father, PB, initiated proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention, seeking B’s summary return.
Mr David Rees KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, refused the return order. He noted that B had spent nearly one-third of his life in England and had achieved a degree of stability at a formative stage of his development.
A central issue in the case was whether the mother would be entitled to state benefits if she returned to New Zealand. Victoria Green, representing the mother, argued that her client and the child would face an intolerable situation there, with no income, no employment, and only £2,500 in savings. Green asserted that the mother would not qualify for state benefits.
Embed from Getty ImagesHowever, after legal submissions had closed and while preparing his judgment, Rees received an email from Ms Geraldine More O’Ferrall. The correspondence contained AI-generated information about New Zealand’s welfare system, obtained via the father’s New Zealand solicitors. The material suggested that New Zealand maintained a robust social safety net, but noted that eligibility could depend on the mother’s residency status.
Rees was unimpressed. “Given the late and unsatisfactory nature of this evidence, I do not give it any weight,” he said. No formal evidence on the point had been submitted during the proceedings, and the judge emphasised that AI-generated material could not substitute for verified, admissible documentation.
The judgment did not identify the father’s New Zealand solicitors. In England, he was represented by Eskinazi & Co, part of GT Stewart Solicitors.
The case underscores growing judicial scepticism towards AI-generated content in legal proceedings, particularly when offered late and without proper evidential safeguards. The decision also highlights the importance of timely, properly sourced material in complex cross-border family disputes.
Under the Hague Convention, courts can order the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained across international borders, unless specific exceptions apply. In this instance, Rees found that returning B would not be appropriate, given the stability he had developed in England and the lack of reliable evidence on the family’s financial position if they returned to New Zealand.
The dismissal of the AI-generated evidence serves as a cautionary note for lawyers seeking to rely on technology without the necessary corroboration. Rees’s ruling makes clear that the courts require rigorous proof, not unverified content produced by artificial intelligence tools, especially in matters involving a child’s welfare.
As AI tools become more prevalent in legal practice, questions over their admissibility, reliability, and role in evidential processes are likely to intensify. For now, the message from the High Court is unambiguous: without proper sourcing and procedural compliance, AI-generated material will be given no weight.
