Reading the full text of Bert Field's letter, it becomes clear that it was sent out after news broke about the DCFS' recommendations for a temporary agreement. Their concern centers on how some outlets "misrepresented" the extent of Brad's supervised visitations. From what I was able to see, only the LA Times had a totally erroneous report which it subsequently corrected. The AP report was incomplete but it did not contradict what was posted by TMZ. Most outlets drew their reports from either TMZ or People and both had roughly the same information.
A "second source" contacted the LATimes to clarify that all of Brad's visits would be supervised after it erroneously reported that a therapist was only required to be present for the first visit. What TMZ reported was that the therapist would evaluate the need for supervision after the first visit. Perhaps the 2nd source is reporting back after the initial visit was over and the therapist had determined that he / she should be present in all visits. If that this is case, the first visit evidently didn't go very smoothly.
It isn't clear if the error in the LATimes' report came from a source who willfully misrepresented the DCFS' recommendations or someone who just has a reading comprehension problem. I don't see much of a benefit in the errors for Brad even though it gives the appearance that the agreement was more lenient than it actually was. Brad knows what the agreement actually requires and he would not risk getting into deeper trouble with the DCFS by violating the terms he had agreed to.
After bemoaning the "planting and publication of false and inflammatory media reports about Angelina, the children, and every aspect of the family situation," Fields then proceeds to caution the outlets from publishing any claims from so-called "sources" without carefully checking the facts. The list of false and inflammatory reports is likely topped by the Us cover story that Angelina was out to destroy Brad -- a story that had sprung from Brad's complaints after the abuse allegations first leaked.
In the past, publications would say that they reached out to reps of Brad and Angelina but were redirected to recordings that they do not comment on clients. Fields is letting them know that his office will now make itself available to verify all information related to the "family situation."
The couple agreed that Pitt’s first visit with the children would include a therapist, but there was no requirement for a monitor during subsequent visits, the source said. However, a second person close to the situation said the presence of a therapist was required at all visits for the duration of the agreement, which runs though Oct. 20.
At that point, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services will reevaluate the situation, the second person said, adding that until then, Jolie has custody and Pitt has visitation.
Two sources familiar with the agreement but not authorized to speak publicly said the agreement will be in place for three weeks. It calls for Pitt's first visit with his children to be monitored by a therapist, but that may not be a requirement for subsequent
"Brad gets visitation, with strings attached. The initial visit is with a therapist present and the therapist then has the power to either allow Brad subsequent unmonitored visits or insist on being present whenever he's around the kids.
Text of Bert Field's letter in full:
"I represent Angelina Jolie Pitt. This is to address a very serious situation. What is at stake here is the health, welfare, and safety of six minor children. Their protection is the only issue about which Angelina is concerned."
There has now been a published reference to an official Child Services document reporting Angelina's custody of the children and Brad's supervised visitation.
"Unfortunately, the situation has been widely misrepresented, and protection of the children's welfare may be jeopardized by the continued planting and publication of false and inflammatory media reports about Angelina, the children, and every aspect of the family situation."
No matter what claims you may hear from "sources" about that situation, we urge you not to be misled and that you not to publish without carefully checking the facts.