HH v SS

An appellate court reviewing family fact-finding must respect the trial judge’s evaluative advantage, but may intervene where material evidence was omitted or inadequately weighed, or where the reasons do not explain the conclusion. In serious domestic-abuse allegations, relevant video-recorded interviews and other significant evidence require careful evaluation. A judge may make additional findings beyond the parties’ schedules, but those findings must be securely founded in the evidence and reached through a fair process. A finding that conduct was coercive and controlling does not necessarily require every alleged method of enforcement to be proved.

The mother appealed findings made by HHJ Greenfield after a fact-finding hearing concerning two children. The judge found parental conflict and some coercive and controlling behaviour, but rejected allegations that the father attempted to strangle the mother in April 2023, assaulted her in August 2023, or specifically controlled her education, social media, driving and phone use.

The appeal challenged the treatment of video-recorded police interviews, the assessment of inconsistent evidence, the August finding that the parents fought, and the rejection of the specific coercive-control allegations. The central issues were whether the findings were open on the evidence and whether the first-instance reasoning adequately addressed material evidence.

1. Outcome. The appeal was allowed in respect of the April 2023 strangulation allegation and the August 2023 assault allegation. Those issues were remitted for rehearing before a different judge. The appeal concerning the specific allegations of control over education, social media, driving and phone use was dismissed.
2. Appellate approach. Under FPR 30.12, an appeal proceeds by way of review. The appellate court may intervene for an error of law, a conclusion unavailable on the evidence, failure to give due weight to significant evidence, or a plainly wrong evaluative conclusion. The court must nevertheless adopt a cautious approach to first-instance findings, recognising the trial judge’s advantage in assessing the evidence in the round.
3. April 2023 allegation. The video-recorded interviews were essential evidence in the circumstances. The judge should have viewed the relevant extracts, or adjourned to obtain transcripts if he considered that necessary. The judgment failed adequately to analyse the child’s recorded account, the father’s interview and apparent inconsistencies, the injuries, the neighbour’s report of screaming, and the evidence of the attending police officers. The conclusion therefore could not stand.
4. August 2023 allegation. The judge made a finding that the parents fought, although the father had not advanced that allegation in the Scott Schedule and it was unclear how the finding arose. A judge may make additional or different findings, but must ensure that they are securely founded in the evidence and do not compromise procedural fairness. The reasoning did not meet that standard.
5. Specific coercive-control allegations. The judge was entitled to find that presenting and demanding compliance with a list of rules was coercive and controlling, while finding that the mother was not in fact prevented from carrying out each specified activity. The rejection of the additional allegations was not irrational and did not undermine the established overarching finding of coercive control.
6. The rehearing must involve a fresh evaluation. The welfare stage may continue before HHJ Greenfield after the rehearing, and the judgment expressed no view on the likely outcome.

1. High Court (Family Division). Permission to appeal was granted by Judd J on 23 February 2026. Peel J allowed the appeal concerning the April 2023 and August 2023 allegations, dismissed the appeal concerning the specified coercive-control allegations, and remitted the two successful issues for rehearing.
2. First instance. HHJ Greenfield made the appealed findings at the conclusion of a fact-finding hearing on 14 November 2025.