GI v K

When deciding whether to hold a fact-finding hearing in private-law children proceedings, the central question is whether findings are necessary for the child-welfare decision. The seriousness of allegations is relevant, but the decisive issue is their nexus with present welfare, including the impact of alleged abuse on the child and the parents’ ongoing relationship. A court must explain adequately why it rejects up-to-date professional recommendations, particularly where alleged coercive control may affect future decision-making and contact. Reasons must appear in the judgment and cannot be supplied by comments made during the hearing. An appellate court should intervene where the decision was plainly wrong or inadequately reasoned. A specific-issue order affecting a child’s participation in an inclusivity event requires clear welfare-based reasons.

GI appealed against an order made by HHJ Ahmed concerning arrangements for the parties’ four-year-old daughter, B. The order provided that B should live with K, with GI having overnight contact on alternate weekends, midweek contact and shared holidays. GI alleged serious domestic abuse, including non-fatal strangulation and coercive control, and relied on two 2025 social-worker reports recommending equal time with both parents and addressing the alleged continuing impact of coercive control. The judge declined to conduct a fact-finding hearing, made limited findings about a bath incident, and did not determine the coercive-control allegations. He also ordered that B should not attend nursery or school during PRIDE week or other celebrations of LGBTQ+ rights and inclusivity. The appeal concerned the relevance of the abuse allegations, the adequacy of reasons for departing from the social-worker recommendations, judicial questioning, and the specific-issue order.

1. Appeal allowed in part. Grounds One and Three succeeded. Ground Two was dismissed. Ground Four also succeeded. The case was remitted to a Circuit Judge in Medway Family Court, with allocation referred to Henke J.
2. The governing question on fact-finding was whether findings were necessary for the welfare decision, or whether the events had become historic and of little or no relevance. The court adopted the considerations identified in K v K [2022] 1 WLR 3713 and Re HN [2022] 1 WLR 2681. These include the nature and likely welfare relevance of the allegations, the purpose of assessing risk and impact, whether other evidence suffices, and proportionality.
3. Although appellate intervention in fact-finding and case-management decisions is limited, the judge was plainly wrong to treat the allegations as irrelevant merely because both parents accepted that the other could have unsupervised contact. Alleged coercive control could affect the child’s welfare, co-parenting, the mother’s effective participation in decisions, and the long-term consequences of the living arrangements.
4. The judge also failed to address the two up-to-date 2025 social-worker reports recommending equal time and identifying concerns about coercive control. It was open to him to reject those recommendations, but he had to explain why. The requirement to give reasons for departing from a section 7 recommendation was confirmed by Re J (Residence: Expert Evidence) [2001] 2 FCR 44 and illustrated by Re M (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 2356.
5. There was no sufficient evidence that the judge’s questioning of GI rendered the process unfair, although judges must remain sensitive to vulnerable witnesses. The PRIDE-week order was plainly wrong because it lacked clear welfare-based reasons and failed to engage with the alleged coercive-control context and GI’s changed position.

• High Court (Family Division): appeal from HHJ Ahmed’s order dated 24 October 2025, following judgment dated 18 August 2025 and clarificatory email dated 5 September 2025. The appeal was allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Medway Family Court.