Page Six: Brad Pitt was given more custody of the kids in Judge Ouderkirk’s ruling

93rd Annual Academy Awards, Press Room

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Angelina Jolie’s divorce attorneys have expressed their displeasure and concerns about Judge John Ouderkirk, the private judge Pitt and Jolie hired four years ago to oversee their divorce proceedings. Jolie has been unhappy with Ouderkirk before – last year, she tried to get him thrown off the case because he failed to disclose his long-standing financial entanglement with Pitt’s lawyers. Ouderkirk refused to recuse himself. For months, Ouderkirk has heard testimony from experts and specialists about the issue of custody for the minor Jolie-Pitt children. I believe Pitt thinks Maddox and Pax are a lost cause – Maddox is 19 years old and Pax is 17. But the other Jolie-Pitt kids are young enough for there to be a formal custody agreement, so that was being worked out. The problem, according to Jolie and her lawyers, was that Ouderkirk didn’t allow the kids to testify and that he refused to allow evidence pertinent to her case. Well, big surprise, I guess. Brad ran to Page Six to crow about how he “won” the custody case:

Brad Pitt has been granted joint custody of his children with Angelina Jolie following a lengthy court battle, Page Six has learned. The Oscar winner, 57, has been fighting Jolie, 46, through the courts for nearly five years for equal rights to their six kids. Judge John Ouderkirk, the private judge hired by the former couple to oversee the case, made his thoughts clear in a lengthy recent ruling, we understand, after months of witness testimony, including child services professionals who interviewed the Jolie-Pitt children and others who have been around the family.

A source with knowledge of the case told Page Six: “There was a significant change made in the custody agreements based on an extremely detailed decision made by the judge. Brad was just trying to have more time with his kids – and it has been clear that Angie has done everything possible to prevent this.”

“This trial lasted for several months and there were a f–k ton of witnesses, experts, therapists and other people who have been with the kids and around them, and the decision was based on this,” the source added.

Another Source close to the issue said it was a “tentative decision,” adding that Jolie is continuing her legal fight. “Joint custody is not the issue that Angelina objects to, there were other issues of concern, but the court proceedings are closed and sealed,” the source said.

Page Six has seen one court filing label, which reads: “Offer of Proof and authority in support thereof RE: testimony regarding domestic violence.” The documents are sealed, so we’re unable to see what evidence may lie there. The source close to the issue added: “There was a safety order surrounding the previous custody arrangements, that is public, and the kids schedule has been set under the jurisdiction of the division of family services for over three years.”

“Judge Ouderkirk denied Ms. Jolie a fair trial, improperly excluding her evidence relevant to the children’s health, safety, and welfare, evidence critical to making her case,” according to the filing in California’s Second District Court of Appeal.

[From Page Six]

My guess? Angelina knew that information about Ouderkirk’s ruling was about to come out so her lawyers went to the Associated Press with the story about how Ouderkirk was not an impartial jurist. Which I believe, honestly. I think Ouderkirk really screwed over Jolie and the kids. I also think Brad was way too quick to run to Page Six to claim that he won and he successfully screwed over Jolie. Which was the point of all of Pitt’s bullsh-t for the past five years – he was mad at Angelina and he wanted to punish her for leaving him.

People Magazine didn’t run solely with Team Pitt’s side of the story, they merely wrote that Ouderkirk “tentatively awarded Pitt more custody over the former couple’s five minor children” but they noted: “it’s unclear if the decision is legally binding as another source says nothing has yet to change in terms of official custody.” A source told People that at the trial “the children’s voices were heard, but they just didn’t testify themselves.” Which, again, is strange because a California statute says that “any child at least 14 years of age should be allowed to weigh in and state custodial preference, making Pax, Zahara and Shiloh eligible to testify.”

Jolie’s lawyers filed their complaint with California’s Second District Court of Appeal over “Ouderkirk’s ruling and continuing purview over the case.”

Angelina Jolie and kids at Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - London Premiere held at the Odeon BFI IMAX.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

147 Responses to “Page Six: Brad Pitt was given more custody of the kids in Judge Ouderkirk’s ruling”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Noki says:

    At the end of the day i will give Pitt this one credit,atleast he fought for his children. Imagine after the break up he decided to be a deadbeat or an absent father, the coverage for that would have been brutal.

    • DS9 says:

      It doesn’t count if you’re using the court and access to your children to continue to abuse and control your former partner after they left you.

      • Maria says:

        There are men who dig in their heels about custody battles and it is not because they care about the children.

      • Ronaldinho says:

        So often children are used purely to abuse and keep a line of attachment to their parent.
        Some of the most dogmatic fathers I have worked with have been chronic abusers who do not understand no or the impact of their behaviours.
        Administrative abuse, is a real thing and happens through the courts in pursuit of kids but often as a trojan horse to continue abuse

    • Belle says:

      Noki, agree with you. He held on for five years. Most would have walked away.

      Given all the details were not revealed, I wonder if the kids don’t want to spend more time with Pitt. I wonder if that’s why Jolie wanted them heard. Time will tell if he actually
      acts on this expanded time he ha been given.

      • Yvette says:

        @Belle … According to the article, they were heard and their feelings were accessed, they just didn’t testify in court. Seems like the Judge allowed professionals from a broad spectrum to interview the Jolie-Pitt children.

        If the Judge received reports from professionals who interviewed the Jolie-Pitt children, and he may have even met with the children himself (we have no way of knowing), what added benefit could having them testify on the record in court before both parents have provided? It would have only added more trauma on the kids, which was hopefully taken into consideration.

    • NTheMiddle says:

      Like Tom Cruise never spending time with Suri? Yeah, I still feel for Suri and the lack of her dad’s presence in her life. Certainly Pitt has done a lot wrong and is hopefully trying to work on himself. As a kid, I imagine knowing that your dad WANTS you enough to fight for time with you is much easier to take. We don’t know the circumstances though… for many parents, it ISN’T about the kids, it’s about winning or controlling the ex instead. Hopefully, Pitt will be a truly present father and will try to heal his relationships with his children.

      • Calibration says:

        Thing is we don’t know if he wants his kids or just wants to beat Angie. He is rarely seen with them and has done so much gloating recently, I suspect the latter. It’s a form of abuse

      • MM2 says:

        I disagree. The best thing an abusive parent can be is absent. Suri is much better off in her mother’s hands than being abused & brainwashed by Scientologists. I know it’s not why Tom abandoned her, but I’m grateful she’s left alone by him. I think the Jolie-Pitt children, unfortunately, know this all to well too.

    • ThatgirlThere says:

      He’s not a good partner and doesn’t look like he’s a good dad. It seems as though it’s all about the optics for him. He has an image to protect and he seems to be using his children for his own gain. I obviously don’t have any skin in the game but I care what happens to the kids.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ MM2, I agree with you in regards to Cruise, what a POS. I am so happy that Katie’s dad is a top notch attorney that got her out of that crazy cult kook!! I can’t stand Cruise and what I have learned from this cult, and the way he treated Kidman regarding the divorce, he is gutter trash. But Suri is better off without him but I am fearful that she will wonder why he has never attempted to be with her. I know Katie adores her and protects her, but not every child grows up with a healthy mindset with the loss of one parent by their actions. Sorry, just a touchy subject for me and my abandonment issues I carried for 20+ years, until 6 years of therapy.

    • Leigh says:

      Abusers are something like twice as likely to fight for custody.

      • Sue Denim says:

        V interesting statistic. That’s what this has seemed like, more about controlling the A and the narrative via the courts, continuing to threaten A and the kids and hold his power over them, etc. It just seems that there’s rarely any real love toward the children expressed by Pitt and co. I’m not sure how he could do that but I think it would come through, even in statements like this…

    • Sidewithkids says:

      @noki You just wrote why he did it tho b/c the coverage would have been brutal. That is the only reason. Lol.

    • SM says:

      Seems to me he is using legal system as PR to showcase the world what carrying father he is. That does not necessarily translate into his actual desire to be a present father. it is Angelina who continued to work and care alone for the kids after the breakup, while Brad focused on several uncussesful girlfriend roll outs, kept feeding press about how fabulous he still is and made his narcissist vanity project with Tarantino. So from where I stand he looks more concerned with optics and how this custody ruling will look like.

      • KW says:

        I agree, he definitely displays narcissistic behavior patterns, therefore, this is all about his image and his control. Nothing else. The kids obviously don’t want to be near the douche artsy dad.

    • Anne Call says:

      On another site, lots of commentators saying that having children testify in public court is a terrible idea. One said that she had to do it and basically pick a parent and she’s never gotten over it. Everyone including all the lawyers said that most child custody cases have the judge speaking privately to the children involved.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Anne Call, that’s an excellent point!! I never thought of the trauma having to sit in a big chair, with so many people as your parents look on while you speak your mind. That would be tremendously difficult for any child, no matter the circumstances.

    • fa says:

      Most abusers fought for children because they think they are still good father but they are not.

  2. Oh_Hey says:

    I don’t even think the goal for brad is seeing the kids. I think the goal is the exact headlines we see here and all the messy comments calling Angelina crazy. All I know is it’s been years and only the youngest kids see him. The second they reach the age threshold they nope out. This site was CRAWLING with nonsense about parental alienation yesterday but that leaves out that Maddox has been done since the word go on this divorce. With the other kids not far behind.

    • Darla says:

      I mean, but, how can you or anyone possibly now how the younger children feel? I honestly cannot see how anyone can presume to know the feelings of a child toward their father. Even if you knew them, which you don’t. It’s just so complex.

      • Sierra says:

        Well Brad and the judge ensured the children won’t be heard so my money is on them not wanting to be near Brad.

      • Oh_Hey says:

        @Darla – my point isn’t that the youngest will nope out. That’s not what I wrote. To clarify all the kids were made to see Brad in the beginning and one by one as they reach 13 or 14, the age to make your own decisions, they’ve voted with their feet no matter what you or I may think. The end result has been pretty obvious.

        Last year two of his daughters had surgery during the shut downs – brad was no where to be seen. He apparently celebrated his Oscar win with folks not his family. As I said, we don’t know what goes on in their house or the kids heads – but my eyes work just fine and the result is pretty clear.

      • lucy2 says:

        This exactly. No one here knows what the kids said. It sounds like they did have some input, just not direct testimony. It’s possible they said they do feel safe with their dad now and do want to see him. It’s possible that they don’t want to, and as soon as they don’t have to, they cut contact. We don’t know.

      • B n A fn says:

        I believe the children has been seeing a therapist all this time. I’m almost positive the therapist submitted a report to the judge and he made his decision taking that report in making his decision.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      @Oh_Hey, there is literally no evidence that the judge did not speak with the children privately in chambers, which IS THE NORM in divorce and custody cases. Every report I have seen only says he did not allow them to testify in the hearing. You are blatantly mischaracterizing the story.

      • Maria says:

        The idea that we should give him the benefit of the doubt because there’s no “evidence” that private testimony didn’t happen as opposed to formally testifying doesn’t gel. There’s also no evidence that it did happen, even if it is the norm for those in this comment section (and high priced lawyers can change what “the norm” is).
        There’s a reason she wanted this officially documented. And a reason that family services has been involved for so long.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Angelina and her lawyers are not stupid. If the judge had completely refused to speak to the kids, they would have said so. Using the word “testify” in her statement is telling.

      • Merricat says:

        Oh, don’t be logical, Bearcat! Lol. The norm is unremarked upon, which is why it’s the norm.

      • Maria says:

        Merricat – the norm is unremarked upon here because the custody trial of these two celebrities is not the norm.

        Bearcat – that’s your interpretation which may or may not be true as any of our opinions on this are (although the bias in favor of the parent with a history of abuse in these comments is weird to me), but it also emphasizes my point that there is a reason she wanted it documented legally.

      • Oh_Hey says:

        And there’s no evidence to say they did even do what you say. Neither of us was there. What I’m saying and what is being completely mischaracterized as this thread gets taken over by Depp level Brad fan girls is that the older children voices have been made pretty clear based ion their own desire to not see their dad once they could legally decide not to. Maddox has no contact as an adult and wanted to change his name back to just Jolie as of last year.

        Like – what am I being blinded by? Who should I believe, you, Brad and his lawyers or my own “lying” eyes. /s

      • LightPurple says:

        @Bearcatlawyer, exactly! And given that the state’s family services has been all over this case, for years, they would have been providing information to the judge from the children.

      • Soupie says:

        LightPurple and BearCat that’s what I got out of it as well. No official testimony, but the childrens’ voices were heard via interviews by CPS. What I’m wondering about is why Angelina wanted “testimony” – which would be public, I’m assuming – as opposed to the existing “private anecdotes with CPS”. I guess her lawyers ran out of options when they saw the case going Brad’s way via the judge? But I don’t see how really minor childrens’ testimony can be made public (i.e., under the age of 14 when kids in CA can choose for themselves). does not list which firm he was partnered with before retiring to Rancho Mirage. It looks like he was with Hill, Farrer but they do not have a Family Law department, like most large boutique law firms do not – or didn’t in the past in my experience. I’m assuming he has no real experience in family law cases, just has a rep as a private judge for fee for, it looks like, celebrities including rappers.

  3. Sierra says:

    I am beyond angry that even legitimate newspapers ran with this misleading headlines. Brad’s PR team really is good at their job plus helped by white male privilege.

    The judge is corrupt and I hope he gets thrown out and a new fair trail will be conducted.

    The family court in US has always been on the abusers side and even a powerful woman like Angelina is struggling against the corruption.

    I am glad she continues to fight for her children’s right and has even been working with a former attorney general to expose the corruption within family court and the private judges.

    I am a firm believer is karma and Brad will get his soon. Even now the comments are split while in the good old days, Brad would have been fully supported. Women and children are getting stronger and stronger and getting more legal support around the world.

    Here’s to Angelina fully taking down Brad, the judge and the biased US family court.

    • Jellybean says:

      The People article say that the, as per Jolie’s request, there was an investigation into the judge and their finding was that he had properly disclosed any business relationships. So the story that he should have recused himself seems to be incorrect. I am sure she will get a second investigation into the judgement, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the judge was extra careful, knowing there would be an appeal. I take everything that comes out of a family court filing with a huge pinch of salt: from what I have seen they often involve huge distortions, if not actual lies.

      I do think corruption in the family court system if real. It is all their interest to keep cases going as long as possible and it maintains a whole ecosystem of lawyers, judges, psychologists, PR, tabloids etc. So many parents fighting to keep custody simply run out of money.

    • MM2 says:

      Sierra- I’m all with you. I have been so disheartened by comments about this case, people’s judgements of mothers during divorce & their knee jerk reaction to protect our biased courts.
      You know what causes parental alienation? Abusing someone’s mother & brother in front of them on a small airplane.
      Thank you for the perception that things are getting better, slowly, but maybe they are.

  4. Lily P says:

    So in one of the articles (maybe People) it’s stated this is not new news to any of the parties rather a couple of weeks old. In which case this is just a massive PR campaign by him again to distract from the declaration of domestic violence and to come out on top. We know he has a massive PR team behind him and so this is just image. AJ is obviously no different she just goes to AP, USA today etc., but this is to purposefully defame the mother of his children. If my dad was publicly doing this as a teen to my mum who was my stable home for the last five years, I too wouldn’t want to be around him.

    Also going to court to force teens to see more of you if they don’t want to, is in my opinion gross. It happened to way too many of my friends growing up and the cycle of resentment continued. Obviously no one knows their situation but the fact the older three allegedly don’t want to see him speaks volumes.

    In terms of the media narrative, just imagine if roles were reversed – BP would be praised for fighting the kids corner which AJ is doing.

  5. Southern Fried says:

    So now we see how many of the kids actually want to spend time with him.

  6. Becks1 says:

    Just pointing out – like bearcatlawyer pointed out yesterday – that not allowing the kids to testify does NOT mean that they were not “allowed to weigh in and state custodial preference.”

    • Lily P says:

      totally agree, but if Jolie’s claims that the judge didn’t include all of her evidence aside from the kids testaments then it wasn’t a fair trial. The deck is stacked against those that mention domestic violence in court with their claims being used to discredit a “crazed” woman

      • Becks1 says:

        I mean, maybe, but none of us know whether it was or was not a fair trial. We only know what both sides are sharing with the press, which is something to keep in mind with any trial like this where the documents aren’t public.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Sorry, Lily P, a FAIR trial often requires evidence to be excluded. We do not know the nature of the evidence Angelina wished to introduce, but evidence that is not relevant or lacking in probative value or false or illegally prejudicial SHOULD be excluded. Angelina does not have to like the judge’s decision and may genuinely believe that she did not get a fair trial, but her feelings do not mean the judge’s decision was legally wrong.

    • Lightpurple says:

      Especially given the long involvement of family services in this case. It is very likely that the state may have appointed representatives to speak for each kid in the court proceedings. And, at this point, I would trust that more than either parent.

      • LaraW” says:

        This right here is why I will never go into family law. Corporations are what they are, but dealing up close and personal with real people with real kids that affect their real lives? I’m not built for it.

    • Merricat says:

      Agreed, Becks.

    • MM2 says:

      It means they were denied their voice being heard by the court as a whole, when they wanted it to be. As someone who was victim of a crime as a child & was given the right to testify, this is a big deal. Telling my story was the first seed of my healing & them being denied this right is so messed up. They deserve to tell their story, if they want to, and the judge did not allow it.
      You guys are looking in the wrong direction here, but good job defending the judge & Pitt here.

  7. Kebbie says:

    The lawyers on here yesterday explained the judge probably spoke to the kids in his chambers, they just didn’t get on the stand and testify. So they were heard without going through the stress of testifying in court. The lawyers who commented said it was normal, typical even.

    • Maria says:

      If those lawyers weren’t there, we don’t know that.

      • Kebbie says:

        “A source told People that at the trial “the children’s voices were heard, but they just didn’t testify themselves.” Which, again, is strange because a California statute says that “any child at least 14 years of age should be allowed to weigh in and state custodial preference, making Pax, Zahara and Shiloh eligible to testify.”’

        This is what I was responding to. I was explaining how they’d be heard without testifying.

      • Maria says:

        A “source” from People is not a legal document.

      • Kebbie says:

        I mean the case is sealed, we’re all just speculating here. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, none of us know all of the facts. I think lawyers who deal with this kind of thing can offer a more informed viewpoint than the rest of us.

      • Maria says:

        My point is yes, we are all speculating, and that also includes lawyers who weren’t there or involved regardless of what experience they have. If they aren’t involved with this case and don’t work with people in this income/publicity bracket, their words are also speculation. And it is speculation that is giving the benefit of the doubt to the parent with an abusive history.
        Unfortunately that is endemic to the legal system, if that parent is male.
        I don’t know either of these people and I don’t care for Jolie that much, but a lot of stereotypical assumptions are attempting to be dressed up in legalese here.

      • Becks1 says:

        Everyone on here is speculating based on the PR games that both sides are playing, so no one is unbiased or “an expert.” But people with legal experience are able to offer a glimpse into what would be “normal” or “expected” for a proceeding like this – not because we are “Brad Pitt fan girls” like someone said above, but to help remove some of the drama around every little aspect of this. I’m not a fan of Brad but it’s possible to not be a fan of him and still not jump to the conclusion that this judge is corrupt and he sidelined the children and is just putting out whatever judgment BP told him to put out.

        ETA and with that i’m out because these threads are exhausting and I have to save my energy for Kate’s buttons.

      • Maria says:

        That’s fine, but as I have said before, he has a history of abuse, family services has been involved, the older children do not want contact, and the statements that Jolie wanted legally documented were not, and the lawyers in this thread are also ignoring those things. In fact, that’s a pretty big stretch in my mind.
        There is no “normal” context for a celebrity parent who is running to the tabloids to proclaim his custody victory over his ex partner when it hasn’t even happened yet and lawyers here cannot remove that drama (implemented by said parent) with a technical excuse that the kids were probably spoken to off the record, because an unnamed source from People said they were, and that makes it okay because it is standard procedure wherever they practice.

    • Greta says:

      @kebbie, it’s all speculation, none of the lawyers commenting know anything for sure, though I do find it odd that their speculation tends to be biased in favour of Pitt, who had supervised visits for 5 years and had to request modification on their existing agreement for him to get more time. Who spent 5 years gaslighting and smearing Angelina at every turn, but sure we’re supposed to give HIM the benefit of the doubt sure.

      We’re all speculating, my speculation is biased in favour of Angelina i own that. But I’ve read every single publicly available document in this case, and know what I’m talking about, even if I don’t always understand California courts. So while they’re sharing their knowledge of courts and procedure, it’s a little odd to see lawyers who haven’t read any documents, who get the most basic things wrong, and seem to get most of their information from tabloids try to convince those of us who actually have read that they know best, past their general professional experience. I appreciate that knowledgeable analysis is a good thing , but it’s weird reading posts on cb from lawyers who think they know better than Bley. Who consisitlely give Pitt the benefit of the doubt like he’s some poor victim, and isn’t a wealthy white man in family court where the decks are stacked heavily in his favour. Yet it’s taken him 5 years to get to this point, why?

      I’ll also remind everyone, Angelina asked for minors counsel at the very beginning, Pitt refused, maybe then the kids would have had counsel whose only job was looking after their interest, independent of their parents. Silencing the kids seems to be his preferred thing.

      • Erinn says:

        I mean if you’re reading the posts made by the lawyers here and thinking they’re biased towards Pitt I don’t think we are reading the same posts. They’ve laid out what normal procedures are, and disputed some wording that was purposely ambiguous.

        You even said in your comments that you don’t understand California courts but somehow think your opinion -because you read some documents online – trumps theirs. I can read documents online about my car, but it doesn’t mean I know more than my mechanic. I can read documents and studies online about vaccination and don’t believe I know more than someone who does it for a living even if they haven’t read the same documents.

      • AD says:

        Agree Greta. For me just the length of time for Pitt fighting for more time with his children speaks volumes & the supervisions & monitoring of his visits is enough for me to ask “what has Pitt really & honestly done to his children? ” that he is taking so long to be united with them. Without no doubt he must have done horrifying behaviour towards them for him to fight hard to win them. For any mother the health & safety of the children is a priority without a doubt & Angelina did just that! It seems Ben Affleck is a winner in bonding/ having meaningful relationship with his kids! Pitt & his image = his priority!

  8. Jessica says:

    Or maybe it’s better for children to have equal time with both parents. She has been isolating him from the kids for however many years she has dragged this on. She’s not a saint. Let the kids have the chance to reconnect.

    • Maria says:

      Just him being their dad doesn’t make him healthy to be around.

    • Lara says:

      The kids who are old enough to choose have chosen not to spend time with their abusive parent.

    • EliseM says:

      She isn’t isolating them from him, she is following a court ordered visitation schedule where HE was required to be chaperoned when seeing them.

      • Erica says:

        Considering the judge just allowed Brad more time with the kids maybe the kids did tell the judge they feel safe and are okay with seeing their father more.

    • josephine says:

      “she’s been isolating him from the kids” is truly a judgment call. it could just as easily be “she’s been protecting the kids from him” or even protecting their choice not to be associated with him. abusive men always blame the ex, and when that runs dry, they’ll start to blame the kids. everything that is being said is 101 from the abuser’s playbook. who knows, maybe he’s changed, but words matter, and i’m really, really tired of women being accused of isolating their kids when most of the time they’re protecting those kids.

      • KW says:

        narcissists do NOT change. Ever. He definitely displays personality traits of a narcissist, I was raised by two. I know. They are superior gaslighters and we have seen Brad gaslight Angelina and all those children to the press. Imagine that when his image is the only top priority to him. And then imagine what he says while in person. I would be running, too, if I were the kids. Five years of therapy and going through this, I feel for the kids.

    • Myra says:

      She has been doing nothing of the sort to him. She doesn’t get to solely dictate the custody arrangement in place. There is an appropriate court process for that. Over the past five years, the court has been slowly increasing access to Pitt based on the information/ evidence/ testimonies they have. It is only now that they deem it fit that he gets the standard custody arrangement in place. The reason he was isolated from his kids it because he was a sh*tty person who terrorised them while he was drunk and they were afraid of him.

      • AD says:

        Angie cannot stop the children seeing their father, he only lives 5 min away from them they can turn at his place anytime if they want to but the question is do they want to? They are old enough to go if they want to Angie cannot tie & lock them to stop them seeing him + they are under supervision + they have agreements to follow! Children’s feelings not parents! to be considered!

    • court says:

      Not if one of the parents is abusive.

    • lucy2 says:

      I don’t believe she has been isolating them. He had supervised visitation for a long time, and then some sort of shared custody for a while. The kids seem to prefer being with her, but it’s not like he has had zero access.

      I think he’s a shitty person who has used the women in his life as a shield for his shitty behavior, but that aside – if he’s been clean and sober as instructed, and completed all the court required therapy stuff, and there’s been no other incidents…the court would be hard pressed to take away his equal rights a a parent.
      He’s still pulling the same old PR game stuff, but let’s at least hope he’s improved his behavior towards his kids and dealt with his abusive issues, and maybe they are able to rebuild a safe and healthy relationship with him.

  9. Millennial says:

    Reunification is the goal, even if the parent doesn’t really deserve it or it’s not in the best interest of the kids. For the kids sake, I hope Brad had cleaned/sobered up and isn’t a violent and abusive drunk anymore. I sincerely hope he’s changed.

    I’m still thinking about that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood media circuit and how even Leo basically wanted nothing to do with him.

    • Lemon says:

      Ooh what happened with that? My tea about Brad is old, that he’s a pothead and he smells really bad.

    • Jules says:

      Yea there are a lot of opinions here. I worked with social service agencies for many years, and the goal in almost every family situation is to reunify the parents with kids. Why? Because RESEARCH shows that when kids are NOT reunified with their parents- even if this parent was abusive, using drugs and alcohol, etc– the negative impact on their development and functioning in the world is much worse than when they are reunified. So even in really extreme cases of abuse and neglect, the goal is to get the abusive/addicted parent help, and then work on reunifying the parent with the kids. It can be a slow process but this is what research shows is best for the kids— in most cases. There are always going to be exceptions, of course.

      • Lexi says:

        ^ Jules is correct, 100%. It’s what the research show and it’s very clear

      • Isabella Saxon says:

        Hard to believe reuniting kids with terrifying abusive parents is good for them. It can even lead to their deaths. I am not talking about Brad.

      • Jules says:

        Just… read over my comment please.

  10. Lara says:

    Any person who keeps running to Page Six (aka the NY Post aka the Murdochs) to spill details about their ex and divorce case is traaaaaaaaaash.

    I already knew Brad was trash though.

  11. Greta says:

    I won’t say too much on the custody stuff because Pitt is twisting facts as usual. He definitely got more time I don’t dispute that, and supervision finally lifted, but it’s not the 50/50 or anywhere near he wants people to believe, but nice story and headlines I guess.

    Angelina didn’t go to the AP because this was going to come out, it’s the opposite. The decision on custody was made in early spring as stated in the people story, their hearing ended in late February, so the parties were notified of Ouderkirks decision weeks ago.

    The Appellate court documents that the AP reported on refer to the case before the Superior Court regarding Ouderkirks disqualification. in November Bley appealed that decision, last week Pitt filed judicial notice papers in the disqualification case, Angelina then responded to that filing on Friday and that’s the story the AP got. The story making the rounds Monday was about the kids not testifying and the domestic violence, from documents filed in the disqualification case in the Superior Court. Then that’s when Pitt went to page 6 to tell us he got more time, something that he has known about for weeks.

    Angelina is currently appealing Ouderkirk’s non disqualification in the Superior Court, they have a tenative July date to hear oral arguments. Then should the tentative order in the custody case become final, she’ll appeal the custody ruling, a different appeal. So 2 different appeals before the Superior Court should they grant her leave to appeal in the custody case. Proceedings are public. Pitt is being represented by Ted Boutrous in that matter.

    • LaraW” says:

      I should have waited to comment— thanks much for clarifying.

      But seriously? Making a headline out of filing judicial notice? I guess gossip has to come from somewhere.

      Do you happen to know who they were before in Superior Court for the DQ proceedings? I’m assuming it took place in LA.

    • Myra says:

      I feel like if he is going to update us every time he gains additional visitation/custody time, he should at least tell us what the hell he did that day on the plane? You can’t give us piecemeal information on your custody dispute without revealing the full details and expect us to cheer for you. If he doesn’t want us to know what happened on the plane then he should stop with the Page Six/TMZ briefing.

    • Kaykay says:

      I wish there was an up-vote button on the comments, so this comment would be at the top.

    • Mireille says:

      Thank you.

  12. Amy T says:

    The most important thing to remember is that the kids are going to be adults much longer than they are children. Among all the other things you’re doing as a parent, whether you realize it or not (and it’s possible that BP doesn’t), is building the foundation of that adult relationship. My perspective on this is informed by being the pretty much powerless party in a very nasty divorce (married a guy who wouldn’t let me work, divorced a guy who didn’t want to support me, “needed a big house” because I was “going to end up on the street,” he’d have the kids and I needed to learn to say “do you want fries with that order?”). That was 1990. He (and later on his new wife) did a great job getting our oldest (7 when we split) to believe I was the antichrist; the youngers (then 4 and 2) got the same message but never bought in. Today they’re all adults; my relationships with them are solid. It will be telling down the road to see how things fall out. Wishing the best for all involved.

    • Nicole says:

      Don’t know if you’ll be back to see this but just want to say I’m so sorry you went through what sounds like years of injustice, fighting for your kids. Parental alienation is an evil, evil thing. I’m glad it didn’t stick but I’m sorry you and your children had to live through it.

      • Amy T says:

        Thanks – I posted a bit of a longwinded thing below, but forgot to say that the inadvertent smartest thing I did was basically give him what he said he wanted, which kept the courts out of it. Also, he didn’t want to spend money on lawyers, which helped.

    • Teebee says:

      I am so sorry you had to go through with that. Sadly an oft repeated story too. I have a dear friend with a terrible divorce story as well. He had way more money than her and dragged her into court frivolously for years to break and punish her. Years later, she has triumphed. Her children love her, despise their father, she has a new marriage to a delightful man. But I was with her through her ordeal. It was insane to see how money and motivation can almost destroy a decent person if they other party is a toxic, petulant, narcissistic ass. She might have always won each proceeding, but it almost bankrupted her to constantly defend herself.

      I am so glad your story ends well.

      • Amy T says:

        It’s counterintuitive, but what I had on my side was basically waiving child support* because as someone who owned his own business and knew how to hide assets, my choice was to spend all my energy and time chasing him down for money I’d never see or using it to turn myself into someone who didn’t need anything from him and I chose the latter. And I just basically acquiesced to what he wanted to do, which resulted in our youngest (then 7) doing some pretty drastic things in order to live with me. The older two pretty much lived with him; the younger with me and then went back and forth when he insisted in it (until the minute she turned 18, when she moved in with me). But because they didn’t believe in things like attending school conferences, taking them to doctor’s appointments, music lessons, attending athletic events or lifting a finger to take them for religious training (in the denomination they wanted, not the one on which they insisted because it didn’t cost anything), I did all that stuff. Truth told, I’m not sure how I did it all when I look back, but I did. I would say that we settled into what someone who knew us both described as “a very sibling-like relationship.” Four months before he died in 2007, he told me he had great respect for what I’d done. That meant a lot. I’m guessing Angie is never going to hear that from Brad.

      • Teebee says:

        Wow, Amy. What a story! From what I get you ended up earning his respect…my friend’s ex will probably go to his grave angry and bitter and will have never talked to her directly since their divorce. It really does take going the high road, being the adult in the room, doing the right thing for the kids, even if it means always making up for the other party. Life is rarely fair, but if you can go to sleep at night knowing you did everything you could to make this better rather than worse, I think you ultimately win. And it sounds like goodness prevailed. Glad you shared this, even though it doesn’t directly relate to the topic at hand.

      • Amy T says:

        @Teebee – thanks. It relates a bit because the bottom line is that all six of these kids are going to be adults, looking back on their parents’ choices and making their own about what kind of relations they’ll maintain or not. I wish the best for the Jolie-Pitt emerging and future adults, who seem to be a unified bunch. Lots of us mere mortals deal with versions of their mom and dad’s story and because I’m further along in that plot line, can put in my two cents on one possible scenario. Mostly I want other parents who may be in a similar hard spot to know there can be light at the end of this particular tunnel.

    • Kaykay says:

      I am so sorry you had to go through all that. It must’ve been very painful.
      “Among all the other things you’re doing as a parent, whether you realize it or not (and it’s possible that BP doesn’t), is building the foundation of that adult relationship.”
      Loved this!

  13. LaraW” says:

    Does anyone do Cal. family law here? It says Angelina’s attorneys filed in Second District Court of Appeal and I admittedly burst out laughing because the Second District is super backlogged. We have an appeal that has been fully briefed for months and still do not have a hearing date. We’re honestly are not expecting oral argument to be scheduled for a year, since (if I recall correctly) California appeals court doesn’t have a hard limit on the time from briefing to oral arg— the only limit they have is that the court has to issue an opinion within 90 days of the hearing. But it’s for civil litigation, and courts move faster for family law.

    • LaraW” says:

      Nevermind, Greta stated above that they have a tentative hearing date in July regarding the appeal to disqualify Ouderkirks. Still, Jolie filed the opening brief in November and only now has a hearing date in July. Haha I wonder how many times Pitt filed a motion to extend time to respond, since his tactics seem to rely a lot on delay. (I guess I could look it up but… tired.)

  14. jack says:

    I am aghast at comments which suggest Brad’s desire to have a relationship with his children is nothing more than him “wanting to exert control over Angelina.” Can a man not simply love his children, or are men incapable of pure love for their children? Angelina didnt just have ONE child with Brad. She made the continual choice to be with him and if there were warning signs, surely she saw them. Also, 50/50 custody means Angelina wont be getting that big fat child support payment. So perhaps her motivations are not pure, maybe they are. I dont know. Also, Some have also said that parental alienation is a myth. Well, thats untrue. One of my parents did their best to alienate me from the other using Parental Alienation. It worked for a while and I saw through it. What’s also troubling is how ppl latch on to the personal business of others, and pass judgment due to their own hostilities or unresolved issues. Not every man is an abuser, but many are. Not every woman is a saint, and many arent. Ppl are ppl and no one is perfect.

    • Maria says:

      I see no reason why you should be “aghast” at those comments. Brad has a history of abuse and has utilized his PR team to paint Angelina as the “evil alienating” parent. People choose to be in relationships with horrible partners all the time but a victim is a victim even if they aren’t a perfect person. The older children do not want contact with him. He clearly doesn’t respect that particularly as he runs to an outlet like Page Six to crow about a custody victory that hasn’t even happened (the way he tells it). I’m sorry for your parental experience but it does not change the fact that the narrative of the scheming woman keeping her children away from the innocent man not only pervades society but the legal system too, and that Brad is attempting to capitalize on that.

    • court says:

      You’re aghast despite the fact we’ve been discussing the plane incident on here for years? And women wanting custody for $$$ is internalized misogyny talking. Women do the majority of parenting after divorce because women do the majority of parenting during marriage. Angelina is rich, was rich before she married him, and could easily make a few million via acting work or endorsement deals if she were hard up for cash.

      • pottymouth pup says:

        all of this is based on the plane incident and yet the assumptions made here as if people are 100% sure it was not an isolated incident and Pitt has been gaslighting on everything because he’s definitely been abusive all along & continues to be abusive. The truth is, we don’t know that’s the case. We don’t know the full truth about the plane incident either and we don’t know what the observations of those professionals who were there for Pitt’s visitation or any of the children’s advocates have to say. The fact the children didn’t formally testify does not mean that not of them were asked their opinion in private, away from both parents. The assumption that Angelina and her legal team are the only ones looking out for what is, objectively, best for the children is based on speculation & personal bias.

      • Maria says:

        You’re right, Pottymouth, we don’t know that. What we know is that the children were offered minors’ counsel at the beginning and Brad refused although I’m sure they have them now – his visits have been supervised until recently – Maddox wants nothing to do with him – he leaked court documents for PR – he has smeared his ex partner at every turn – is now running to tabloids to sell a story of 50/50 custody that isn’t even accurate.
        There’s nothing anyone can say for certain, but these are actions pretty well in line for an emotionally and possibly physically abusive parent.

      • court says:


        His older children choose not to see him, for a time his visitation was supervised, and even one instance of abuse is too many. Everything we say here is speculation (gossip) but those are serious red flags.

    • Twin falls says:

      Also, 50/50 custody means Angelina wont be getting that big fat child support payment.

      Haaaaate this mindset. Always the people on the paying side view receipt of child support as some sort of windfall to the receiving party.

  15. Shari says:

    Good to hear. Despite what the public here things. Especially since none of us were in the courtroom. Don’t know what evidence was presented. Nor the witnesses that testified. Reports say the kids were heard by the judge. Just didn’t testify in court. Having kids pick one parent over the other is never a good thing. I’ve had friends do this and it damages the child in way that are lasting. No one here knows anything. Just because you are a Stan of someone doesn’t mean a thing. If this had gone for the person you are rooting for then it would be how the Judge did the right thing. The judge listened to mess for YEARs. Knows all the ins and outs. No one here does.

    Hopefully, they can move on, but it looks like this is going to be a lifelong thing. Sad mostly for those kids.

  16. Ariel says:

    I can’t even enjoy brad pitt movies anymore, he seems wretched.
    I mean, the alcoholism happens to all kinds of people. The domestic violence- disgusting, but again, he fixed the alcoholism after the marriage ended, so good for him.
    But the years of press abuse against his ex and seemingly endlessly “punishing” her for daring to leave him.
    I don’t even want to look at him.
    And slightly off topic, Aniston naming him her favorite guest star on the friends reunion- she LOVES to yank that chain and get the press and public all riled up about how WRONGED she was in 2005. Grow up and move on.

    • Kaykay says:

      I watched Meet Joe Black for the first time not too long ago. It’s been on my bucket list.
      Oh man, he is NOT a good actor. His biggest “thing” is to stand there and just look. It was so uncomfortable to watch. I also remember seeing him in that one Friends episode. I was maybe 15 at the time, and I remember thinking back then that he was a lousy actor.

  17. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    I’d like to hear from our DCFS and attorney Celebitches-
    Do we think an appellate court will smack this down? If inculpatory evidence against him and certain testimony from the kids wasn’t allowed as per normal state proceedings, I’m guessing yes.

    • Becks1 says:

      I mean there are many attorneys on here and the thread from yesterday adding comments and people are slapping us down as being “brad pitt fan girls” so…..

      • M says:

        Many of these comments are really insane, completely blinded by man hatred. Someone going so low as to call the psychiatrist behind
        Parental alienation a pedophile ffs. That puts it in the same bucket as Elon Musk calling the Thai scuba diver rescuer a pedophile because Elon’s ego got hurt.

      • Maria says:

        “Completely blinded by man hatred”
        LOL! Poor men….

        (In any case, that was the other post about alienation, not here)

      • Jules says:

        @Becks1 yea there are a lot of emotional, uneducated comments here… people are unable to see any side but their own.

      • M says:

        Maria- no not poor men, poor women for making further conflict and division

    • LightPurple says:

      We have been repeatedly told here that we don’t know what we’re talking about and that we’re taking sides, even when we are only stating well-established procedure.

    • sunhine says:

      No one can tell you this answers because we aren’t given details of the case. The articles from people and page 6 state that the joint custody wasn’t the issue so I don’t see why people are assuming she was fighting for sole custody. He already had a significant amount of time with the kids unsupervised before he asked for a modification. There are a lot of different why one would ask for a custody modification (especially as a kids ages) so I don’t feel comfortable speculating what could happen.

    • Lizzie Bathory says:

      It’s frustrating. I think Brad Pitt is trash, but that doesn’t mean anything unusual is at play here. I really think Law & Order has done a disservice to the general public’s perception of the legal system. People believe it’s about justice, when in reality, it’s most often about procedure. The law is a blunt instrument that is not particularly well suited to addressing complex human dynamics.

      Even after more than a decade of practicing, I’m amazed at the clients who seem to think I can wave a magic want to get them whatever they want. If I had a magic wand, I assure you, I wouldn’t spend time reading IRS regulations lol.

  18. Size Does Matter says:

    In Texas at least “joint custody” doesn’t mean what a lot of people think. It doesn’t mean 50/50 time split between parents or really anything about time splitting. It means joint control over a lot of other decision making like where they go to school, what medical procedures are necessary, etc.

    • Maria says:

      His team appears to be feeding the 50/50 idea to TMZ even though it is not the case.

    • lucy2 says:

      I suspect that’s what theirs will end up being, the kids stay primarily with her, but he has a say in big decisions.

    • sunhine says:

      That’s similar to what we have in California. Our custody/visitation agreement is also called parenting plans for that reason.

  19. Adorable says:

    I’m a Angie fan & it gives me no pleasure to admit that Brads PR Team is Winning “The PR War”..For the life of me,I don’t understand why Angelina isn’t hitting back more.I bet there are plenty of PR Firms,who’d gladly take on Angelina Jolie as they’re client.I just wish she’d be as aggressive as he is.

    • Leigh says:

      Probably because she truly cares about the well-being of the children and knows that running to the tabloids to smear the other parent would hurt the children.

    • Nina says:

      Because she and her children know the truth and they don’t need validation in the public arena. Eventually, he will lose where it hurts most, with his kids. What he is doing now will eventually come back to haunt him in his relationship with his kids. He has already lost the older ones. The younger ones will eventually move on too.

  20. Blues clues says:

    I’m not a fan of Pitt and I found myself sad for him a few times over the last five years. Mainly because he clearly has alcohol and drug issues. And that his kids don’t want to be around him.
    I wasn’t there but I read everything. It doesn’t take a expert or family law expert or attorney to see what has happened.
    Ouderkirk made his decision years ago but gave Pitt the time and opportunity to try and heal himself and the relationship with his kids.
    Pitt was impatient, angry, embarrassed and emotional throughout this long process. Angelina was willing to work with him this whole time but with her own set of guidelines. It worked for a while. Obviously they both are passionate, aggressive, hurt, and angry mainly at each other.
    Kids are gonna take sides, it’s human nature. What hurt Pitt is his own relationship with them even before the divorce filings. His own admission. You have kids who may have already distanced themselves from him years ago because of his lack of concern and it grew wider when they were removed from a shared home. All stemming from a fight with one or more of them on a plane after he allegedly physically attacked the parent they favored, while drunk. Strike two against him.
    The celebrity of their marriage and biased media attacks on their mom offended them
    Even more. Them closer to mom, some even refused to speak or see him made Pitt even angrier so we get attacks from him and his legal team blaming her for his own dismantling of his family. Even going so far as to ask the judge to force Angie to make them respond to him in a certain way. Of course, she must be alienating them because they won’t. That’s the trick with lawyers of the complaining party. Even illegally leaking a supposedly sealed document so he could look like a victim of it.This was Angie’s last straw with him and her old lawyer Wasser. It was the end of her cooperation and patience. She went full on retaliation. Lawyers are competing against each other and making it a personal war with Pitts being the nastiest and most unprofessional. Ouderkirk even getting too personal involved has turned this into the longest and biggest mess ever.
    The fans, media, lawyers and at times both parents forget really the six people this really is about. But mainly blaming one woman for the mess made by all is ridiculously not cool.
    Win for the kids because they are old enough to see, read and hear enough to make their own decision regardless of a god dam piece of paper. And that ain’t good for daddy. Can u image the things they endured this long.

    • Lowrider says:

      Poor Pitt. What about the kids having deal with an abusive alcoholic father in their developmental years? But yeah, poor, poor Pitt.

    • L says:

      @Blues Clues Are you sure you’re not a Pitt fan?

      • Marnie says:

        Why are you asking this question in this peculiar way? Is this a page that only Jolie fans can post and everyone just has to hate Pitt? Very strange

  21. Midge says:

    Good, Pitt was investigated, it’s done. Bearcatlawyer articulated everything way better than I could, so I’ll leave it at that.

  22. Kaykay says:

    No one is perfect. We all make mistakes in our lives, but if I was one of Brad Pitt’s kids, I would probably be a little bit ashamed and uncomfortable with him being my father. This is obviously not based on any personal relationship with him as I do not know him, but with all the official facts from his early life until now just makes him an embarrassing father.
    When he was 24 he dated a 16 year old. Yuck!
    He left Jennifer for Angelina. It can happen, but it’s still an embarrassing move!
    Whatever was going on with that german Nicole model … Had that been my father, oh MyLanta, I’d have red cheeks.
    And last, but not least, whatever happened on that airplane that created major headlines … I would just not forget something like that about my dad and it would color my view of him forever.
    These kids know how to google.

  23. JustMe says:

    I am truly shocked by how many people are defending Brad Pitt and dismissing what his children have been through. We may not know everything but we know there were issues going on. Watching all these comments it is no surprise why kids are not listened to. Why people continue to dismiss children when they say, cry, scream they are abused or in a bad situation. While I agree parental alienation can happen, what happens a lot more is abusive men using that as an excuse to dismiss their children’s fears and make their other parent look bad. This will never change until we all come together and say we would rather err in keeping a child safe instead of worrying about a possibly abusing adult. We need to start listening to our children and stop defending the adults who can do better. Just because it is hard to get sole custody doesn’t mean that is not best for the children.

    • Jess says:

      Amen, JustMe! And I really can’t stand how so many Hollywood journalist types continue to fawn over Pitt without even acknowledging that he did something so bad to his kids that he had to have supervised visitation for ages.

      On an unrelated note (but it is referenced in the links so I don’t think I’m threadjacking) – why is Celebitchy not covering the hot Tessa/Rita/Taika snuggling situation?!

  24. Jeanette says:

    Fighting for custody doesn’t make you a good Dad. My father molested me from what I believe as a toddler even, he fought for custody too and won. I had to sit with my molester at his bequest once a week bc law. I still have issues with making people “choose me” over “blah blah” that I link back to authority figures choosing my father’s reputation over my well-being.

    • L says:

      God I’m so sorry for what you went through. I’m also a victim of sexual abuse as a child (not by my father though). Ugh! Some men really do not deserve to be fathers.

      Anyway, I wish you continued healing and peace.

    • Amy T says:

      Oh, Jeanette. Wishing you all good things. That is awful.

    • april says:

      You poor thing! Sending you peace and love.

  25. JonesyTalktoMe says:

    I’ve been in family law circles (in Chicago and New York City).

    The decision is based on innumerable factors, most of which aren’t disclosed to the public, such as HIPAA-guarded child health reports and meetings with therapists.

    I do agree with the poster who said that the law regards the best case scenario as unification. (This is the crux of the ‘70s movie Kramer vs. Kramer.) I’d like to think Brad has gotten help and will be good with the kids. The judge deemed him ready. He’s certainly being monitored. Angelina has limited rights in keeping their kids from him, per the law, operative word “their” kids. Not Angelina’s kids. Their kids.

    Wishing them all the best. The good news is this family has money for therapy. Lots of families in this world don’t have money, time or access….

    • Jules says:

      Agreed. This was a highly publicized case, but people seem unaware how bad things can get in family court in the real world. Parents actively using crack or heroin. Full on neglect of children, starving kids, not providing adequate shelter or food, not sending kids to school. It sounds like what happened on the plane was bad. But people working in the court system have seen much, much worse. If Brad lawyered up, sobered up, got help and was doing what the court ordered, he was on track for reunification.

  26. As a lawyer, it should be noted that it is not at all unusual for a private judge or private mediator hired by parties to resolve issues to serve as private judges/mediators in other cases handled by the same lawyers. No doubt Jolie’s lawyers knew this before she agreed to hire this private judge.

    As I recall, her complaint that the private judge [whom she had previously agreed to] had other cases in which the judge was hired by lawyers including some from the firm representing Pitt did not come from the attorneys Jolie had when she agreed to that judge, but from later lawyers she hired after discharging her earlier lawyers. One wonders if she discharged the first lawyers because she was displeased with their performance or the judge’s?

    A 50/50 child custody split is standard in most cases and was long expected in the Pitt/Jolie case. Acting as if such a result is a surprise is simply the result of people not understanding how things work in such cases.

    Further delay in resolution of the child custody issue is not in the best interests of the children.

    • april says:

      That all sounds very logical and true. Thanks for posting your expertise.

    • Blues clues says:

      @AnnePearl and Jonesytalktome
      You don’t know why she felt the need to change her first lawyer. I assumed it was because Wasser wasn’t doing a good job after leaked documents made it to the rags. As I recall that was a part of the plan for reunification. Don’t forget he fought her on lots of things even the therapists needed. Or maybe I don’t know. Angelina imho is fighting because those kids don’t want to spend more time with him for reasons we don’t know about and for that matter that is his fault.
      It’s a bad rap and yes it is their kids. Brad has substantial time with them, don’t know if it was still monitored but it’s a tell on him if it was but we aren’t seeing that which he is fighting to keep quiet and that is the Trump card.
      Just like he has the right to fight for more time she has a right to fight for their kids to be heard and evidence proving if his violence and have voices heard.
      No matter if judges are used in similar circles the thing Bley Pointed out was their was monies being exchanged and meeting being held with that did judge and Pitts counsel alone.

      • Getting rid of one of the best lawyers in LA was NOT a smart move, but did allow Jolie to push several issues that Wasser presumably wouldn’t push and to delay additional years.

        Also, it’s playing a trump card — not a Trump card. Freudian slip?

      • sunhine says:

        That was a disgusting thing for Wasser to do and I hope people don’t think it was a simple mistake.

  27. Anonymous says:

    This was the expected outcome. Her first lawyer told her. I think AJ knew. She stretched it out as long as she could and didn’t mind paying tons of money even if she would eventually lose. The twins were seven when this started. They only have to wait two years and can then choose. I don’t know if she is in the right, or wrong, but she knew her strategy and followed through with it.

  28. Blues clues says:

    Lawyers in here🤣😂🤣

  29. Copy that says:

    She just need to stop five is loooong…
    Trying to come to terms. Hating the father bring nothing except counter case.
    I cant come against the fight to be in their life

  30. Copy that says:

    She just need to stop five is loooong…
    Trying to come to terms. Hating the father bring nothing except counter case.
    I cant come against the fight to be in the life of the children. After years of praising….

    • sunhine says:

      It technically hasn’t been five continuous years. They had a custody agreement back in 2018 and he just recently asked for the modification in 2020

    • Blues clues says:

      Actually copy that. There guidelines set by CPS and the courts. He had to adhere to them to be able to see those kids. If you want to blame someone blame him. I think Jennifer Garner should have done the same thing to Affleck instead of coddling him. He is a disaster and needed help badly still.

      • ad says:

        @ blue clues at least Affleck’s children did not refused to see him, he appears to have a good bond with them and it seems he is more responsible than old Pitt.

  31. Tashiro says:

    No matter what anyone thinks of Brad Pitt I think he loves “their” kids and that’s what motivates him. Props to all the lawyers I’ve learned a lot 👍

  32. AD says:

    Pitt’s hits loads here!

  33. Ty says:

    IIRC, he was seeing a therapist and had supervised visitation, I am not shocked about this. It happens all the time. A lot of people who are in DV relationships who go through this process bring up the DV against increased visitation. However, the rebuttable presumption is there. I don’t think the judge screwed over Jolie or her kids, the law is clear as to rebuttable presumption.

    • sunhine says:

      That’s only if the court has made a finding of domestic violence. It’s hard to have a grasp at what’s going on since all of documents are sealed.