The California Court of Appeal has upheld a domestic violence restraining order against Margaret Li, affirming the decision made by a lower court. This ruling affects Li and her former partner, Christopher Jones, as they navigate ongoing child custody and support matters. The court's decision is significant as it addresses claims of procedural misconduct and the validity of the restraining order.

The case, Li v. Jones (docket number F090654), stems from a series of child custody disputes that began in 2019. The parties involved, Margaret Li and Christopher Jones, both represented themselves during the appeal process. The restraining order was issued following a contested request for a restraining order that began on October 15, 2025. On October 16, 2025, both parties reached a stipulated agreement, indicating that a three-year restraining order would be issued, with Jones as the sole protected party.

Li filed a notice of appeal on October 29, 2025, claiming that her counsel had acted negligently and that the restraining order was being used by Jones to gain an unfair advantage in their custody dispute. She alleged that her attorney threatened her with the loss of her child if she did not agree to the restraining order. Li also claimed that there were inaccuracies in the statements made by Jones's counsel regarding the order.

The court's ruling addressed several issues raised by Li in her appeal. She argued that the stipulation was not enforceable because there was no signed document and no oral record of the agreement. Additionally, she contended that the restraining order lacked substantial evidence and that her due process rights were violated due to the absence of cross-examination or an evidentiary hearing.

The court explained that a party generally cannot appeal a consent judgment. This principle was supported by the case Norgart v. Upjohn Co., which states that if the parties intended a full and final settlement of their dispute, a stipulated judgment is not appealable. The court noted that Li had the burden of demonstrating reversible error, which she failed to do due to an inadequate record.

The court emphasized that the record submitted by Li did not include any underlying documents or evidence related to the restraining order. Without a complete record, the court could not evaluate the claims raised by Li. The absence of a court reporter at the hearing and the lack of an agreed statement further complicated the appeal.

In its opinion, the court stated, "Appellant has failed to demonstrate error." It reiterated that the stipulated resolution of the restraining order dispute was not subject to appeal. The court found that the evidence supported the trial court's findings, and there was no indication of abuse of discretion in the order entered against Li.

The ruling has implications for future cases involving domestic violence restraining orders and consent judgments. It reinforces the principle that stipulated agreements, once made, are typically not open to appeal unless there is clear evidence of procedural errors or misconduct. This ruling may set a precedent for similar cases where parties attempt to challenge consent judgments based on claims of attorney misconduct or lack of evidence.

Looking ahead, it remains unclear if Li will seek further legal recourse or if there are related cases pending in the court system. The court's decision to affirm the restraining order indicates a strong stance on the enforceability of stipulated agreements in domestic violence cases.