A Los Angeles Superior Court judge will let Maceo, the 13-year-old son of Halle Berry and Olivier Martinez, testify at Friday’s hearing on his father’s request for a domestic violence restraining order against Berry, with his testimony limited to that request, TMZ reported on Wednesday. Martinez’s October 1 filing alleges that Berry “physically abused our son by jumping on him and choking him” on September 26, and a temporary order has limited her time with Maceo since. Berry calls the allegations “absolutely false” and describes the night as roughhousing that turned into an argument. She wants the 50-50 custody the couple agreed to in their 2023 divorce restored. Her daughter Nahla, 18, has filed a declaration saying she has never seen her mother abuse Maceo.
Coverage treats Friday as the preliminary round before the custody fight. Under California law it may be the custody fight. Martinez asked for a restraining order and a change in custody in the same filing, and Family Code section 3044 requires a court hearing custody requests where domestic violence is alleged to decide whether the section applies before it issues a custody order. If the judge finds that Berry “perpetrated domestic violence” against her son, this is what follows.
“There is a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of the child.”
California Family Code section 3044(a), in force since January 1, 2026
The One Argument the Statute Takes Away
The current version of section 3044, rewritten by SB 899, lets a parent overcome the presumption only by a preponderance of the evidence, and it removes one argument entirely. The preference for “frequent and continuing contact with both parents,” subsection (b)(1) says, “may not be used to rebut the presumption, in whole or in part.” Berry’s own declaration leans on exactly that idea: Maceo, she wrote, needs “structure and continuous contact with his mother.” If the finding goes against her, the statute will not let that sentence carry her back to 50-50. The leverage in this case sits in one subsection, which is why both sides are fighting this hard over a 13-year-old’s testimony.
The judge has said Maceo will testify in a closed courtroom “with only the parties, counsel, and court personnel present.” The parties are his mother and his father. We think he should be heard in chambers instead, away from both of them. The Legislature already decided, in section 3042, that a child addressing a court about custody should not do it in front of the parties unless the judge finds that serves the child. Confining Maceo’s testimony to the restraining order keeps it formally outside that rule. Under 3044, the restraining order may decide custody anyway. A protection written for exactly this child should not disappear because of how a request was labeled.