Halle Berry denied ever harming her 13-year-old son after ex-husband Olivier Martinez accused her of physical abuse and secured a temporary restraining order in their custody fight.
The Daily Caller reported that Martinez filed for sole custody of their son Maceo, alleging Berry “physically abused” him during a heated exchange on Sept. 26 and citing other alleged “instances of abuse.”
A court granted Martinez a temporary restraining order. Berry then filed an Oct. 5 declaration denying the claims and asked the court to restore their 50/50 custody arrangement.
The Oscar-winning actress and the French actor are locked in a bitter parenting dispute. Each side now offers a sharply different account of what happened with their teenage son.
Martinez’s filing, described in coverage that also drew on TMZ, claimed Berry became physically violent after growing upset that Maceo was gaming. He alleged she put the boy in a chokehold.
He also said Berry texted him after the exchange and submitted those messages as evidence of her conduct toward the child.
S1’s reporting does not include verbatim quotes from Martinez himself, only the paraphrased allegations from the custody petition. No injuries, medical reports, or child-welfare findings appear in the available account.
Berry answered in a sworn declaration reported through People. She rejected the abuse claims in plain terms.
"I have never physically, emotionally, or otherwise abused Maceo. I am a victim of domestic violence, and I help victims of domestic violence,"
She added a direct denial of the role Martinez assigned her.
"I am not a perpetrator of violence. I would never hurt our child."
On the texts Martinez entered into the record, Berry offered a reverse explanation. She said the messages showed her reaction to the boy’s conduct, not her own violence.
"My text messages to Olivier reflect my distress after Maceo became physically aggressive toward me, not any physical conduct by me toward Maceo,"
Berry’s filing described the Sept. 26 scene as familiar horseplay that went wrong. She said she and Maceo were “playfully roughhousing,” something she claimed they “frequently do.”
Then, she wrote, he “unexpectedly” became upset after realizing she was video recording him, and he pushed her. She told the court she submitted that video and that it “directly contradicts” Martinez’s version of events.
The public reporting does not describe what the footage actually shows frame by frame. Readers are left with each parent’s characterization, not a neutral play-by-play of the exhibit.
Berry also pointed to what happened next. Both parents attended a meeting at Maceo’s school on Sept. 30. She claimed Martinez raised no concerns about abuse at that sit-down.
She further claimed the school had noted issues with Martinez’s own behavior. The filing, as summarized, does not spell out what those issues were.
In the week that followed, tied to Maceo’s 13th birthday, Berry said Martinez was “at ease” with modified visitation. That sequence, in her telling, does not match a father who had just witnessed a dangerous assault.
Berry’s declaration went beyond one night. She described Maceo as neurodivergent and said he can be “angry” and “combative” when he returns from time with his father.
She said the boy needs professional help and that the parents disagree on that care. She argued Martinez is not capable of “child-centered guidance.”
Those claims, like Martinez’s abuse allegations, remain unadjudicated in the reporting. No court ruling on the merits of either narrative is described.
What is established so far is procedural. Martinez sought sole custody and obtained a temporary restraining order. Berry denied abuse under oath, tendered video she says clears her, and moved to restore equal custody.
Missing from the public summary are the basics many parents would want before choosing sides: the court name and case number, the full text of the order, the actual wording of the text messages, and any independent description of the video. The other alleged “instances of abuse” Martinez listed are not detailed in the account either.
No arrest, injury report, or child-protective finding is mentioned. The dispute sits in family court, where declarations, exhibits, and credibility findings still have to do the work.
A teenage boy’s safety is not a tabloid subplot. Abuse claims demand evidence, and so do denials. Celebrity status does not settle either one.
