A Fierce Conflict Between Angelina Jolie & Brad Pitt over child custody
John Ouderkirk, a private judge hired by Pete and Jolie, has made an interim decision to grant Pete joint custody, local entertainment media such as Page Six reported on the 26th (local time).
Private judges are one of the U.S. judicial systems of choice for parties seeking to resolve disputes privately, and parties who disagree with private judge decisions can appeal to public courts.
BREAKING NEWS: Famous Korean Beauty YouTuber Dawn Died on 30 After Fighting Against-Cause Fans to Regret
They have adopted children, Maddox (19), Pax (17), Zahara (16), and their own children, Shilo (14), Vivien (12), and Knox (12). The two have been in a custody dispute over five children, excluding the eldest son Maddox, an adult.
Jolie filed for divorce in 2016, claiming that Pete had abused his eldest son Maddox, and the two were legally divorced in April 2019, excluding issues of child custody and property division under California law. Jolie later claimed sole custody, Pete claimed joint custody, and Judge Autherkirk recently made a decision to raise Pete’s hand. Page Six cited sources and reported that Judge Autherkirk made a provisional decision in a recent trial granting Pete joint custody after hearing testimony, including child experts who interviewed their children.
YOU MAY LIKE THIS: Actress Han Ji Min Thanks Kim Hye Soo For Her Sweet Coffee Truck
The entertainment media TMZ reported that the interim decision was “Pete’s legal victory” because it was a formal procedure to make a final judgment of the same content. “Jolly’s assertion that Pete was not an appropriate parent made the judge feel inadequate.”
One source said, “Pet was just trying to spend more time with her children, but Jolie has done everything possible to prevent it.” “Pet is very pleased with this decision.”
Jolie was angry with the decision and decided to appeal if a final decision was made to grant Pete joint custody, local media said.
Prior to the interim decision, Jolie objected to Judge Auderkirk’s failure to proceed with a fair trial in data filed
with the California Court of Appeals.
He accused Judge Auderkirk of refusing to testify in person if he or she would like to, under California law, and that “it inappropriately ruled out evidence of children’s health and safety.”