Thursday, December 1, 2016




Random Fuzzy NOTES

TIMELINE  (Part II)


Feb. 1

ET

A source close to Brad Pitt is slamming reports that the actor was forced into rehab amid a drug battle.
"Brad did not go to rehab," the source told ET on Wednesday, a few hours after Radar Online published an article claiming the Allied star was "secretly getting help" for "his issues." 
"Cannot for the life of me understand what they mean by 'bombshell' investigation," the source added, specifically addressing a line in the article that alleges Pitt "spent a whopping $15,000 on a five-night sober retreat" in a private suite inside Casa Del Mar -- a resort in Santa Monica, California -- where he "attended a 'Narcotics Anonymous' group party."
As for In Touch's report claiming that Pitt's estranged wife, Angelina Jolie, is requesting $10,000 per month in child support for their six children, Maddox, 15, Pax, 13, Zahara, 11, Shiloh, 10, and twins Vivienne and Knox, 8, the source told ET the actor's team is not aware of such demands.
"[Brad's team] is strictly following the privacy agreement between the two of them," the source said. "[Brad's team] has never spoken about the kids and won't be starting now."
Earlier this month, Pitt, 53, and Jolie, 41, released their first joint statement since their September split, sharing that they've both signed agreements to keep all of their court documents private. 
 "The parties and their counsel have signed agreements to preserve the privacy rights of their children and family by keeping all court documents confidential and engaging a private judge to make any necessary legal decisions and to facilitate the expeditious resolution of any remaining issues," the statement read. "The parents are committed to act as a united front to effectuate recovery and reunification." 


Jan. 23
Brad Pitt Throws Party at Hotel, Brings Balloons Home to His Kids

Brad Pitt threw a private party at Hotel Casa Del Mar in Santa Monica, California, on Wednesday, January 18, and left with a special favor for his kids.
“Brad had an intimate party in one of the rooms,” a source tells Us Weekly. “He spent the night at the hotel and left in the morning with a big gold and white balloon arrangement that he wanted to take home for his kids.”
The actor also had his bodyguard take home the alcohol from the event. “They brought out a few bottles of red wine and Perrier-Jouet champagne and loaded it into Brad’s car in the morning as he was leaving,” the source says. “He was very private and exited out the side door of the hotel.”

Jan. 12

A summary of points from the Vanity Fair and Market Watch articles on hiring a private judge:

a)  “Private judges can’t order that an agreement be enforced” by the authorities, “so if you want to take action, you have to go back to the court system,”

b)  All parties must agree on a private judge — which means that both Jolie and Pitt gave Ouderkirk the go ahead.

c)  Private judges are arranged by attorneys, and the price is split evenly between clients.

d)  His cost: $450 an hour, according to Alternative Resolution Centers, a legal services provider Ouderkirk works with. That’s cheap by LA standards, where private judges often charge anywhere from $500 or $700 an hour. (Alternative Resolution Centers declined to comment on Ouderkirk’s professional relationship with Pitt and Jolie.)

e)  While all divorce hearings are technically public, private judges typically hold sessions in offices that aren’t easily accessible to reporters. California also requires that strict criteria be met before court documents can be sealed as “the press and public have a right to know,” says Anita Rae Shapiro, a private judge who sat on the LA County Superior Court. However, private judges aren’t required to file their judgments publicly if both sides comply with terms.

f)  “In a normal divorce case, the press and the public can sit in on judicial proceedings,” says Melissa Murray, a family law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. “With private judges, since it’s not revealed when and where it’s going to happen, they never do.” 

g)  The couple and their attorneys meet somewhere—Wasser prefers to host at her office—and have their case adjudicated as it would be in a courtroom. The practice is similar to arbitration, although the decisions ultimately become public and can be appealed. 

h)  As Professor Reuben told NPR, “The private judge’s decision is technically just a recommendation, although that recommendation is almost always accepted by the court.”

i)  “Every document you file in court immediately becomes public, and if you hire a private judge, you can work out the details before you file anything,” Wasser told The Hollywood Reporter.

j)  Last year, Laura Wasser, the attorney handling Jolie’s divorce case, explained, “Our court system is so unbelievably clogged up that I will sit there all day long billing at my hourly rate only to have a judge say, ‘Sorry, we don’t have time.’

k)  Private judges, which typically run $300 to $700 an hour, are often available for full day hearings that start punctually.

l)  Because private judges have substantially smaller caseloads than sitting judges, they are more apt to be user friendly by scheduling telephonic conferences outside of usual court hours, telephonic conferences to resolve disputes before they become motions, and utilize informal case management upon prior agreement of counsel, all cost saving and efficient techniques.”

m)  “A private judge may not be appropriate, though, when a party is belligerent or has been violent,” Randall Kessler, a divorce attorney in Atlanta and a recent chairman of the American Bar Association Family Law Section, told the U.S. News. “Someone who must be reined in by authority may feel they have unlimited ability to argue or raise their voice when the environment is too informal. There some times when the decorum and formality of the courtroom are not replaceable.”


All About the Judge Who Married Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt

By Michelle Tauber @michelletauber

Updated September 23, 2016 at 10:04pm EST
Yes, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie turned over much of the planning for their Aug. 23 wedding to their six children – including the cake and even the dress.
But when it came to making things official, they tapped someone rather more experienced.
Their officiant of choice: retired California judge John Ouderkirk, who presided over the Aug. 23 non-denominational civil ceremony at the family’s French estate, Château Miraval.
The judge currently handles conflict-resolution cases for private firms. But he made headlines in 1993 while presiding over the hot-button trial of two black men accused of trying to murder white truck driver Reginald Denny during 1992’s riots in South Central Los Angeles.

A former Marine and Santa Monica, California, police officer, Ouderkirk oversaw the ceremony, while Jolie, 39, and Pitt, 50, had previously secured a marriage license in California.
The judge was one of only 20 attendees at the ultra-intimate affair, along with Brad’s parents, Bill and Jane, his siblings, Doug and Julie, and Jolie’s brother, James Haven.

Jan 11
Us

Malibu No. 2. Angelina Jolie is renting a second luxury home in Malibu for her and her six kids amid her ongoing custody battle with estranged husband Brad Pitt, a source exclusively reveals to Us Weekly.
The secluded new rental, which goes for $35,000 per month, is a mile away from her other Malibu rental. The 5,097-square-foot second home has six bedrooms and five bathrooms along with a pool, tennis court, guest house and private beach.
"The kids go back and forth between the two houses, and she also has nannies and staff that stay at both,” the insider tells Us. "The kids have been utilizing the pools at both houses when the weather is nice, and the second house has a tennis court where they can skateboard and play ball. Angelina spends most of her time at the first house, but she likes to have options and be able to move everyone around.”
The Maleficent actress, 41 — who has been living with Maddox, 15, Pax, 13, Zahara, 12, Shiloh, 10, and twins Knox and Vivienne, 8, since the split — set up the first rental house before she filed for divorce from Pitt, 53, in September. Some of the amenities in the five-bedroom, 4,400-square-foot estate include a media room, in-home theater and guest home with a gym.




buzzfeed

Angelina Jolie And Brad Pitt Are Taking Their Contentious Divorce Case Private

posted on Jan. 11, 2017, at 5:17 a.m.
Claudia Rosenbaum

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are taking what had been a very public airing of grievances in their contentious divorce case private.
The estranged couple issued a statement Monday night saying they are hiring a private judge to oversee their child custody case to maintain a “united front.”

“The parties and their counsel have signed agreements to preserve the privacy rights of their children and family by keeping all court documents confidential and engaging a private judge to make any necessary legal decisions and to facilitate the expeditious resolution of any remaining issues. The parents are committed to act as a united front to effectuate recovery and reunification.”
Pitt and Jolie have been at odds since Sept. 14, when there was an alleged incident aboard a private flight from Europe to California involving their children. Four days later, Jolie filed for divorce and sole custody of the couple’s six kids: Maddox, 15; Pax, 12; Zahara, 11; Shiloh, 10; and 8-year-old twins Vivienne and Knox.
PItt was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing, but the custody battle over the children took an uncharacteristically public turn when the couple took swipes at each other in court documents.
Now, Jolie and Pitt have settled on hiring retired Judge John Ouderkirk, who oversaw the Reginald Denny beating case, to preside over their divorce and child custody case.
The move to hire a private judge, often done by celebrity couples at the start of their divorce, means that court hearings held at the public courthouse will instead take place at an office. While those court hearings can be still attended by members of the public, the likelihood of that happening is far less likely.
“I’ve never had anyone show up at my office and ask to be included (in a private judge) hearing,” said family law attorney Lynn Soodik. “It’s no surprise they hired a private judge, any well-known celebrity who wants to keep things private would hire a private judge. “
Going the private judge route has added benefits: instead of being at the mercy of the overburdened public family court, Jolie and Pitt can ensure they can get a hearing on more of an immediate basis.
“You are not in a courtroom with 35 other cases waiting,” family law specialist Alexandra Leichter told BuzzFeed News.
And cutting down on the wait cuts down on the legal fees, which run into the hundreds of dollars an hour.
“It actually saves money because you are not waiting around, having your case continued and having your lawyers sitting around all day,” Leichter said. “It makes a lot more sense.”


Jan 9
JOINT STATEMENT

"The parties and their counsel have signed agreements to preserve the privacy rights of their children and family by keeping all court documents confidential and engaging a private judge to make any necessary legal decisions and to facilitate the expeditious resolution of any remaining issues.  The parents are committed to act as a united front to effectuate recovery and reunification."



================================================================

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Petitioner Angelina Jolie Pitt ("Petitioner") submits the within Memorandum of Points and Authorities in response to the Request for Order filed by Respondent William Bradley Pitt ("Respondent') to seal records in this case.
I.
PETITIONER DOES NOT OPPOSE THIS REQUEST FOR ORDER
Petitioner does not oppose Respondent's request to seal custody-related records in this case.  She and her counsel have executed a stipulation drafted by Respondent's counsel which memorializes the parties' agreement that such records be sealed.  Given the intense media scrutiny upon this case, Petitioner believes that the sealing of these records is consistent with the best interests' of the parties six minor children.
II
RESPONDENT HAS NONETHELESS FILED SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS TO DEFLECT THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION
 The same day that Petitioner signed an agreement to seal custody-related records as requested by Respondent, Respondent's counsel filed supplemental papers.  While the supplemental papers are ostensibly in support of Respondent's legal claims, they have been used to publicly impugn Petitioner's character and to deflect from Respondent's own role in the media storm which has engulfed the parties' children.  There is no question that this case has been of extraordinary interest to the public since its inception.  And there is little doubt that Respondent would prefer to keep the entire case private, particularly given the detailed investigations by the FBI and the DCFS into allegations of abuse by Respondent.

In an effort to protect their children from additional tabloid fodder, Petitioner has elected not to address each and every false accusation made by Respondent.  Her conduct in this case has been grossly mischaracterized by Respondent.  Likely terrified that the public will learn the truth, Respondent is now casting blame at Petitioner for the consequences of his own actions.  It is Respondent who refused to follow the parties' custody agreement which necessitated the filing of that agreement with the court.  It is Respondent who filed ex parte papers which Petitioner had no choice but to respond to with papers of her own.  While Respondent bemoans the fact that these filings were made and the contents of various letters and documents thereby exposed, he willfully omits his central role in their public dissemination.  But for Respondent's conduct, such filings could have been avoided and the children's privacy protected.  His attempt to argue otherwise now is a desperate effort to obscure the truth which threatens his reputation.
III
CONCLUSION
Petitioner respectfully joins Respondent in his request to seal custody-related records in this case and asks that the stipulation thereon executed by the parties be made an order of this Court.
Dated Dec. 23, 2016
By
LAURA A. WASSER/ SAMANTHA KLEIN
==============================================================

Daily Mail

A friend of Brad Pitt told DailyMail.com, 'It’s sad that that it took four months to agree to seal the records involving the case but only one day to start playing things out in public again,' they said.

'Brad has been cleared by both the FBI and Child Services and it’s unfortunate that they continue to behave in a way that only hurts the entire family.'

Jan. 4 - 6

buzzfeed


 But despite their recent agreement, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Jan. 3, the couple hasn’t exactly decided to keep their back-and-forth private in other recent filings, revealing sniping that most mega Hollywood stars manage to keep out of view as Pitt fights for joint custody.
.....
 Still, a friend of Pitt’s who asked not to be identified given the sensitive nature of the situation told BuzzFeed News they are encouraged Jolie’s agreement might be a sign of more harmonious relationship between the two stars.

“After four months of public statements, leaks, and completely unnecessary filings, which has kept this issue in the public eye, it is encouraging that her team has finally recognized the importance of maintaining the family privacy,” the friend said.
However, whatever private agreement was reached, ultimately, it’s up to the judge after reviewing both of their statements. And Lynn Soodik, also a family attorney, is skeptical that Jolie has truly agreed to Pitt’s request for sealing the custody matters given her latest filing.
“This is a matter of public policy and the judge has to decide if it is in the best interest of kids to keep it private,” Soodik said. “Brad put a reason why it should be private, but her reason is why it shouldn’t be private…she basically said, in a way, ‘I agreed to this judge, but I know you are not going to agree to it because the only reason he is doing this is to keep it private.’”
A hearing on whether to grant Pitt’s request to seal the child custody matters is scheduled for Jan. 17.

ET
8:30 PM PST, January 04, 2017
Angelina Jolie Slams Brad Pitt in New Court Filing, Source Says 'the Kids are Clearly Traumatized' Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's divorce battle continues.

The 41-year-old actress slams Pitt in new court documents obtained by ET on Wednesday, saying that her estranged husband is insistent on sealing divorce docs pertaining to custody because he's "terrified that the public will learn the truth."

While Jolie agrees that sealing custody-related records would be in the best interest of the couple's six children -- Maddox, 15, Pax, 13, Zahara, 11, Shiloh, 10, and twins Knox and Vivienne, 8 -- the new court documents, filed by the star's attorney, Laura Wasser, in Los Angeles on Tuesday, slam the recent motion filed by Pitt's lawyers to seal information related to their temporary custody agreement.

Pitt's attorney, Lance Spiegel, filed court docs supporting Pitt's request to have custody documents sealed on Dec. 21, after his request for an emergency hearing about the case was denied weeks earlier.
...

In Jolie's filing on Tuesday, the actress' lawyer accuses Pitt of trying to "deflect from [his] own role in the media storm which has engulfed the parties' children."

"There is little doubt that [Pitt] would prefer to keep the entire case private, particularly given the detailed investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Dept. of Children and Family Services into allegation of abuse," the documents state.

Though Pitt has been cleared by both the FBI and Department of Children and Family Services after investigations following an incident during a family flight home from Europe in September, a source tells ET that "it doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong."

"The kids are clearly traumatized, and Angelina has been protecting the kids by not revealing what really happened on the plane," the source says. "The interest since the onset of this has not changed, and all along that has been to protect the well-being of the children."

A source close to Pitt, meanwhile, tells ET that Jolie cooperated with both investigations. "Clearly her claims were considered legitimate enough to impact those conclusions. And if she held back information which, we don't believe that she did, then isn't she then not representing the best interests of her children by holding it back?"

"Thankfully after four months of on record statements, leaks and unnecessary and intrusive filings she is coming around to realizing that confidentiality is actually in the best interests of her children and family," the source adds.

People
Updated
Angelina Jolie Rips Brad Pitt in New Filing: He’s ‘Terrified the Public Will Learn the Truth" 
But a source close to the situation stresses that Pitt has been cleared in all investigations. “It’s nice to see that she has finally come around to supporting the sealing of documents weeks after he requested this action,” the source tells PEOPLE. “Considering that both the FBI and child services thoroughly investigated this matter and cleared the father, this line of attack doesn’t make much sense.”

But a second source close to the situation is firing back, saying that while Pitt may have been cleared in the investigations following allegations he was abusive towards Maddox on the family’s private plane on Sept. 14, his actions had a lasting effect on the children.

“They keep pointing to him being cleared. While his behavior didn’t amount to anything criminal, that doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything wrong,” says the source. “The kids are traumatized. The mom has been protecting the kids by not revealing what really happened on that plane. Her interest since the outset hasn’t changed: to protect the health and safety of the kids.”

But the first source retorts: “The most likely scenario is that she shared whatever information she has and the authorities clearly didn’t find it to be credible or substantiated,” says the first source. “But if for some reason she inexplicably didn’t share it, then one needs to question how that was in the best interests of the children.” 

The first source maintains that the request to seal documents was always made to help protect their children.

"Let’s hope that this agreement to keep things private going forward will finally allow this to be resolved quietly for the best interests of the children,” adds the first source.

Us
January 4, 2017 @ 10:55 AM
Angelina Jolie Will Seal Custody Documents, Lawyer Claims Brad Pitt Is Afraid ‘Public Will Learn the Truth’: Report
In response, a source close to Pitt tells Us Weekly, "Child services and the FBI both concluded extensive investigations which cleared Brad so it’s pretty obvious that they did not find Angelina’s claims to be convincing or have merit."
The insider adds: "It’s unfortunate it has taken them four months of on the record statements, leaks and unnecessary filings to agree that privacy is the best approach for the children of this family but at least they have acknowledged it now."

TMZ
Angelina Jolie is down with sealing documents in her divorce and custody case, but ... says if the kids have been damaged it's all his doing.
Angelina just filed legal docs saying she agrees with Brad, their business should be kept private, but says it's audacious of him to accuse her of airing their dirty laundry in public. According to legal docs, filed by Laura Wasser, Brad is lashing out because he's "terrified that the public will learn the truth."
Brad went ham on Angelina after she filed unsealed documents trying to prevent him from altering their custody arrangement, but in the new docs she says all he's doing is trying to "deflect from [his] own role in the media storm which has engulfed the parties' children."
She goes on ... "There is little doubt that [Brad] would prefer to keep the entire case private, particularly given the detailed investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Dept. of Children and Family Services into allegation of abuse."

Jan 2
ET
A source tells ET that Jolie and her six children -- Maddox, 15, Pax, 13, Zahara, 11, Shiloh, 10, and twins Knox and Vivienne, 8 -- celebrated the holiday weekend in a private home in Crested Butte, Colorado.
While there was no sign of Pitt, the 41-year-old actress and her brood arrived last Tuesday via a private jet and have been spotted hitting the slopes while outfitted in Burton activewear.

People
Angelina Jolie celebrated the start of 2017 bundled up with her kids in snowy Colorado.
Jolie, 41, and her six children — Maddox, 15, Pax, 13, Zahara, 11, Shiloh, 10, and twins Knox and Vivienne, 8 — have spent the last days of their holiday break hitting the slopes and touring the city in Crested Butte, Colorado.
They family has been seen walking around town and popping into local shops. On Friday, Jolie and Vivienne were spotted shopping at a toy store together.
Brad Pitt was not sighted on the trip with his estranged wife or kids.
The winter getaway comes as the former couple continues to hash out details of their ongoing custody battle over their six children.
On Dec. 21, Pitt filed a memorandum to his request to have divorce documents pertaining to custody sealed on Dec. 21, outlining specific reasons why that information should remain private. 
....
A source close to the situation responding, contending the actress did agree to seal and “the filing was nothing but a media ploy to hurt Angelina.”


2017
Jan 1

Conde Nast Traveler


Dec. 28
Us
Brad Pitt saw his children over the Christmas weekend amid his divorce and custody drama with estranged wife Angelina Jolie, multiple sources exclusively tell Us Weekly.

 "Brad did see the kids at some point for a holiday gift exchange," an insider tells Us. The former couple share six kids: Maddox, 15, Pax, 13, Zahara, 11, Shiloh, 10, and twins Knox and Vivienne, 8.

A second source tells Us that Jolie organized the holiday get-together and that the kids' therapist — who supervises their visits with the Allied actor — was also there. "[Brad] gave them presents and it was cordial," the insider adds.

Dec. 22

Vaniy Fair
by Julie Miller December 22, 2016 6:30 pm
Since Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt announced their separation three months ago, Pitt has spoken little publicly as allegations arose about his parenting skills and a purported substance-abuse problem.
The F.B.I. launched an investigation into a child-abuse rumor, from which Pitt has since been cleared. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services advised subjecting him to random drug and alcohol testing and required a therapist to be present during visits with his children. Throughout the proceedings, Pitt has kept a relatively low profile, releasing public statements to express that “what matters most now is the well-being of our kids.” He opted out of promoting two films, Voyage of Time and Allied, so that he could focus “on my family situation.”
That strategy changed Wednesday. In a memorandum filed in the Superior Court of California, Pitt’s legal team accused Jolie of leaking private information about the couple’s custody agreement to the public through court filings obtained by Vanity Fair. In the documents, Pitt’s legal team said that it filed an application on December 7 requesting that records related to the custody issues of Pitt and Jolie’s six minor children be sealed to “protect their privacy and to avoid subjecting them to the negative impact of the media coverage and public scrutiny of the case.”
Pitt’s legal team alleges Jolie stalled on the matter and alleged that Jolie is “continu[ing] to place her own interests above those of the minor children and to disregard their privacy rights when she believes it may benefit her . . .
“[Jolie] apparently has no self-regulating mechanism to preclude sensitive information from being place in the public record,” the paperwork continues, “or she has other motives pursuant to which she seeks to disseminate information in this proceeding which will be immediately made public, where the children can access it or where people in the general public will have access to it for their own uses, and who will not use such information in the best interest of their children.”
A source with knowledge of the situation tells Vanity Fair, however, “Yesterday’s filing was a clear press move and makes no legal sense. We find it surprising that Mr. Pitt’s legal team filed anything with the court because he had already filed the same request with the court weeks ago, and Ms. Jolie had already signed an agreement to seal the court file.
“The agreement not only protects the children, but at Mr. Pitt’s legal team’s request, it also protects information about Mr. Pitt,” says the source. “The accusation that the mother isn’t protecting the privacy of her children is clearly false. . . . If Ms. Jolie had wanted to, she could have detailed what had happened on the plane a long time ago. Not one piece of information about what actually happened to the children is public. No facts or details have been released, and the mother has kept absolutely silent.”
A court hearing is said to be scheduled for January, at which time the sealing of the documents will be addressed.
In the meantime, the same source tells Vanity Fair that the children’s holiday plans are dependent on a therapist’s recommendation about what is in their best interest.
A representative for Pitt told Vanity Fair he had no further comment.

Us
UPDATED 12/22 7:28 p.m. ET:  Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have already signed a private agreement to seal their divorce case, and Pitt's latest legal move is "just a smear tactic," a Jolie source tells Us Weekly. "In the agreement, Brad wanted to protect information about not only the kids but himself and Angelina agreed to it. They just signed that document so this supplemental filing makes no sense when they already have a signed document," the source says. 

But another source disputes that, saying Pitt would not have filed today's documents if there was already an agreement between the actors to keep things private. "The Court hearing is still taking place on January 17. The hearing wouldn’t take place if the case were sealed," the insider says. "The judge has asked that both sides file whatever they need to before the 17th. This is Brad’s filing for that date."

(original)

Brad Pitt is accusing estranged wife Angelina Jolie of compromising their six children’s privacy by making their divorce case documents public. In a new filing obtained by Us Weekly, Pitt requests that divorce documents pertaining to their kids be sealed.

....Us Weekly has reached out to Jolie’s rep for comment.

People

Pitt’s legal team also drafted a proposed order, which the actor would like the judge to approve.



Dec 21
Us Weekly (Print - Dated Dec 26)
On Nov. 29, Pax celebrated his entrance into his teens at her L.A-area home.  Pax's five siblings "gave him presents they made and sang "Happy Birthday," a source close to Jolie tells Us.   Guests included staff and Jolie's brother James Haven, notes the source: "Brad was not there."

"Angie is not big on Christmas.  The kids have gifts, but she's teaching them not to be materialistic."

"We'll see where the kids want to be.  It's about them wanting to feel safe and secure, not what Brad wants."

While Pitt's and Jolie's lawyers head back to court January 17 to revisit sealing the records the exes themselves "have had limited interaction," according to the Pitt source.

"Brad is going along with the agreement because he is trying to demonstrate that he is amenable and taking things seriously.  He wants to show that he will do whatever it takes to be with his kids."
The Jolie friend says the actress remains fond of his mom and dad, Jane and William, and wants her children to have a relationship with them.  To that end, she would consider letting Pitt and his Springfield, Missouri-based folks spend time with them in L.A.  Says the friend, "She is open to that only because of Brad's Family."  (A second Pitt source says he will definitely see them around that time, but not necessarily Christmas Eve or Day) "Brad is committed to staying positive." says the friend.  "he's just trying to look ahead."

Dec. 20
Vanity Fair
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s Daughter Has a Sophisticated New Hobby

It is an interest shared by Pitt.

This past summer, months before Angelina Jolie stunned the world by splitting from Brad Pitt, the Oscar-winning actress offered a rare update about the couple’s six children. Maddox, Pax, Zahara, Shiloh, Vivienne, and Knox have spent their young lives in a rarified, creative cocoon—jetting around the world; passing time on many a film set; making movie cameos; and learning from teachers of different backgrounds and religions. So it did not surprise anyone that the children’s extracurriculars were as impressive as their C.V.’s.
“None of my kids want to be actors,” Jolie told an interviewer this June. “They are actually very interested in being musicians. I think they like the process of film from the outside. Mad is interested in editing. Pax loves music and deejaying.”

And now Shiloh seems to be honing another film-adjacent hobby these days: photography.

“Shiloh is very interested in photography,” an “insider” tells Us Weekly, before describing in suspicious detail how Jolie and her daughter stopped by an L.A. photography store on Sunday to inspect its merchandise.

“Angelina asked to look at some of the vintage camera,” the source continues. “Angelina inspected the cameras from many different angles and was asking questions. Shiloh was listening intently and paying close attention.”

The detailed report goes on: “Angelina told Shiloh she would love to get her the camera and asked her, ‘Are you satisfied?’ She told Shiloh it even had black and white, which was a nice added feature. Shiloh nodded her head but didn’t talk much. She really listened to Angelina and deferred to her on everything.”

Shiloh is not the first Pitt-Jolie member to develop a fondness for photography. In 2008, Jolie told W magazine about supporting Brad Pitt’s habit, telling the magazine that she bought him a Littman 45 Single camera for Christmas. The magazine published personal photos Pitt took of his family.

Jolie later said, “I love his photography. . .Some people have a hobby, and they find the quickest way to it and are very pleased with the outcome right away. But he’s someone who will really study the camera—he’ll get the most complicated one and really understand the science behind it. And he’s very critical of his own work. I’ll see a photograph and think it’s amazing, but he’ll see all the different reasons why it can be better, and he’ll work very, very hard to improve it.”

The Pitt-Jolie children have hobbies far beyond the camera though. This past summer, Jolie detailed her children’s additional interests, explaining, “All the kids are learning different languages. . .I asked them what languages they wanted to learn and Shi is learning Khmai, which is a Cambodian language, Pax is focusing on Vietnamese, Mad has taken to German and Russian, Z is speaking French, Vivienne really wanted to learn Arabic, and Knox is learning sign language.”

“I suppose that just means you don’t know who your children are until they show you who they are and they are just becoming whoever they want to be,” Jolie said.

Last summer, Jolie confirmed that she and her eldest son, Maddox, are making a movie for Netflix together.

===============================================================

COURT DOCUMENTS


Source


The Court denies Respondent's Ex-Parte request for Order to Seal Records

The Court finds no emergency requiring ex-parte relief.  In addition, the proposed broad sealing order fails to meet the requirements of the California Rule of Court 2.550.  The Court states that such ruling should not delay any filing of a Request for Order by Respondent as such may be filed conditionally under seal following the procedures under California Rule of Court 2.551.  Any proposed sealing order must specifically identify the documents to be sealed.  In connection therewith the Court recognized the privacy rights of the minor children and will be guided by what is in the minor children's best interests.



*****

The emails in order


Nov 17
Re Marriage of Pitt
Dear Laura,
Pursuant to our conversation this morning, I confirm the following:
1. I have proposed that Dr. Jonathan Salk be included in the therapy process.  Dr Salk has excellent credentials and experience and would provide important input regarding the trauma issues.
2. I have informed you that the frequency of therapy sessions between Brad and the children needs to be increased to at least twice per week and that Brad wants to designate the location for these sessions in order to facilitate consistency.
3. We have agreed that I can preserve priority in depositions without the necessity of my noticing your client's deposition.
4. You have requested additional time to consider and respond to whether or not your client will stipulate to seal the custody pleadings.
5.  You have also suggested that I contact the children's therapists regarding their perspectives about the progress of therapy to date.

cc Brad Pitt

======


Nov 18, 2016

Re: Marriage of Jolie Pitt
Dear Lance
I am in receipt of your letter of November 17, 2016.  With regard to items 1 and 2, I believe it is important to rely on the suggestion confirmed in item 5 of your letter.  As I said during our conversation yesterday, we believe that the children's therapists, Catherine Green and Angela Bissada are in the best position to determine whether Dr. Salk is necessary in the current therapy process.  As you are aware, both Angela Bissada and Ian Russ have extensive training and experience in therapy of trauma issues.  If the therapists feel that Dr. Salk could be a valuable addition to the team, we will certainly confer with our client.

With regard to the frequency of therapy sessions, you state that they need to be increased to at least twice a week and that Brad wants to designate the location for these sessions in order to facilitate consistency.  I am wondering about your choice of the word "need" and again defer to the therapists to determine frequency.  As to location, I am certain that the parties, with the help of their security team, can come up with a venue that makes sense for this family.

You will recall that only three weeks ago we signed a custody Stipulation and a week and a half ago Ian disseminated his recommendations.  I understand that a schedule for the visits is in place through January.  Please explain what has changed since October 26 and/or November 9, 2016.

With regard to an agreement that we request that the Court seal the custody pleadings, please specify what custody pleadings you intend to file.  To my knowledge, we are currently operating under the terms of he Stipulation and following the Nov. 9, 2016 recommendations.   Nothing further should be filed until next February at the earliest.  It is my hope that we will be able to resolve custody issues in this case without the need for litigation.  During our discussions, you have indicated that you agree.  Continued rhetoric regarding a stipulation to seal pleadings we hope not to file seems counter intuitive.

During our 11:30 a.m. call yesterday, you asked whether it was acceptable that you spoke to Ian Russ unilaterally.  I advised that it was.  I was not aware that Azita and Gary were meeting with Ian while we were having our conversation wherein you confirmed our authorization for such communications.

Today Samantha and I met with Ian at his request.  We believe that rather than separate meetings, an all-hands meeting which includes Ian Russ, Angela Bissada, Catherine Green, Judy Goldman, Lisa Hacker and the parties' Family Law attorneys would be most productive.  I think that in order to be good liaisons between our clients and the mental health professionals, it is important we hear what they have to say firsthand and at the same time.  Perhaps such a meeting could prove helpful in resolving some, if not all, of the issues raised in your letters of Nov. 15 and Nov. 17, 2016.

Please let me know your thoughts.

cc Angelina Jolie (via email)
Samantha Klein

======

Nov. 21
Re Marriage of Pitt
Dear Laura:
This is in response to your correspondence dated Nov. 18, 2016 and initially reviewed this morning.
I am concerned that there has been a breakdown in communications.  My proposals regarding Dr. Salk, frequency of sessions and location were in response to your question of how to stay focused on therapy efforts rather than litigation.  I was not inviting debate about the needs for Dr. Salk or increased frequency and was not suggesting an all hands discussion regarding those subjects.

During our conversation, I asked about my contacting the children's therapists, not Dr. Russ.  I was aware that the lawyers could meet with Dr. Russ and in fact both Gary and I previously have met with him.

Based on Dr. Salk's reputation and experience, we believe that he would provide assistance to the experts and the parties in dealing with the trauma concerns.  The request for increased frequency and location were based on several factors, including the difficulty in scheduling and last-minute changes that have impeded the process.

Our client has made a major effort and commitment to the ongoing therapy efforts.  However, his limited access to the children is not acceptable.  My original message was and is that unless there are changes to the process, it is not going to accomplish its objectives.

Please advise whether your client will agree to Dr. Salk and commit to increasing the frequency of sessions with the children.

cc Brad Pitt


======


Nov. 28 5:43 PM
Between now and the start of the holidays/school break, Brad is requesting 30 to 60 minutes sessions to be scheduled as follows:  1 session with the twins, 1 sessions with the middle kids, 1 session with all 4, one session with the older boys and if they are not going to participate, another session with the 4 younger kids.
Darren, Michael O. or Richie can be present.  The sessions will be at a home that is approximately 10 minutes from your clients residence.
There will be a request for a step-up in connection with the holidays/school break
Please let me know good time for us to talk tomorrow.


=====


Nov. 29, 8:28 AM
From Laura Wasser
To Lance Spiegel
cc Alicia Thomas
Re Access outside of therapy
Good morning Lance,
As I told you yesterday. I am out of the office today and not in a position to forward your request to my client for discussion until tomorrow
Are we confirmed for a meeting with the children's therapists on Monday at our office at 9:30AM?  I understand that their impressions and opinions will not be dispositive of whether there is a shift in the status quo which increases Brad's interaction with the children and begins visits which are in a non-therapeutic setting, I do think that we ought to hear what they have to say and give some weight to their expertise.
I should have more to report tomorrow afternoon once I return to LA and Angie and I have had a chance to discuss.


======


To Laura Wasser
cc Alicia Thomas
Nov. 29 10:38 AM
Re Access outside of therapy

Laura,
For the past 3 months, Brad has complied with every aspect of the therapy process, notwithstanding ongoing concerns that the therapy team has ignored or disregarded issues that he has raised.  At the same time, the process has been hampered by scheduling and other logistical problems that have resulted in significant periods of no contact between Brad and the children.  His access to the children is and has been far more limited than it should be and is much less than any judge is likely to order on a going forward basis.

As I mentioned yesterday, it would be misleading for me to tell you that the request for access may be impacted by the opinions of the kids' therapists.  Regardless of their views, there is no reason for Brad not to request court orders that are likely to include more access than I proposed yesterday.  If your client is willing to agree to our proposal, we can avoid the necessity of filing an RFO and the meeting next week can be for the purpose of us telling the therapists that the parties have agreed to non-therapy access.

Bottom line is that I need to know whether your client will agree to yesterday's proposal.

 
======

Dec 1, 2016
Re Marriage of Jolie Pitt
Dear Lance
Our meeting yesterday left me feeling disconcerted.  You have told us that you intend to file a request for additional non-therapeutic visitation and do not seem to have any regard for what the children's therapists feel is in their best interests.
I understand that Brad is frustrated but feel that it is incumbent upon us to help this family achieve their long-term reunification goals in a smooth and expeditious manner. Litigation absolutely does not effectuate that goal.
Is it not the end goal that within the next 6-12 months Brad is enjoying frequent and continuous contact with all of the children on a joint custodial basis? If we know that we will get to that point via either costly, ugly, protracted and public court battles or by virtue of out-of-court resolution and the therapeutic process upon which we all agreed less than a month ago, why  would you opt to blow it all up and choose the former?
Please give the therapists a chance to tell us how the kids are feeling. I absolutely know that it will not be dispositive of your/your client's decision on how to proceed but I cannot imagine that it will not shape how we move forward.
There must be a middle ground upon which we can all agree, one which does not necessitate a public battle. Angie's reluctance to enter into a stipulation to seal the file stems from her firm belief that litigation is the wrong decision.
We have discussed a custody evaluation in this matter. As we advised yesterday, we are agreeable and would like it to commence immediately. We propose that Dr. Lulow be appointed. Is Brad agreeable? You have told us that you will not agree to the appointment of minor's counsel. We feel it is essential that the children have advocates who can communicate with the evaluator or the judge on their behalf. Will you reconsider? We also propose that the parties participate in joint sessions with a trauma specialist so that they may learn how to best support and interact with their children given their current state.
Please consider and ask your client to engage with us in trying to figure out how to effectively satisfy this family's concerns.

cc Angelina Jolie
Samantha Klein

======


Dec 2, 2016
Re Marriage of Pitt
Dear Laura
This is in response to your letter dated Dec. 1, 2016
The message that I attempted to deliver on Wednesday was that it is inconceivable to me that the court will not provide Brad with much greater access to the children than the time that I proposed earlier this week. It would be an extraordinary understatement to describe Brad as an involved parent. Based on evidence that has been corroborated by multiple sources (including public and private statements from your client), he has been a great father and there is no reason to exclude him from the children, including the isolated incident that was investigated and rejected by the DCFS.

As you know, we have confirmed that we will be present for the meeting on Monday. However, I have to tell you that this case is not going to end up in a court room because of my reluctance to listen to the therapists. If there is litigation, it is going to be because your client is either unable or unwilling to recognize that the children need to continue to have two loving parents in their lives.

I will get back to you regarding Dr. Lulow and on Monday I hope that you will be able to respond to Brad's request regarding the holidays.

cc Brad Pitt

======


From Laura Wasser
To Lance Spiegel
cc Samantha Klein, Linda Bigbee
Subject Jolie / Pitt
Dec. 2, 2:41PM
Lance -
Yesterday morning I sent you a letter regarding various custody issues and have yet to receive a response.  We believe it is prudent to commence a child custody evaluation and to appoint minors' counsel.  You have made it clear that Brad intends to file an RFO for increased custodial time next week and that nothing the therapists say during our meeting on Monday will change Brad's position.  Therefore, we will be filing the Stipulation & Order Re Custody and Therapy.  We have repeatedly attempted to avoid any court intervention.  Brad's position made that impossible.


=======

From Lance Spiegel
Sent Friday, Dec 2, 2016 3:03PM
To Laura Wasser
cc Alicia Thomas
Subject RE Jolie/Pitt

First of all, a response was sent to you this afternoon (if you have not received it let me know and I will resend)
The stipulation provides that it may be filed for enforcement purposes.  There has been no hint or suggestion of non-compliance with the stipulation and there is, therefore, no basis for you to file the stipulation.  The proposed or actual filing of an RFO is not a "violation" that entitles you to file the stipulation and you will be in violation if you prematurely file it.


=======


From Lance Spiegel
Sent Friday Dec 2, 2016 4:27PM
To Laura Wasser,  Samantha Klein
cc Gary Fishbein, Alicia Thomas
Subject FW:  Jolie/Pitt


In addition to there being no enforcement issues that entitle you to file stipulation, I want to point out that the stipulation contains confidential information regarding the children being in therapy and the names of their therapists.  The public disclosure of such information has serious privacy implications and is potentially damaging.


=======



MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Petitioner Angelina Jolie Pitt submits the within Memorandum of Pints and Authorities in opposition the the Ex Parte Application and Request for Order noticed by Respondent William Bradley Pitt for hearing on Dec 7, 2016.
1.
INTRODUCTION
The governing statutes and case law restrict the use of ex parte applications to situations which generally can be claimed as "emergencies," where substantial injury, harm, or at the very least. prejudice would result if the matter were not either resolved immediately or on shortened time.  Respondent and his counsel apparently believe that such limitations apply to other but not to them.

Respondent's ex parte application to seal all documents and/or evidence relating to the parties' minor children and their child custody dispute must be denied as a matter of law.  There is no express authority to seal a court file.  Furthermore, the facts of this case do not suggest an emergency or even urgency.  Petitioner and Respondent have had a child custody visitation order in place since October 2016 for their six minor children.  This order was based on the recommendations of the minor children's therapists after the Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the FBI initiated investigations into allegations of abuse during an incident on Sept. 14, 2016.

Respondent has nonetheless indicated his intention to seek additional visitation and/or custody beyond that which is recommended by the minor children's therapists.  Respondent is now simply attempting to create a private forum before formally applying for such visitation and/or custody.  Given that it was Respondent's conduct at the center of the DCF and FBI investigations, it is Respondent who ostensibly has much to hide.  His ex parte request is a thinly veiled attempt to shield himself, rather than the minor children, from public view.

There is no emergency currently before this Court.  There is, in fact, no urgency at all.  As set forth in detail in the concurrently filed declaration of Laura A. Wasser, Respondent simply appears to be trying to seal this case from the public record before he seeks visitation and/or child custody orders contrary to the minor children's therapists' recommendations and the parties current custody/visitation order.  Petitioner is entitled to at least 16 court days notice in order to investigate and understand Respondent's contentions and to put forth her own case.

III.
CONCLUSION
Given that there is no emergency or even urgency, Petitioner respectfully requests that Respondent's ex parte application be denied in its entirety.

Dated Dec. 6, 2016
Samantha Klein
Attorney for Petitioner



DECLARATION OF LAURA A. WASSER, ESQ

I, Laura A. Wasser, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law duly license to practice before all courts of the State of California, and am a partner in the firm of Wasser, Cooperman & Mandles, P.C., attorneys of record for Petitioner Angelina Jolie Pitt.  I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. Our firm has represented Petitioner since September 2016.  On Sept. 19, 2016, our firm filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage from Respondent William Bradley Pitt on Petitioner's behalf.  A true and correct copy of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage is attached as Exhibit A.  The Petition included custody requests regarding the parties' six minor children...
3. It is my understanding that on Sept. 14, 2016, the parties and their minor children were involved in an incident during a flight from Europe to California.  As a consequence of that incident, the DCFS and the FBI initiated investigations regarding allegations of abuse.
4. It is my further understanding that since the Sept. 14, 2016 incident, the minor children have lived exclusively with Petitioner.  Respondent has had weekly therapeutic visits with the minor children since Oct. 8, 2016.  The frequency and duration of these visits have been determined by the minor children's therapists, who were put in place jointly by the parties immediately after the Sept. 14, 2016 incident.  The therapists have been present during each of the Respondent's visits.  WIth the cooperation of the parties, further weekly therapeutic visits of 5 hours each have been scheduled through the end of January 2017.  Respondent's visits may increase at any time based on the therapists' evaluation of each child's individual feelings and progress.
5. On Oct. 26, 2016, the parties executed a Stipulation and Order re Child Custody and Therapy (Custody Stipulation). A true correct copy of the Custody Stipulation is attached as Exhibit B.
The Custody Stipulation memorializes the custody and visitation arrangement set forth above and incorporates recommendations made by DCFS.  I have not attached copies of documents our office received from DCFS in order to protect the minor children's privacy and to comply with confidentiality statutes.
6. Approximately one week after the Custody Stipulation was executed, our office received a copy of Respondent's Response and Request for Dissolution of Marriage.  A true and correct copy of the Response and Request for Dissolution of Marriage filed on Nov. 4, 2016 is attache as Exhibit C.  Our office previously granted Respondent an open extension of time to file his response; there was no deadline to file.
7. By mid-November, our office began receiving demands from Respondent's counsel for increased visitation which was not recommended by the minor children's therapists and not agreed upon when the parties entered into the Custody Stipulation less than one month earlier.  True and correct copies of Respondent's counsel's letters of Nov. 17, 2016 and Nov 21, 2016 demanding additional visitation are attached collectively as Exhibit D.  In both face to face meetings and written correspondence, our office maintained that it was premature to end the therapeutic monitoring only weeks after executing the Custody Stipulation encompassing both the therapists' and DCFS's recommendations.  A true and correct copy of my letter of Nov 18, 2016 clearly outlining our position is attached as Exhibit E.
8. Our office requested a joint meeting with both parties' counsel and the minor children's therapists to get their impressions.  For weeks, Respondent's counsel indicated Respondent would not consent to such a meeting.  Respondent's counsel instead continued to demand additional visitation for Respondent without regard for the mental health professionals' recommendations.  A true and correct copy of our email exchange on Nov 28 / 29 2016 detailing additional demands is attached as exhibit F.
9. On Dec 1, 2016, our office finally received Respondent's consent to conduct as joint meeting with counsel and therapists the following week.  However, Respondent's request for additional visitation in an non-therapeutic setting was not withdrawn and his counsel continued to advise that they intended to file a Request for Order.  Our office therefore sent a letter to Respondent's counsel of Dec 1, 2016 requesting compliance with the Custody Stipulation and the therapists' recommendations.  A true and correct copy of our Dec 1, 2016 letter is attached as Exhibit G.
10. On Dec. 2, 2016, our office received a response to my letter of he previous day which again suggested that Respondent sought additional visitation with the minor children and would be requesting same from the court.  A true and correct copy of the Dec. 2, 2016 letter is attached as Exhibit H.  The same day we filed a copy of the Custody Stipulation with the Court for enforcement purposes.
11. On Dec 6, 2016 our office received ex parte notice of Respondent's intent to apply for orders sealing the file in this case.  A true an correct copy of the Dec. 6, 2016 letter confirming notice is attached as Exhibit I
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of he State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 6th day of December 2016 at Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. WASSER

=======


DECLARATION OF WILLIAM BRADLEY PITT

I, William Bradley Pitt, declare as follows:
 1. I am the Respondent in these proceedings.  I have firsthand, personal knowledge of the facts, stated herein, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto, except as to those matters alleged on information and belief as a those matters, I believe them to be true.
 2. Petitioner and I have been unable to agree on a custody schedule and I intend to file a Request for Orders to establish as schedule unless an agreement is reached.  I am extremely concerned that if court records regarding custody are not sealed, information contained therein will cause irreparable damage to our children's privacy rights.  In order to protect our children from irreparable damage to their privacy rights, I am respectfully  requesting all custody-related pleadings be sealed.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

=======



STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CHILD CUSTODY AND THERAPY

Petitioner and Respondent ...hereby stipulate to the following temporary orders:

Pending written agreement of the parties or further order of the court-

- Angelina (Petitioer) shall have physical custody of the children

- Brad (respondent) shall continue to have agreed upon therapeutic visitation.  The frequency and conditions of the visits are determined by Ian Russ, PhD.  Prior to making such determination, Dr. Russ shall consult with Lisa Hacker, Judy Goldman, Angela Bissada and Catherine Green.  Dr. Russ shall at all times consider the best interests of the minor children.

- Brad will continue to participate in individual therapy a minimum of once a week for no less than 50 minutes per session.  At the end of each month he shall provide Dr. Russ with proof of his participation.

- Brad will continue to participate in group therapy once a week and will provide Dr. Russ with proof of his participation at the end of each month.

- Brad will continue to submit to random drug and alcohol testing by Dr. Robert Waldman.  The tests will not exceed one per week with a minimum of 4 every 30 days.  Dr. Waldman will provide Dr. Russ with the results within 24 hours of receipt.

- the children will continue to participate in individual counseling, the frequency and duration of which will be recommended by Angela Bissada and Catherine Green.

- Brad, Angelina and the children will continue to participate in joint sessions.

All communications are considered "safe harbor therapy" and protected by psychotherapist-patient privilege.

Confidentiality:  "In the interest of privacy of the parties and their minor children. this Stipulation and Order is not being submitted to the Court for entry at this time.  Nonetheless, upon execution, this Stipulation and Order shall be effective between the parties as a valid and binding agreement, whether or not it is ever entered by the Court.  Either party may file this Stipulation and Order with the Court as necessary to enforce any term contained herein."

Dated and signed by all parties Oct 26, 2016

Angelina is represented by Laura Wasser and Samantha Klein both of Wasser, Cooperman Mandles PC

Brad is represented by Lance Spiegel of Young, Spiegel & Lee LLP who also signed his response, and Gary Fishbein of Butler Buzard Fishbein & Royce who again did not sign.


================================================================


TMZ

Angelina Jolie is imploring Brad Pitt to help find a new professional to help them and their children deal with the "trauma" of what happened on their private jet 3 months ago.
Angelina's attorney fired off an email to Brad's legal team on December 1, proposing they "participate in joint sessions with a trauma specialist so that they may learn how to best support and interact with their children."
The request makes it clear -- Jolie thinks the kids are so bad off because of what they witnessed on the plane, and the therapy process they've been going through isn't getting the job done. As we've reported, both sides agreed in September to attend family therapy sessions as part of their temporary custody agreement.
Another sign the situation is still dire -- in docs, Brad's attorney suggested their 2 eldest boys, Maddox and Pax, might not want to visit with their dad.
One source tells us the boys walked out of one session in the past, and have refused to attend others.
It's important to note ... DCFS closed out its investigation after concluding Brad did nothing that warranted official action.  DCFS could have referred the case to dependency court if it felt the kids were in danger, or recommended criminal prosecution ... it did neither.
It's unclear if he's responded to Angelina's request.


Dec 7

ET
On Wednesday, Pitt's court declaration stated that the two have been unable to agree on a custody schedule, and that Pitt intends to "file a Request for Orders to establish a schedule unless an agreement is reached."
Now, ET has obtained new court documents, which reveal detailed email conversations between Pitt's attorney, Lance Spiegel, and Jolie's attorney, Laura Wasser, that give insight into how things got to where they are now.
Nov. 17: Spiegel requests the frequency of therapy sessions between Pitt and the children be increased to twice a week.
Court documents also revealed that Pitt requested "to designate the location for these sessions in order to facilitate consistency."
Nov. 18: Wasser asks Spiegel why the frequency of Pitt's therapy sessions with the children needs to be increased.
In an email response to Spiegel, Jolie's attorney expressed she was curious about Spiegel's choice of the word "need," saying she defers to the therapists in order to determine the frequency of the visits. Wasser also noted that both parties need to stick to the Oct. 26 custody stipulation.
"Nothing further should be filed until next February at the earliest," she wrote. "It is my hope that we will be able to resolve custody issues in this case without the need for litigation." A source told ET at the time that "Brad's team was trying to change things."
"Angelina had to file to reinforce the agreement because this is what the family therapists believe is best," the source continued. "The frequencies and locations of the child visits were all signed off by Brad in October and then he attempted to change them on Nov. 17, which is what prompted all of this."
Nov. 21: Spiegel reiterates the need to increase the therapy sessions.
Pitt's attorney responded to Wasser via e-mail again, writing, "[Pitt] has made a major effort and commitment to the ongoing therapy efforts."
"However, his limited access to the children is not acceptable," he added. 

Nov. 28: Spiegel makes a request for Pitt to see his children "between now and the start of the holidays/school break."
In an email dated Nov. 28, Pitt's lawyer wrote that Pitt was requesting four specific 30 to 60 minute sessions, in various combinations with the six kids.
The e-mail noted that the sessions, which included "one session with the twins" and "one session with the middle kids," could be supervised. Spiegel implied that the eldest children, Pax and Maddox, may opt out of their session, but if they do not participate, Pitt would like an additional session with the four younger kids. 

Nov. 29: Wasser requests a meeting to discuss if the kids' therapists approve of increasing Pitt's interactions with the children.
Wasser responded to Spiegel one day later, asking if a meeting with the children's therapists had been approved for Dec. 5 at her legal office at 9:30 a.m.
"I do think that we ought to hear what they have to say and give some weight to their expertise," she explained in the email.
Nov. 29: Spiegel again requests for Pitt to see the kids more.
Spiegel noted that for the past three months, Pitt had "compiled with every aspect of the therapy process" and had gone through a significant amount of time not seeing or being in contact with his children.
"His access to the children is and has been far more limited than it should be, and is much less than any judge is likely to order on a going forward basis," wrote Spiegel, adding, "There is no reason for Brad not to request court orders that are likely to include more access than I proposed yesterday." 

Dec. 1: Wasser is "disconcerted" after a meeting with Spiegel.
According to an email Wasser wrote on this day, Spiegel allegedly told Wasser and her team that he intended to file a request for additional non-therapeutic visitations.
She also implied that this was against the therapists' recommendations. "Please give the therapists a chance to tell us how the kids are feeling," Wasser suggested.
Dec. 2: Spiegel won't take no for an answer, requests more access to the kids again.
In this response, Pitt's attorney cited how great of a father Pitt is, claiming that any court would give him "much greater access" to his children.
Dec. 2: Jolie and Wasser formally file custody agreement. 
 A judge approved the custody agreement, granting Jolie physical custody of all six children. According to documents, Pitt would continue to have agreed-upon therapeutic visitations with the kids, as determined by the family's therapist who "shall at all times consider the best interests of the minor children." Now, if Pitt wants to amend the order, he must go through the court.
Also on Dec. 2, Spiegel alleged that Jolie's counsel sent him an email, advising that she had intended to file the "October Stipulation." He claims he discovered it had been officially filed two days later when he read an article on TMZ.
Spiegel also claimed that the unauthorized filing of the temporary October order was caused by Jolie's reaction to his Nov. 28 email requesting that Pitt get more time with the kids. 
  
Dec. 6: Pitt's legal team informs Wasser of an emergency hearing to seal the documents in order to protect the kids. 
"Brad filed this motion [to seal documents] because he wants to keep this custody battle out of the public eye to protect his children," a source told ET at the time. "Privacy is beneficial to the entire family.
Another source told ET: "Yes, Angelina's team was given a heads up about this emergency hearing, but only by a day, and the documents show those emails. There was a heads up but not a discussion. Angelina's team was open to sealing the docs, but Brad's team did not reach out for discussions on this, they just said the emergency hearing is happening tomorrow."
  
Dec. 7: Pitt's request for an emergency hearing to seal all documents related to his custody case with Jolie is denied. 

"Angelina's team is not opposed to sealing the documents," a source claimed at the time.
"There have been many reports that Angelina wants to keep these documents public to make Brad look bad, that is false," the source added. "As the document states, their custody agreement was already legally binding, the only reason to formally file it with a court would be to enforce the agreement because one of the parties was trying to change it and that is what was happening."
"Brad was attempting to set up his own schedule with the children," the source further claimed. "He was not relying on the advice of the healthcare professionals [as to] what should be done. In order to keep everything in line with the custody agreement it had to be reinforced in court. Therefore that forced Angelina's side to file it within the courts."

An additional source echoed those claims, telling ET, "Angelina feels that they should abide by what the healthcare professionals put in place that they all agreed to back in October. Neither of them are health professionals, they should abide by the precedent put in place. At this point the healthcare professionals are saying keep the plan that was agreed upon in October."
"If the healthcare professionals eventually recommend something else, Angelina is not opposed to working on a new agreement," the source added. "She's just trying to abide by what they've said is best for the kids. Changing frequencies and locations is not in the guidelines."

TMZ
Brad and Angelina Jolie's lawyers filed a series of emails for Wednesday morning's hearing. In one of them his attorney, Lance Spiegel, says despite Brad complying with every aspect of the child therapy process ... "the therapy team has ignored or disregarded issues that [Brad] has raised." He's not specific about the issues.
It's clear from the docs Brad is frustrated by the limited amount of time he gets with his 6 kids ... 1 visit per week. The issue is, Brad signed a temporary custody deal months ago in which he agreed -- along with Angelina -- they would both let the therapists call the shots.
The emails from Brad's attorney suggest he's trying to circumvent that deal. In fact, Spiegel says "Regardless of [the therapists'] views, there is no reason for Brad not to request court orders" for more access to the kids.
In late November, Brad's lawyer asked if Angelina would agree to the following schedule in December:
- one session with the twins (Knox and Vivienne)
- one session with the middle kids (Zahara and Shiloh)
- one session with the twins AND the middle kids
- one session with the older kids (Maddox and Pax)
The sessions would be monitored and 30-60 minutes long. Spiegel adds, if Maddox and Pax don't want to see him ... Brad wants an extra session with the other 4 kids.
Angelina's team turned down the offer. Her attorney, Laura Wasser, fired off a very firm response saying Brad's team is ignoring what therapists feel is best for the kids. She implores them to give the therapists a chance to "tell us how the kids are feeling."

People
Laura Wasser, Jolie’s attorney, says the actress does not oppose sealing documents to prevent details from becoming public, but that Pitt’s team didn’t consult with them before their hearing, which is why she opposed it at this time.
But a source with knowledge of the situation disagrees, telling PEOPLE, “Brad Pitt’s team repeatedly asked Angelina’s camp to agree to seal custody proceedings. When, instead, they filed what they did on Monday and put the children’s privacy at risk, Brad moved forward with the motion to seal all future proceedings.”
The source adds that Jolie’s team “was given notice of this motion, and could have simply agreed to it. They chose not to.”
However, a second source close to the situation says that Pitt’s team “forced Monday’s filing by trying repeatedly to break the agreement” and that “Angelina is just honoring the therapist recommendations.” Ultimately, the second source says, “Everyone agrees the children can only benefit from a healthy relationship with their dad.”
The second source also disputes the notion that only Pitt is seeking privacy, noting the fact that today’s filing, like Jolie’s, was public: “A party who wishes to keep things private either opts not to file them with the court, or files them under seal.”
That Pitt’s side had asked repeatedly for the records to be sealed is also under dispute, with the second source saying, “I don’t know where they got that from. Laura has said she’s not opposed to sealing documents.”
Moving forward, the first source says if Jolie is “now agreeable to sealing the file, that’s certainly good news. But at this moment, no one within Brad’s circle knows that to be true, and it’s unfortunate that it took him filing a motion to get them hopefully to do what’s in the best interests of the children and the entire family.”

ET
Now, a source familiar with Jolie’s camp has slammed her ex’s request as a “PR scam.”
"The only parent who repeatedly puts these children at risk is Brad,” the source claims, though Pitt has been cleared of all abuse allegations by both the FBI and the Department of Children and Family Services. 
“In his desperate request to repair his media image he has once again slighted his family,” the source continued. “A party who seeks to keep things private either opts not to file the documents with the court or to file them under seal. Brad’s emergency request today was a PR scam and it backfired. The judge as much told him that he doesn't get to be treated specially just because he's a movie star.” 

Another source told ET that Pitt filed the motion to seal the documents “because he wants to keep this custody battle out of the public eye to protect his children. Privacy is beneficial to the entire family.”  Neither Pitt nor Jolie were in court on Wednesday.
"Every single public statement, filing or comment has come from one side. Period," the source told ET, claiming that Jolie’s team was given notice of the filing and opposed it.
 "They are complaining because Brad's team filed a request for confidentiality to stop them from leaking confidential materials," the source continued. "Angie's team are the ones responsible for this becoming public and for keeping it in the public eye by following up with on-the-record statements and filings to keep fueling the fire [which is] all to the detriment of the entire family. All therapists agree that keeping this private is critically important for the children and yet they continue to oppose efforts to do so."

ET
Brad Pitt requested an emergency hearing to seal all documents related to his custody case with his ex, Angelina Jolie, but was denied by a judge on Wednesday.
Pitt's attorney, Lance Spiegel, was in court on Wednesday, as was Jolie's attorney, Laura Wasser. The judge denied the emergency hearing on the motion to seal the documents, since he didn't think the issue warranted an emergency hearing.
Wasser appeared happy following the decision, telling ET outside the courtroom, "We won."
A source tells ET that Pitt filed the motion to seal the documents following the release of the family agreement "because he wants to keep this custody battle out of the public eye to protect his children."
"Privacy is beneficial to the entire family," the source adds.
But court documents obtained by ET on Wednesday also reveal more on Pitt and Jolie's custody battle. Pitt's court declaration states that the two have been unable to agree on a custody schedule, and that Pitt intends to "file a Request for Orders unless an agreement is reached." ...Spiegel writes that he and Wasser discussed custody proposals the week of Nov. 28, before Jolie publicly filed the papers.
...
"Based on Ms. Wasser's email dated Dec. 2, the unauthorized filing of the October Stipulation was caused by [Jolie's] reaction to having advised her counsel that [Pitt's] time with the children be increased," Spiegel's declaration reads. "There is an inescapable inference that the filing was in response to my having broached the subject of increasing [Pitt's] access to the children."
A separate source confirms that Pitt was requesting more time with the children outside of the agreed-upon process. "Brad was attempting to set up his own schedule with the children," the source tells ET. "He was not relying on the advice of the healthcare professionals of what should be done. In order to keep everything in line with the custody agreement, it had to be reinforced in court. Therefore, that forced Angelina's side to file it within the courts."
The source adds, "As the document states, their custody agreement was already legally binding -- the only reason to formally file it with a court would be to enforce the agreement because one of the parties was trying to change it and that is what was happening."
"There have been many reports that Jolie wants to keep these documents public to make Brad look bad, that is false," the source also clarifies. "Jolie's team is not opposed to sealing the documents."

USA Today
Peter Walzer, a Los Angeles divorce attorney who has handled celeb divorces, said the purpose of such a filing would be to get a court order in case either party wants to change the custody agreement.
"If it's just an agreement it’s not enforceable without a court order," Walzer says. "Monitored visitation is a super-serious deal and it needs to be part of the court record and (under) court supervision and enforcement in case there is a violation (of the agreement)."

TMZ
We're told Angelina felt it necessary to file the docs in order to have the court enforce the terms -- specifically the part about letting a therapist make the call on when Brad can start having unmonitored visits.
In docs, Angelina's lawyer says Brad's effort to seal the whole case isn't so much about protecting the children -- as his side has claimed -- but more about keeping his own actions hidden ... because it was "[Brad's] conduct at the center of the DCFS and FBI investigations."
Sources connected to the case tell us Brad has been trying to "push past the process." As one source put it, he was acting like a "celebrity who is used to getting whatever he wants" ... and after the DCFS investigation cleared him of criminal wrongdoing, what he wanted was to have solo time with the children.
Our Brad sources deny he's made any effort to change the temporary custody deal.
We're told Angelina also wants the whole case to remain private -- as long as Brad sticks to the custody arrangement they both signed off on months ago.

AP
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge on Wednesday rejected Brad Pitt's request to seal details about custody arrangements in his divorce from Angelina Jolie Pitt.
Los Angeles Superior Court Richard J. Burdge Jr. denied Pitt's request in a brief written order that states the filing did not meet the requirements for sealing details at this time. Pitt had sought to seal details of his custody dispute with Jolie Pitt at an emergency hearing, but Burdge declined to hear the petition on an expedited basis.
Pitt's motion came two days after the release of a custody agreement that he and his estranged wife reached in late October. The agreement calls for the actor to have visitation with his children under the guidance of a therapist.
Pitt intends to seek temporary custody orders soon, and his filing states that he wanted those documents sealed to protect the children's privacy. He was also seeking the sealing of any custody-related filings.
"I am extremely concerned that if court records regarding custody are not sealed, information contained therein will cause irreparable damage to our children's privacy rights," Pitt wrote in a sworn declaration filed Wednesday.
Pitt's attorney Gary Fishbein declined comment after the hearing.
Jolie Pitt filed for divorce in September and currently has primary custody of their six children.
Her attorneys wrote in court filings Wednesday that Pitt's request was an attempt to shield himself from embarrassing details when he seeks increased visitation with his children, stating that is contrary to a therapist's recommendation.
"His ... request is a thinly veiled attempt to shield himself, rather than the minor children, from public view," Jolie Pitt's attorneys wrote.
The divorce filing came days after a disagreement broke out on private flight ferrying the actors and their children from France to Los Angeles. Pitt was accused of being abusive toward his 15-year-old son during the flight, but investigations by child welfare officials and the FBI were closed with no charges being filed against the actor.
After filing for divorce, Jolie Pitt's attorney said it was done "for the health of the family."
Custody has been the primary issue in the divorce. Jolie Pitt is seeking sole custody of the children, while Pitt is seeking joint custody. A final agreement will be part of the couple's divorce judgment when it is entered.
California law favors joint custody, although details about custody arrangements are rarely made public in celebrity divorce cases.
Jolie Pitt's attorney Laura Wasser said the actress does not oppose sealing details of the pair's custody arrangements, but Pitt's attorneys did not consult with them before filing the motion Wednesday.
Pitt and Jolie were married for two years and together for 12 years after becoming close while filming 2005's "Mr. & Mrs. Smith."

People
A source with knowledge of the situation tells PEOPLE that Pitt’s request is in the best interest of the family and that the actor disagrees with the way Jolie has handled the divorce in the media.
"Angelina has consistently made public statements and public filings throughout this process. He has not,” says the source. “All he is saying—and any therapist would agree here—is that he wants to do what is in the best interests of his children, and his entire family, including her, frankly. And that is to keep this private. It is inconceivable why anyone would argue against this being private. What is the argument for having it public? Why would you want any details about this incredibly difficult time to be broadcast to the whole world?”
But a second source stresses that the family’s privacy, including Pitt’s, remains a priority for Jolie.
“Of course Angelina does want to keep things private. That’s why details of what really happened on the plane have not been made public.”

Dec. 6
TMZ
Jolie's rep denies there's a move planned and says Angelina is focused on the health and well being of her children. The rep adds, Angelina wants to continue therapy with the kids and Brad.

ET
Reports that Angelina Jolie is planning to move to London for a top United Nations position are "absolutely false," a representative for Jolie tells ET.
"She has no intention of moving to London," the rep says. "In fact, she is looking for a new home in the Los Angeles area so that she can continue the family therapy sessions."

Dec. 5
People
“This is pure spin and manipulation, as absolutely nothing has changed,” says a source with knowledge of the situation. “The original agreement is temporary and voluntary and that has not changed in the slightest; absolutely no binding agreement has been made, no final decisions have been made, and there is nothing that should be presented as a legally binding custody arrangement at this time. There is zero legal purpose for filing this. Zero.
“There is absolutely nothing different about the situation today as opposed to yesterday as opposed to when this agreement was put into place,” adds the first source.
A separate source notes that Jolie has been attending her kids’ counseling sessions. “Angie has been by the kids’ side nonstop since this happened. Their health and well-being has been her only priority. She hasn’t traveled, and she delayed completing [her new film] First They Killed My Father,” says the source, adding, “Angie also hasn’t been the one to keep Brad from seeing the kids. It hasn’t been her choice. She has been following the advice of the therapists.”

Meanwhile, Pitt has not made any court filings since requesting joint custody in November. As for why he has yet to ask the court to intervene in the dispute, the first source says, “Brad has always placed the interests of his children first and foremost, and has been accommodating and agreeable for now due to his desire to continue putting his children first. Particularly during the holiday season, embarking on legal filings at this moment doesn’t feel imperative.”
A source close to the actor tells PEOPLE, “Brad is not at all happy with this situation. He wants to spend more time with the kids and on his own terms. There is nothing about the current arrangement that makes him happy. He has no plans to accept it. He misses his kids. It’s a very sad situation for him.”
The source adds, “Angie is playing hurtful games and he won’t play along. He feels he has done nothing wrong and is getting punished without cause. He always was a great dad and wants to continue to be a great dad. Spending Thanksgiving without his kids was very difficult for him. He wants to have a normal relationship with his kids. He has a great legal team and is figuring out the best strategy right now.”

 DCFS - LA FAQ

If the Juvenile Division decides that it is necessary to remove a child from the home, several possibilities exist:
  • the child may be placed with the other parent, if they are separated or divorced
  • the child may be placed with relatives, or
  • in a foster or group home
"DCFS is satisfied that the children are not in any danger with either of the parties, DCFS would then close their investigation.”


No comments:

Post a Comment