Khorsand v. Khorsand CA2/1, B336696

Hamed Khorsand (appellant) appealed from a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) that protected his estranged wife, Ciara Khorsand (respondent), after a contentious marital separation and disputes over finances and custody.
The parties initially resolved earlier restraining order requests via stipulation, agreeing to stay away from each other and share joint custody, with both to complete anger and parenting courses.
Shortly after the stipulation, Ciara filed for a new DVRO alleging financial and emotional abuse, including threats to withhold rent and essentials, and the court issued a temporary protective order.
At a later evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Hamed engaged in coercive control over Ciara’s finances, meeting the definition of abuse under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
The court ordered an 18-month restraining order, awarded Ciara use of their vehicle, and required Hamed to pay her rent and utilities; it also modified custody and visitation arrangements on a temporary basis.
Hamed appealed, arguing errors in evidence exclusion, the custody order (which became moot after subsequent proceedings), and the financial orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interpretation of Stipulation – Use in DVRO	The prior stipulation should bar either party from raising pre-stipulation abuse in future DVRO requests	The stipulation only barred Hamed from raising pre-stipulation events, not Ciara	Interpreted to bind only Hamed, not Ciara; affirmed
Temporary Custody and Visitation Order	The trial court erred by modifying custody without a full evidentiary hearing	Argued the visitation was appropriately modified given DVRO findings	Not appealable and moot due to superseding final judgment
Exclusion of Evidence at DVRO Hearing	Excluding pre-stipulation evidence as a “sword” prevented fair presentation of his defense	Such evidence was properly limited per stipulation, but could be used as a “shield”	Exclusion appropriate; no prejudice shown
Order to Pay Rent/Utilities via DVRO	DVRO statutes don't authorize ordering payment of rent and utilities without separate support proceedings	Such financial orders are within the DVPA’s remedial authority	Court had broad DVPA discretion to order these payments; affirmed

Smith v. Smith, 208 Cal.App.4th 1074 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (temporary custody orders issued in connection with DVROs are nonappealable)
Lester v. Lennane, 84 Cal.App.4th 536 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (temporary custody orders are interlocutory and nonappealable)
In re Marriage of Fregoso & Hernandez, 5 Cal.App.5th 698 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (abuse of discretion standard in family law orders)
Ashby v. Ashby, 68 Cal.App.5th 491 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (broad remedial authority under the DVPA to award support and restitution)