Angelina Jolie (46) won a small victory in court in July, but Brad Pitt (57) does not intend to settle down with that.
–
Jolie got namely the court’s upholding in throwing the private judge the couple themselves selected over four years ago to deal with the complicated quarrel about the distribution of children.
Background: Angelina wants the children to testify – the judge refuses
The California Court of Appeals ruled that Judge John W. Ouderkirk no longer to be used, because he allegedly has too close ties to Pitt – something Jolie claims she was not aware of before the agreement was entered into.
Pitt protests
Now Pitt demands according to USA Today that this decision be reversed. In an 87-page document to the California Supreme Court, Pitt explains why he believes the decision basis for the outcome of the appeal is incorrect.
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., one of Pitt’s attorneys, tells USA Today that the appeals court’s decision is not only unfair to Pitt, but also “harmful to children and bad for California’s congested justice system.”
Pitt’s apparatus also claims that Jolie uses tactics to delay the trial, and he maintains that Judge Ouderkirk is the right man to find the best solution for the children.
Jolie, for her part, has insisted that Pitt and the rejected judge have practiced unethical practice – something the appeals court agreed to.
Broke in 2016
Jolie and Pitt broke up five years ago and was formally divorced in 2019. The Hollywood stars have, however yet to benefit from reaching an agreement about the care of their six children, Maddox (19), Pax (17), Zahara (16), Shiloh (14) and the twins Knox and Vivienne (12).
How they practice the distribution today is not known – nor are the details of what Pitt demands. Initially, he applied for shared care, 50/50, but Jolie refused to agree.
It is common in Hollywood for superstars to hire private judges in connection with divorces.
Jolie informed the court in March this year that she claims to be able to present evidence that Pitt was violent. She also wanted to let the children testify, something the now-thrown judge said no to.
Since the eldest child is 19, and two of the children are under 14, only the remaining three are relevant as witnesses.
–
