House Majority PAC is reaching back nearly five years to allegations made during U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz’s divorce in a new campaign ad targeting the Texas Republican, but court records and other public documents provide additional context not included in the ads.
The Democratic-aligned House Majority PAC announced new English- and Spanish-language television ads in Texas’ 15th Congressional District on September 15. The ads, titled “Cruel and Aggressive” and “Record Infame”, focus on allegations involving De La Cruz’s former stepdaughter, a temporary restraining order issued during divorce proceedings, and separate claims involving alleged sexual predators.
House Majority PAC says the ads reveal what it calls De La Cruz’s “disturbing record,” including allegations of “cruel and aggressive treatment” toward her then-14-year-old stepdaughter that led to a temporary restraining order, along with claims that De La Cruz voted to protect alleged sexual predators and continued working with a political operative whose husband was accused of sexually abusing girls.
A fact-check memorandum provided to The Dallas Express in response to the ad disputes those characterizations and says the central divorce allegation originated with De La Cruz’s former husband, Juan Gabriel Hernandez, during their 2021 separation. The materials reviewed by The Dallas Express do not show a subsequent court finding substantiating the allegation against De La Cruz.
What The Divorce Allegation Says
The phrase “cruel and aggressive” comes from allegations Hernandez made during divorce proceedings.
According to the fact-check memorandum, Hernandez’s attorney filed a petition in October 2021 seeking exclusive possession of the family home and used the phrase “cruel and aggressive” in connection with allegations involving his daughter.
The materials reviewed for this article by The Dallas Express do not establish a final judicial finding that De La Cruz abused her stepdaughter.
An allegation contained in a divorce filing is not the same as a finding reached after a contested evidentiary hearing or trial.
What The Temporary Restraining Order Means
House Majority PAC also emphasizes that a judge granted a temporary restraining order during the divorce.
Texas law provides important context about what such an order represents.
Section 6.501 of the Texas Family Code permits a court, after a divorce case is filed, to issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the other spouse when the court determines that such an order is necessary to preserve property or protect the parties. The statute allows temporary restrictions covering conduct including threats, harassment, bodily injury and interference with marital property.
A temporary restraining order therefore is not equivalent to a final judicial determination that the allegations underlying the request have been proven.
A judge issued a temporary restraining order during the divorce proceeding after Hernandez made the allegations, but the order itself was not a final adjudication that those allegations were true.
Hernandez Later Faced An Unrelated Felony Case
The response memo also points to Hernandez’s subsequent criminal history.
That portion can be independently verified through Hidalgo County court records.
In State of Texas v. Juan Hernandez, Case No. CR-1628-24-C, prosecutors filed an adult felony case against Juan Gabriel Hernandez on April 30, 2024, in the 139th District Court.
The case included two charges arising from a November 5, 2022, incident: assault of a family or household member by impeding breath or circulation, a third-degree felony, and assault of a peace officer or judge, listed as a second-degree felony.
Court records show Hernandez pleaded not guilty to the family-assault count, which was dismissed on August 19, 2024.
He pleaded guilty to the assault-of-a-peace-officer count. The court entered deferred adjudication and placed him on five years of community supervision.
The register of actions also shows that a judgment ordering deferred adjudication and community supervision was signed on the second count that day.
This means it would be inaccurate to report that Hernandez was convicted of strangling a woman. The fact-check memo describes Hernandez as having been “indicted for strangling a woman” before noting that the count was dismissed.
Using the statutory charge of assault by impeding breath or circulation is the more precise formulation.
Hernandez’s later criminal case does not establish that the allegations he made against De La Cruz during the divorce were false. The two matters involve different incidents.
It does, however, provide additional context about the person whose 2021 allegations are being used in the new political ad.
De La Cruz Voted For Epstein Files Transparency Act
House Majority PAC also says De La Cruz voted “to protect alleged sexual predators.”
The fact-check memo responds by pointing to De La Cruz’s November 18, 2025, vote for the Epstein Files Transparency Act, H.R. 4405.
Official U.S. House records show the measure passed 427-1 on Roll Call 289. De La Cruz is recorded as voting Aye.
That establishes that De La Cruz voted in favor of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
HMP’s September 15 announcement does not identify the specific congressional vote or votes it relies upon for that statement.
Without that specificity, the broader allegation cannot be fully evaluated from HMP’s announcement alone.
HMP Also Cites De La Cruz’s Professional Association
HMP’s third allegation says De La Cruz continued working with “a political operative whose husband was accused of sexually abusing young girls.”
As HMP describes the relationship, the allegation is not that De La Cruz engaged in sexual misconduct or worked directly with the accused man.
Rather, the connection concerns De La Cruz’s professional relationship with the man’s wife.
The fact-check memorandum argues that holding De La Cruz responsible for allegations involving the spouse of someone she worked with amounts to guilt by association.
Whether voters consider that professional association relevant is a matter of judgment, but the relationship itself should be described precisely.
The dispute is now part of the broader fight over Texas’ 15th Congressional District as De La Cruz and Democratic challenger Bobby Pulido head toward the November election.
The underlying records provide additional context for voters evaluating the competing claims in the campaign advertisements.
The Dallas Express will update this article if additional responses are received.
Provided by Dallas Express
