The California Court of Appeal has affirmed a restraining order against Mercedeh Javan in the case of Javan v. Khanof, docket number G065777. The ruling affects both parties, who are a divorced couple sharing custody of their minor child. This decision is significant as it upholds the trial court's previous orders regarding custody and visitation rights.

The dispute began in April 2024 when both Javan and Amin Khanof sought restraining orders against each other. The conflict escalated, leading to the trial court granting Khanof a five-year restraining order against Javan. This order included provisions for custody and visitation. In June 2025, the court amended this restraining order, further detailing the custody and visitation arrangements.

Javan's appeal was primarily focused on the restraining order issued on June 7, 2024. However, she had previously dismissed her appeal concerning this order on December 13, 2024. This dismissal rendered the June 7, 2024 order final and binding, meaning it could not be challenged further. The court noted that Javan's arguments on appeal were insufficient, as they focused on a matter that had already been finalized.

The court explained, "To the extent Javan challenges the 2025 order, she does so only tangentially in the conclusion section of her opening brief." The judges emphasized that Javan did not provide adequate legal reasoning or analysis to support her claims. As a result, the court ruled that her arguments regarding the 2025 order were forfeited.

The ruling was delivered by Acting Presiding Judge Delaney, with Justices Gooding and Macaulay concurring. The court affirmed the June 25, 2025 restraining order and awarded Khanof his costs on appeal.

This ruling has implications for both parties, particularly regarding their custody and visitation rights. The court's decision reinforces the authority of trial courts to issue restraining orders in domestic violence cases while also retaining the discretion to modify custody arrangements if requested by either party.

Going forward, this ruling may serve as a precedent in similar cases involving restraining orders and custody disputes. It highlights the importance of presenting a strong legal argument when appealing a trial court's decision. The court's affirmation of the restraining order indicates that the legal system takes domestic violence seriously, and it will uphold protective measures when warranted.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Javan plans to appeal this decision further. However, given the nature of the case, it is likely that both parties will continue to navigate the complexities of custody and visitation arrangements under the existing restraining order.