Halle Berry’s Son Can Testify in Abuse Dispute—But the Judge Set a Crucial Limit

Halle Berry and Olivier Martinez’s custody dispute has reached a significant new stage: their 13-year-old son, Maceo, has been permitted to testify about the restraining order his father is seeking against his mother.

The ruling follows Martinez’s allegations that Berry physically abused their son during a September 26 incident. Berry has strongly denied the accusations.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Shelley Kaufman approved the teenager’s participation but limited the scope of his testimony. He may address the request for a restraining order, rather than testify without restriction about every issue in his parents’ ongoing legal dispute.

That distinction matters. The decision allows the court to hear from Maceo; it does not establish that the allegations against Berry are true.

With the parents also disagreeing over whether Berry’s daughter, Nahla Aubry, should participate, the case now involves competing arguments about whose testimony the judge should hear and how to protect a child caught in the middle.

What the Judge Actually Ruled

According to the reported court documents, Kaufman stated that Maceo would be permitted to testify, with his testimony confined to the restraining order request.

The ruling is narrower than headlines suggesting that the teenager has been cleared to speak on every aspect of the Halle Berry custody battle.

It does not determine which parent should ultimately have custody. It also does not announce that the court has accepted either parent’s account of the alleged confrontation.

Instead, it establishes that Maceo can provide testimony relevant to the protective order proceedings.

The court must still evaluate that testimony alongside the other evidence presented.

Why Olivier Martinez Wants Maceo to Speak

Martinez has argued that their son should have the opportunity to describe his own experience.

In a filing requesting permission for Maceo to address the court, Martinez said that hearing directly from the teenager would help the judge understand what allegedly happened on September 26.

He presented the request as a matter of allowing his son’s voice to be heard rather than relying entirely on adults speaking for him.

That argument is central to Martinez’s position: the child involved in the alleged incident should be able to tell the court his account.

However, Martinez’s characterization of what that testimony will establish remains his position in the litigation. The public should not assume what Maceo will say or how the judge will assess it.

Permission to testify is also different from confirmation that testimony has already occurred.

What Are the Allegations Against Halle Berry?

Martinez alleges that Berry jumped on Maceo, put her hands around his neck and choked him during the September confrontation.

He sought a domestic violence restraining order and changes to their custody arrangement.

The allegations are serious, but they remain disputed. Berry has denied physically abusing her son, and the ruling on testimony does not resolve that disagreement.

The proceedings described in the available reporting concern a restraining order and family custody matters. They should not be presented as a criminal conviction or proof that Berry committed an offense.

Similarly, temporary protective measures should be identified as temporary rather than described as a final resolution of the case.

Berry Denies Abuse and Raises Concerns About Testimony

Berry has firmly rejected Martinez’s account.

Her opposition to Maceo testifying includes allegations that his father has coached or influenced him while he has been in Martinez’s care. Those assertions are Berry’s claims, not established findings about Martinez’s conduct.

She has also pointed to other potential witnesses, including her daughter and partner, Van Hunt.

The parents therefore disagree on more than whether their son should speak. They are also disputing the circumstances surrounding his potential testimony and the weight the court should give other accounts.

Neither side’s accusation should be treated as proven simply because it appears in a legal filing.

The judge’s task is to assess the evidence rather than accept either parent’s description at face value.

Why Nahla Aubry’s Involvement Is Being Challenged

Berry’s daughter, Nahla Aubry, has defended her mother in a court declaration.

Nahla, 18, described Berry as a devoted parent and said she had not observed abusive parenting.

Martinez has asked the judge to prevent Nahla from testifying, arguing that her evidence has little bearing on the case and that she is biased in favor of her mother.

That request is separate from the decision allowing Maceo to testify.

A parent’s objection to a witness does not mean the court has agreed to exclude that person. Likewise, a declaration supporting Berry does not automatically resolve what happened during the specific incident under examination.

The relevance of each witness’s evidence depends on what they personally observed and which disputed questions their testimony can help answer.

What Is the Current Custody Situation?

Following Martinez’s application, he was granted primary custody under the reported temporary arrangement.

Berry’s time with Maceo was restricted to two days a week and alternating weekends.

Those changes are consequential for the family, but they should not be confused with a final custody judgment after all contested evidence has been heard.

The latest ruling about testimony is one development within that broader dispute.

The parents’ disagreement also predates the September allegation. They married in 2013, separated in 2015 and finalized their divorce in 2023 after lengthy proceedings.

That history helps explain why the current case involves both immediate protective concerns and a longer-running conflict over parenting arrangements.

What the Ruling Does and Does Not Tell Us

The confirmed development is that a judge has authorized Maceo to testify on the restraining order issue.

It does not tell the public what he will say, whether the judge will find either parent’s account more persuasive or how the wider custody dispute will end.

It also does not justify treating the teenager as responsible for deciding the case. Providing evidence and making a legal determination are different roles.

The adults and the court remain responsible for the proceedings and for decisions affecting his welfare.

For a child whose parents are both public figures, that distinction is especially important. His testimony should be evaluated through the legal process rather than anticipated or judged through social media speculation.

A Child’s Account at the Center of a Public Dispute

The Halle Berry–Olivier Martinez case now turns toward a more direct examination of the disputed events, with the court setting boundaries around their son’s involvement.

Martinez says hearing from Maceo is necessary to uncover the truth. Berry denies abuse and questions whether his account has been influenced. Nahla’s proposed involvement presents another contested issue.

Those conflicting positions remain unresolved.

The most meaningful next development will be what the court determines after considering the evidence, not which parent’s filing produces the most dramatic headline.

How should family courts balance a teenager’s opportunity to be heard with the need to protect them from pressure during a custody dispute? Share your thoughts respectfully, without speculating about what Maceo will say or attacking either child.