Section 81.001 Family-Violence Protective Order Evidence | Sanchez v. Sanchez (2026)

Sanchez v. Sanchez, 06-26-00046-CV, October 09, 2026.

On appeal from 410th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas

Synopsis

Legally and factually sufficient evidence supported a family-violence protective order under Texas Family Code § 81.001 where the trial court credited testimony describing repeated physical and sexual assaults and rejected the respondent’s denials. The applicant’s testimony, supported by evidence of criminal charges, bond conditions, and subsequent prohibited conduct, permitted findings that family violence had occurred and justified the protective relief imposed.

Relevance to Family Law

Sanchez reinforces the central role of credibility determinations in protective-order proceedings that overlap with divorce and suits affecting the parent-child relationship. When a trial court credits detailed testimony concerning assaultive conduct, an appellate court will not ordinarily reweigh that testimony merely because the accused spouse denies the allegations, the parties later resumed contact, or the applicant previously signed an affidavit of non-prosecution.

The decision also matters in custody litigation. Evidence that children witnessed family violence against a parent may support restrictions on possession and access even when the respondent did not directly assault the children. Family-law litigators should treat protective-order findings as potentially consequential to conservatorship, possession, geographic restrictions, firearm rights, exclusive use of the marital residence, and the strategic posture of a parallel divorce.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Nohemi Sanchez sought a family-violence protective order against Rodolfo Perez Sanchez and requested protection for their two minor children. She testified that the abuse had continued for approximately two years and described two particularly significant incidents in 2025.

During the first incident, Perez allegedly became angry because Nohemi had not answered his calls promptly. According to Nohemi, he ripped a watch from her wrist, causing substantial pain, and then struck her legs several times with a horse whip while she was lying on the bed. She testified that the incident caused bruising, red marks, and soreness. At least one child was present, and the children became frightened and began crying.

Nohemi also described a June 2025 incident involving physical violence and sexually assaultive conduct. She testified that Perez threatened to force anal sex upon her, threw her to the floor by her hair, rubbed his genitals against her face while demanding oral sex, pinned her face down, took her telephone, grabbed her head, hair, and neck, and struck the side of her face. When Nohemi called for a child to contact 9-1-1, Perez allegedly stopped her and later smashed her telephone with a baseball bat. He was arrested and charged with family-violence assault.

Nohemi acknowledged signing an affidavit of non-prosecution and helping Perez obtain release from jail because he was the family’s sole source of income. She also acknowledged later communicating with him regarding marital property and attempting reconciliation. Those circumstances did not cause the trial court to reject her account of the assaults.

While the divorce remained pending, a court order and bond conditions restricted Perez’s access to the marital residence and his communications with Nohemi. Nohemi testified that he nevertheless entered the home, damaging the front door. The record included a complaint and indictment alleging repeated violations of court orders or bond conditions.

Perez denied the domestic-violence allegations. He testified that he loved his children, had a good relationship with them, and believed Nohemi wanted him to return. The trial court expressly found Nohemi credible and Perez’s denials not credible.

The trial court found that the February and June incidents constituted family violence and demonstrated a history or pattern of such violence. It included the minor children as protected persons, restricted Perez’s access to supervised visitation through Access Builds Children, and entered a protective order effective for two years.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the finding that Perez committed family violence.

• Whether factually sufficient evidence supported the protective order despite Perez’s denials, the affidavit of non-prosecution, attempted reconciliation, and later communications between the parties.

• Whether the evidence justified protective relief that included the parties’ minor children and restrictions on Perez’s possession and access.

• Whether Perez preserved his appellate complaint that the trial court failed to make sufficiently specific requested findings.

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code § 81.001 governs the issuance of a family-violence protective order. The opinion applied the rule that an applicant must establish the statutory grounds for protective relief, including that family violence occurred. The court also considered whether the evidence supported the determination that future protective relief was warranted.

“Family violence” includes an act by a family or household member against another family or household member that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault. It also encompasses a threat that reasonably places the affected person in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault.

Because the trial court acts as the factfinder in a protective-order proceeding, its material findings are reviewed under legal- and factual-sufficiency standards. A respondent challenging legal sufficiency on an issue for which the respondent did not carry the burden must demonstrate that no evidence supports the finding. A factual-sufficiency challenge requires examination of the entire record, including evidence both supporting and contradicting the challenged finding.

The factfinder determines witness credibility and the weight assigned to conflicting testimony. An appellate court may not substitute its credibility judgment for that of the trial court merely because the record contains competing accounts.

When protective relief affects possession of or access to children, evidence of family violence is relevant to the court’s determination. The children’s best interest remains the primary consideration in deciding conservatorship, possession, and access issues under Texas Family Code § 153.002.

Application

The trial court had more than a generalized allegation or an expression of subjective fear. Nohemi identified specific incidents, dates, conduct, injuries, threats, and surrounding circumstances. Her testimony described acts intended to cause bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault: ripping a watch from her wrist, striking her with a whip, dragging her by the hair, pinning her to the floor, forcing sexual contact, grabbing her head and neck, and striking her face.

The two incidents also supported the trial court’s finding of a history or pattern rather than a single ambiguous encounter. The February incident caused pain and visible injuries. The June incident involved escalating physical and sexual aggression, interference with Nohemi’s attempt to obtain emergency assistance, and destruction of her telephone. The trial court was entitled to view that conduct collectively.

Perez’s denials created a credibility dispute; they did not eliminate the evidence supporting the order. The trial court expressly credited Nohemi and found Perez not credible. Under sufficiency review, the appellate court deferred to that determination rather than independently choosing which spouse’s account to believe.

Nor did Nohemi’s affidavit of non-prosecution, financial dependence, attempted reconciliation, or later property-related communications conclusively negate the assaults. Those matters were available for impeachment and were considered by the trial court. They went to the weight of her testimony, not its legal capacity to support the findings.

The surrounding documentary evidence provided additional context. The record included charging instruments relating to the June assault and evidence of bond conditions and alleged violations. Although an accusation or charging instrument is not itself an adjudication of guilt, the trial court could consider the admissible evidence in the record together with Nohemi’s firsthand testimony and Perez’s course of conduct.

Including the children in the order was also supported by evidence that they were present for much of the violence, reacted with fear, and were exposed to Perez’s temper and assaultive behavior. The trial court was not required to wait for Perez to assault a child directly before imposing measures designed to reduce the likelihood of future harm. It balanced protection with parental access by providing for visitation through a supervised-access program.

Holding

The Sixth Court of Appeals held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the family-violence findings. Credited testimony describing repeated physical and sexual assaults constituted evidence of acts intended to cause physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault.

The court further held that Perez’s denials and the evidence of attempted reconciliation did not render the protective-order findings insufficient. Determining whether to believe Nohemi’s detailed account or Perez’s denial was the trial court’s responsibility as factfinder.

The court upheld the protective relief imposed, including protection for the minor children and restrictions on possession and access. Evidence that the children witnessed family violence and were exposed to the respondent’s conduct permitted the trial court to fashion relief intended to protect their best interests and reduce the risk of future harm.

Finally, the court concluded that Perez waived his complaint concerning the specificity of the trial court’s findings. The protective order was affirmed.

Practical Application

For applicants, Sanchez demonstrates that a protective-order case can be established principally through credible, detailed testimony. Corroboration remains strategically valuable, but Texas practitioners should not assume that the absence of photographs, medical records, or a criminal conviction defeats the application. Prepare the client to testify with specificity about the actor, conduct, date, location, injuries, threats, witnesses, and reason for believing future protection is necessary.

For respondents, a categorical denial may be inadequate when the applicant provides a coherent narrative supported by surrounding circumstances. Effective defense preparation requires addressing each alleged event, identifying objective contradictions, developing a credible explanation for documentary evidence, and confronting allegations concerning violations of bond conditions or existing court orders. Conduct after separation may materially affect the factfinder’s assessment of risk and credibility.

In divorce litigation, counsel should coordinate the protective-order record with temporary-orders strategy. Findings concerning family violence may affect exclusive occupancy of the residence, temporary conservatorship, supervised possession, communication restrictions, firearm possession, and the availability of presumptions or restrictions under Chapter 153 of the Family Code.

Counsel should also anticipate the recurring impeachment issues presented when an applicant resumes contact, requests dismissal of criminal charges, signs an affidavit of non-prosecution, or attempts reconciliation. Those facts should be addressed directly rather than concealed. Financial dependence, coercion, concern for the children, and the dynamics of an abusive relationship may explain continued contact without disproving the underlying violence.

Finally, preserve error with precision. A party challenging omitted or inadequate findings must timely request findings, identify omissions, and file any required notice of past-due or additional findings. A merits argument cannot cure a preservation failure concerning findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Checklists

Presenting the Protective-Order Application

• Identify each alleged incident by date or approximate time period.

• Connect each act to the statutory definition of family violence.

• Elicit the respondent’s specific words, threats, physical actions, and sexual conduct.

• Establish pain, injury, bodily impairment, fear, or other immediate consequences.

• Identify whether children witnessed, heard, or responded to the incident.

• Explain why the conduct reflects a pattern or risk requiring continuing protection.

• Address prior reconciliations, resumed communications, and requests for non-prosecution directly.

• Explain any delay in reporting or continued financial dependence.

Corroborating the Applicant’s Testimony

• Obtain photographs of injuries and damaged property.

• Secure medical, counseling, and emergency-response records.

• Preserve 9-1-1 recordings, police body-camera footage, and incident reports.

• Authenticate text messages, emails, call logs, voice messages, and social-media communications.

• Obtain certified copies of relevant criminal complaints, bond conditions, emergency orders, indictments, and court orders.

• Identify witnesses who observed injuries, threats, property damage, or the parties’ demeanor.

• Document violations of no-contact, stay-away, or exclusive-possession provisions.

• Prepare to distinguish allegations in charging instruments from proof based on firsthand testimony.

Defending Against the Application

• Prepare a separate factual response to every alleged incident.

• Avoid relying exclusively on a global denial.

• Identify inconsistencies involving timing, location, injuries, witnesses, or communications.

• Preserve objective evidence such as location data, work records, surveillance footage, and complete message threads.

• Explain post-incident contact without assuming it disproves the alleged violence.

• Assess whether testimony concerning the children supports narrower, supervised, or structured access rather than complete exclusion.

• Advise the client to comply strictly with all bond conditions and temporary orders.

• Do not permit direct or indirect contact that could be characterized as intimidation, retaliation, or an order violation.

Addressing Child-Related Relief

• Determine whether the children saw or heard the alleged violence.

• Develop evidence concerning each child’s emotional and behavioral response.

• Address the respondent’s temper, threats, substance use, weapons access, or destruction of property when relevant.

• Propose a detailed possession structure that accounts for safety and the parent-child relationship.

• Evaluate supervised visitation, neutral exchanges, parenting applications, and third-party communication.

• Coordinate the requested relief with existing temporary orders in the divorce or SAPCR.

• Ensure that the protective order and possession orders do not contain conflicting terms.

Preserving the Appellate Record

• Obtain a complete reporter’s record of the protective-order hearing.

• Ensure all exhibits are admitted and included in the clerk’s record.

• Request findings of fact and conclusions of law when authorized and strategically appropriate.

• Timely request additional or amended findings addressing omitted material issues.

• Preserve objections to the scope and duration of relief.

• Identify how each challenged provision exceeds—or is supported by—the evidentiary record.

• Separate sufficiency complaints from preservation complaints concerning findings.

• Confirm that the final order accurately reflects the trial court’s oral rulings.

Citation

Sanchez v. Sanchez, No. 06-26-00046-CV (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 9, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion in Sanchez v. Sanchez.

~~4aa78484-dfb0-4d8a-9e05-edbbe3ec6ba4~~