A Texas court has upheld a protective order against Rodolfo Perez Sanchez, affirming that sufficient evidence of domestic violence existed. The ruling affects both Perez and his estranged wife, Nohemi Sanchez, as well as their two minor children, aged six and eight. This decision underscores the court's commitment to protecting victims of domestic violence and their children.
The case originated when Nohemi Sanchez sought a family-violence protective order against Rodolfo Perez Sanchez in the 410th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. The couple has two minor children, and Nohemi argued that they also needed protection from Perez. The court's decision to grant the protective order was based on Nohemi's testimony detailing a history of domestic violence over the past two years.
Nohemi testified about several incidents of abuse, including an event on February 22, 2025, when Perez allegedly ripped an I-Watch from her wrist, causing her pain. She described how he used a horse whip to hit her legs while she was lying on the bed. Another incident occurred on June 22, 2025, when Perez allegedly threatened Nohemi with sexual violence and physically assaulted her, leading to his arrest. Nohemi also mentioned that their children were present during these violent episodes, which heightened her concerns for their safety.
The court heard evidence that Perez had a pattern of violent behavior, including violating a previous court order that prohibited him from returning to the marital home. Despite Nohemi signing an affidavit of non-prosecution in August 2025, Perez was rearrested shortly after for another offense. The trial court found Nohemi's testimony credible and ruled in her favor, granting her a protective order for two years.
The Texas Court of Appeals, led by Chief Justice Scott E. Stevens, reviewed the case and upheld the trial court's decision. The court stated, "sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s family-violence protective order," and noted that Perez had waived his complaint regarding specific findings by failing to provide adequate argumentation. The ruling emphasized that the trial court's findings were based on the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented.
The court's ruling means that the protective order remains in effect, ensuring the safety of Nohemi and their children. The court's decision also highlights the importance of protecting victims of domestic violence and the need for legal measures to prevent further harm.
This case reinforces the legal framework surrounding family violence protective orders in Texas, which require proof that family violence has occurred and is likely to occur in the future. The ruling clarifies that a trial court's findings are supported by the evidence presented, particularly when the court acts as the factfinder.
Going forward, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving domestic violence and protective orders in Texas. It serves as a reminder that courts take allegations of domestic violence seriously and are willing to act to protect victims and their children.
As for next steps, Rodolfo Perez Sanchez could potentially appeal the ruling to a higher court, but details about any such plans were not available in the court filing. The case highlights the ongoing issues surrounding domestic violence and the legal protections available to victims.