Halle Berry’s Ex-Husband Claims She Abused Son
A long-running custody dispute between actress Halle Berry and her former husband, Olivier Martinez, has taken a new legal turn after Martinez accused Berry of physically abusing their 12-year-old son and asked a Los Angeles court to award him sole custody.
Martinez filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order and sole legal and physical custody of the couple’s son, Maceo, following an alleged confrontation at Berry’s home on September 26, 2026. According to Martinez’s court filing, Berry physically attacked the child during an argument and allegedly placed her hands around his neck and choked him. Martinez also alleged that the September incident was not isolated and claimed there had been other instances of physical, verbal and emotional abuse.
The allegations remain disputed. Berry’s attorney has rejected Martinez’s account, describing the filing as meritless and misleading. Her legal team has also pointed to previous court proceedings involving the couple’s disagreements over Maceo’s education, therapy and parenting arrangements. Those competing accounts mean that the allegations themselves should not be treated as established findings of abuse.
The dispute is occurring against the backdrop of an already complicated custody history. Berry and Martinez married in 2013 and separated in 2015. Their divorce was finalized in 2023 after years of proceedings. Under their divorce agreement, the former couple shared legal and physical custody of Maceo. Berry was also ordered to pay monthly child support and additional expenses associated with the child’s education and activities.
The latest filing seeks to change that arrangement. Martinez is asking the court to give him sole custody, which would substantially alter the existing custody structure. He has also asked that Berry’s contact with their son be restricted while the allegations are addressed by the court.
Martinez’s declaration describes the September 26 incident in detail. He alleges that Maceo was at Berry’s home when a confrontation began. According to Martinez’s account, Berry entered the child’s room while he was playing a virtual reality game and began interacting with him. Martinez claims the exchange escalated after Maceo objected to Berry’s conduct, eventually leading to an alleged physical confrontation.
Martinez further claims that his son contacted him afterward and asked to be picked up. He said he became concerned about the child’s condition and went to Berry’s residence. The filing also refers to communications between the former spouses following the alleged incident.
In addition to the September confrontation, Martinez alleges that there were previous incidents involving physical conduct toward Maceo. He claims that some of those incidents involved what he characterized as chokeholds. He also raised allegations concerning verbal and emotional treatment of the child and claimed that the disputes between the adults had affected their son.
Martinez has also raised concerns about Berry’s alleged use of alcohol and its potential relationship to the conduct he describes. These claims are likewise disputed and have not been established as factual findings by the court.
Berry’s legal response presents a substantially different account of the family’s custody problems. Her attorney has argued that Martinez has previously violated court orders and interfered with therapeutic and educational interventions involving Maceo. Berry’s legal team has cited prior judicial proceedings as support for its position and has indicated that the latest filing omits important context from the family’s previous custody disputes.
The couple’s custody conflict has previously involved disagreements over education, therapy and decision-making for their son. In 2024, Berry sought greater control over decisions involving Maceo’s education and health-related matters, arguing that Martinez was not adequately cooperating with her efforts to address the child’s needs. Martinez disputed those allegations and accused Berry of attempting to undermine his role as a parent.
The former couple had also agreed to participate in co-parenting therapy. The purpose of that process was to address disputes and improve communication between the parents. The fact that the family had already been involved in court-supervised efforts to resolve parenting disagreements provides important context for the latest filing.
The legal situation changed further on October 1, when a Los Angeles County judge granted Martinez a temporary restraining order. The order did not permanently determine custody or establish that the abuse allegations were true. Instead, it imposed temporary restrictions while the court considers the allegations and the parties’ competing positions.
Under the temporary arrangement reported after the order, Berry was not completely barred from seeing Maceo. Her visitation was restricted to court-ordered periods while the matter proceeds. The order also included a restriction concerning contact with Martinez. A hearing concerning the restraining order has been scheduled for October 16. The parties have also been ordered to participate in confidential mediation concerning custody.
That distinction is legally important. A temporary restraining order is an interim protective measure rather than a final determination of the allegations. The court’s decision to impose temporary restrictions does not, by itself, establish that the alleged abuse occurred. The allegations and Berry’s response remain matters for further judicial consideration.
The case therefore involves two separate but connected questions. The first is whether the allegations concerning the September 26 incident and any earlier conduct can be substantiated. The second is whether the existing custody arrangement should be changed in light of the evidence presented to the court.
For family-law purposes, the case illustrates the significance of temporary orders in high-conflict custody disputes. Courts can impose short-term restrictions while gathering additional information and determining whether longer-term changes to custody or visitation are warranted. Such orders can significantly affect parents and children even before a final custody decision is reached.
The proceedings also demonstrate why allegations in custody filings must be distinguished from judicial findings. Statements contained in a declaration represent one party’s account of events. The opposing party may challenge those statements, present different evidence and offer a different explanation of what occurred. Ultimately, the court must evaluate the evidence under the applicable legal standards.
Berry and Martinez’s dispute has continued for years despite their 2023 divorce. Their earlier disagreements concerned parenting responsibilities, education, therapy and decision-making. The latest allegations introduce a substantially more serious issue because they involve alleged physical conduct toward their minor child and have resulted in temporary court restrictions.
The October 16 hearing is expected to provide the court with an opportunity to consider whether the temporary restrictions should remain in place, be modified or be lifted. The broader custody question may require additional proceedings depending on what evidence is presented and whether the parents are able to resolve some of their disagreements through mediation.
For now, the case remains unresolved. Martinez is seeking sole custody and has presented allegations of physical abuse as the basis for his request. Berry, through her attorney, disputes those allegations and maintains that Martinez’s filing does not accurately portray the family’s history. The temporary order changes the parties’ immediate custody circumstances, but it does not constitute a final determination of the underlying allegations or permanently decide who should have custody of Maceo.
Key Legal Outcome
- Olivier Martinez filed for sole legal and physical custody of the couple’s 12-year-old son, Maceo, while alleging physical, verbal and emotional abuse.
- Martinez also requested a domestic violence restraining order against Halle Berry based on the allegations.
- A Los Angeles County judge subsequently granted a temporary restraining order, imposing interim restrictions while the case proceeds.
- Berry’s visitation with Maceo was temporarily restricted to court-ordered periods, rather than being permanently terminated.
- The court has set a further hearing for October 16 and ordered the former couple to participate in confidential mediation concerning custody.
Why It Matters
- The case shows how allegations involving a minor child can lead to immediate temporary custody restrictions before a final custody determination.
- It demonstrates the distinction between allegations in a court filing and findings established through judicial proceedings.
- The dispute could substantially change an existing joint-custody arrangement if the court ultimately determines that a modification is warranted.
- The case highlights the role of temporary restraining orders and mediation in high-conflict family-law proceedings.
- The proceedings also show how unresolved disagreements over parenting, education and therapy can develop into broader custody litigation involving significant restrictions on parental contact.
