Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Margaret Li and Christopher Jones, both representing themselves on appeal, were involved in an ongoing child custody and support matter that began in 2019. The Fresno County Superior Court heard a contested request for a domestic violence restraining order beginning October 15, 2025. Although three half-day sessions had been scheduled, the parties appeared with counsel on October 16, 2025, and presented an agreed resolution. They stipulated that a three-year restraining order would issue and that Jones would be the only protected party. The court signed the order that day, and the agreement also resolved an unrelated custody issue concerning their minor child's passport.
Li filed a notice of appeal on October 29, 2025. She alleged that her counsel negligently failed to review evidence and told her she would lose her child unless she agreed to the restraining order. She also alleged that Jones was using the order to gain an unfair custody advantage, that his counsel wrote inaccurate statements in the subsequent order after hearing without her counsel's consent, and that both parties' counsel told her the order would not create a rebuttable presumption against her in the custody dispute. The appellate record contained the restraining order, a family law findings and order after hearing, the notice of appeal, a record designation, and a register of actions. No court reporter attended the hearing, and Li supplied no agreed statement or comparable substitute.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal identified eight issues in Li's opening brief: five procedural or evidentiary challenges, two claims concerning counsel's conduct and performance, and a cumulative-error claim. It explained that a party generally may not appeal from a consent judgment and that a stipulated judgment intended as a full and final settlement is not appealable under Norgart v. Upjohn Co. Because Li sought review of a stipulated resolution that wholly resolved the restraining-order dispute, the court held that the order was not appealable.
The court alternatively held that, even if the order were appealable, Li had not met her burden to demonstrate reversible error with an adequate record. It lacked the underlying restraining-order documents and evidence, a hearing record or agreed statement, and evidence about the alleged advice or threats from counsel because Li never asked the trial court to set aside the order. Under Ballard v. Uribe, that inadequacy required rejection of her claims. Finally, the available evidence supported the trial court: the record directly stated that Li agreed to a three-year restraining order, and the entered order matched that agreement. Finding no conflict and no abuse of discretion, the court affirmed and awarded costs to Jones.
Key Takeaways
- A stipulated order that fully and finally resolves the restraining-order dispute generally is not appealable as a consent judgment.
- An appellant challenging a judgment must provide an adequate record, and failure to do so requires the appeal to be resolved against that appellant.
- The absence of a reporter's transcript, agreed statement, underlying evidence, and a trial-court motion to set aside the order left no basis to evaluate Li's procedural, evidentiary, or counsel-related claims.
- The limited available record showed that the three-year restraining order matched the parties' stipulation, so the Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion.
- The appellate court affirmed the order and awarded costs to respondent Christopher Jones; it did not make new findings about the underlying domestic-violence allegations or custody dispute.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two established appellate barriers to a challenge to a stipulated family-law restraining order: the general rule against appeals from consent judgments and the appellant's burden to furnish an adequate record. The court did not treat Li's allegations of coercion, negligent representation, or inaccurate statements as established facts; it held that the submitted record provided no evidence with which to test them.
The alternative analysis matters because the court also examined the limited evidence that was available. The agreement and resulting order both specified a three-year restraining order against Li, leaving no demonstrated discrepancy. The unpublished opinion therefore rests on appealability, record inadequacy, and the absence of any shown abuse of discretion rather than a reassessment of credibility or the underlying custody allegations.