One problem here is that courts are almost never officially 'wrong'. If a judge invents facts out of thin air which are contradicted by 99.44% of the available evidence, so long as there's 0.1% of the evidence that supports the judge's claims, they are legally deemed true and effectively unchallengeable.
The only way a judge's finding of fact can be challenged is if new evidence is discovered which did not exist when the earlier finding of fact was made, and if a new result can be achieved while interpreting all the old evidence the same way the trial-court judge did. If the original trial court judge goes out of his way to misinterpret evidence, no other court can challenge it. And even if an appeal is accepted, the usual effect is to send the case back to the trial court where it was originally heard.
Thus, there can be an interesting conundrum regarding the legality of orders which would be legal if certain counter-factual conditions applied, if the judge who issued the order made a finding that such conditions applied. I don't know how to resolve that one from a legal perspective.