They are communicating the real intent behind their filings thru the statements by Peter Harvey, a former NJ attorney general working with Angelina on policy issues: “Ms. Jolie has been working privately for four and a half years to both heal her family and to fight for improvements to the system to ensure that other families do not experience what hers has endured."
This is the first time they’ve openly expressed in strong and unequivocal terms that they believe the actions and decisions made by the system, i.e the DCFS, were wrong. Brad made oblique comments to GQ to that effect, and alluded to having considered but ultimately was talked out of fighting them in court. But this is the first time Angelina indicated that she believes the family was needlessly made to suffer and she is fighting the system not through a lawsuit but by bringing about changes. That would entail a multi-pronged approach of which the appellate court provides one avenue.
Their latest court filings are aimed at resolving problems with how court statutes affecting children and families are interpreted through rulings from the Appellate court. Bley and Spiegel are joined by appellate law luminaries Robert A. Olson and Theodore Boutrous, Jr. respectively, the latter having also appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Court of Appeals has slated oral arguments on Olson/ Bley's appeal of the lower court ruling on Judge Ouderkirk's disqualification for July 9. The case was filed 11/23 and the respondents are Judge Erick Larsch, who made the ruling, and the Superior Court. The lower court was ordered to show cause on why "(it) should not be compelled to vacate (its) order of November 16, 2020 and issue a new and different order granting petitioner's statement of disqualification," A petition for a Writ of Mandate - stay (of the hearing then set for 11/30) was filed with the Court of Appeals on 11/20/20 by Olson. Most Exhibits and Appendices filed on 11/20 were ordered sealed, they were also sealed in the lower court. The request for stay was denied by the Appellate court on 12/16/20 and the hearing before Judge Ouderkirk took place in Feb. Boutrous did not join Spiegel until 02/09/21 or after the case was "fully briefed" on 01/28/21. Bley/ Olson sent a letter to the Court of Appeals on 03/01/21 with an update on the then just-concluded hearing presided by Judge Ouderkirk, they referred to the existing custody arrangement that it is intended to modify as a "stipulated custody judgement." On 05/21 Spiegel / Boutrous filed a request for judicial notice of lower court documents (filed under seal) pending the order to show cause.
It is notable that most of the documents they filed with the Appellate court even before the hearing are sealed, While the main issue before the court is ostensibly the lower court's ruling on Judge Ouderkirk, the sealed, redacted and confidential filings would have to pertain to the minor children. The court had previously rejected a request for a broad sealing order and said it recognizes the privacy rights of the minor children (to overcome the right of public access.) This has been strictly applied. Based on the relative quantity of those sealed-confidential filings, it appears what they are presenting to the Appellate court involves the children much more than the issue surrounding Judge Ouderkirk. The matter of his compliance with disclosure requirements was discussed in great detail in past filings by both Bley and Spiegel and none were sealed or involved the children.
Olson/ Bley’s 05/24/21 filings quoted by the AP are part of their reply and opposition to Spiegel/ Boutrous' request for judicial notice. Two of their four filings are marked *CONFIDENTIAL - may not be examined without court order" which is considerably stricter than a filing under seal. What the AP could read was only a small fraction of what was filed. In it, they asserted that the Judge "denied Ms. Jolie a fair trial, improperly excluding her evidence." Specifically, that the Judge "refused to hear the minor teenagers' input" and had "failed to adequately consider" the California Family Code section on a party who has perpetrated domestic violence (defined as having "intentionally or recklessly caused or attempted to cause bodily injury, or to have placed a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person, or to have engaged in any behavior involving, but not limited to, threatening, striking, harassing, destroying personal property or disturbing the peace of another). The section enumerates factors the court must consider in determining whether the presumption (that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody to a such a person is detrimental to the best interest of the child) has been overcome. These include whether the perpetrator has completed a baterer's treatment program, alcohol or drug abuse counseling, and parenting class.
The Offers of proof that Bley filed earlier with Judge Ouderkirk for testimony of minor children and testimony regarding domestic violence were filed with appellate review already in mind.
It may seem surprising that a private judge, whose disclosures regarding repeat engagements with counsel are the subject of an ongoing review before the Court of Appeals, would make a ruling that is both a lightning rod and could be construed as favoring that counsel. As a practical matter however, the unheard testimonies will likely not make much, if any, difference in their case because of the small army of mental health experts who collectively covered every aspect of the therapeutic process and who gave exhaustive testimonies. Several of the experts were focused solely on the children and their voluminous testimony would have given the court ample insight into the children's condition, feelings and wishes. The aforementioned LaViolette and other listed therapists who worked with Brad could already comprehensively discuss his progress and participation in programs per the requirements of the Family Code. The testimonies covered by the Offers of proof including the children's will likely only serve to reconfirm what is already on the record. But the key point is that even if the court is able to arrive at the same conclusions without them, the children should not be deprived of their statutory right to be heard and all relevant testimonies should be allowed to be given. Judge Ouderkirk's rulings gave them the opportunity to raise the issue with the Appellate court.
As Peter Harvey and a "source close to Jolie" (who may also be Harvey) were quoted by AP and CNN:
"This is a statutory process that is underway, and we are a long way from a final resolution of anything.
Angelina believes that she and the children have been denied a fair trial and will continue to seek the best solution for the children and their wellbeing."
Angelina "'supports joint custody' but the situation is complicated and he can’t go into detail because the court proceedings are under seal.
"Ms. Jolie has been working privately for four and a half years to both heal her family and to fight for improvements to the system to ensure that other families do not experience what hers has endured."
(Almost all other quotes that have appeared outside of AP and CNN are fake. Harvey, a lawyer working with Angelina but not directly on the case, was the only one they authorized to speak for them, their lawyers and reps all declined to comment. Harvey did not reveal any details of Judge Ouderkirk's tentative decision.)
Bley on 05/21 filed a "Request (for statement of decision and principal controverted issues (filed under Seal))" and a "Request (to modify tentative Order (filed under Seal))" with Judge Ouderkirk. She had two other sealed filings that were not described. The statement of decision will show how the judge arrived at his decisions and will identify the specific areas that need Higher court clarification much as the Offer of proof does.
Spiegel et al asserted that Olson/ Bley's arguments (presumably regarding the decision re disqualification) “lacked credibility in many important areas, and the existing custody order between the parties must be modified, per Mr. Pitt’s request, in the best interests of the children.” And that the delays (due to the issue of disqualification) “work grave harm upon the children, who will be further denied permanence and stability.” If the Judge is disqualified, his decisions since the statement of disqualification was filed last August will be vacated. The hearings will have to take place again before a different judge.
Peter Harvey's statement implies that they are also working on improvements to the statutes and guidelines governing the actions of the DCFS. A more public campaign with their direct personal involvement -- Jolie-Pitt vs. the system -- may have to wait until they are ready to talk freely and explain their story. (At the rate they're going, that will hopefully be before the twins graduate from college. 😏)
With all the important documents sealed and the true purposes of the filings hidden, direct quotes are how they've communicated their true intent. Their quotes have all been consistent from the start.
I wrote previously on how things might have been different if the DCFS was not called:
The other big question they must ponder is how different things might have been if the DCFS was never involved. If the family might have healed faster. The DCFS met the plane when it landed and interviewed everyone as they stepped off. What they saw and heard led to their decision to open an investigation for child abuse. The DCFS regarded Brad as a threat to the children and they put in place a child safety plan and placed a restraining order on Brad, restricting him from going near the children or the place where they lived. That forced Angelina to file the petition in order to comply with DCFS requirements and convince the DCFS she would protect the children from Brad if they allowed the children to stay with her. They were prohibited from having any direct contact and all communications had to go through their lawyers while the safety plan was in effect. The process the family is trying to complete is one of the safeguards for the children that the DCFS put in place before it ended it's investigation and cleared Brad of child abuse.
By Andrew Dalton and Jocelyn Gecker • Published May 26, 2021 • Updated on May 26, 2021 at 4:25 pm
LOS ANGELES (AP)
Angelina Jolie criticized a judge who is deciding on child custody in her divorce with Brad Pitt, saying in a court filing that the judge refused to allow their children to testify.
“Judge Ouderkirk denied Ms. Jolie a fair trial, improperly excluding her evidence relevant to the children’s health, safety, and welfare, evidence critical to making her case,” according to the filing in California’s Second District Court of Appeal.
The actress also said the judge “has failed to adequately consider” a section of the California courts code, which says it is detrimental to the best interest of the child if custody is awarded to a person with a history of domestic violence. Her filing did not give details about what it was referring to.
Jolie sought a divorce in 2016, days after a disagreement broke out on a private flight ferrying the actors and their children from France to Los Angeles. Pitt was accused of being abusive toward his then-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. Jolie's attorney said at the time that she sought a divorce “for the health of the family.”
Her new filing says the judge has “refused to hear the minor teenagers’ input as to their experiences, needs, or wishes as to their custody fate,” citing a California code that says a child 14 or over should be allowed to testify if they want to.
Three of Jolie and Pitt's six children are teenagers, 17-year-old Pax, 16-year-old Zahara, and 14-year-old Shiloh. The oldest, Maddox, is 19 and not subject to the custody decision. They also have 12-year-old twins, Vivienne and Knox.
Pitt's attorneys said, “Ouderkirk has conducted an extensive proceeding over the past six months in a thorough, fair manner and reached a tentative ruling and order after hearing from experts and percipient witnesses.”
Pitt's filing said the judge found Jolie's testimony “lacked credibility in many important areas, and the existing custody order between the parties must be modified, per Mr. Pitt’s request, in the best interests of the children.”
It says Jolie’s objections and further delays in reaching an arrangement would “work grave harm upon the children, who will be further denied permanence and stability.”
It’s not clear what the current custody arrangement is because the court seals most files. When the divorce process began, Pitt sought joint custody and Jolie sought primary physical custody — meaning the children would live more than half the time with her. But changes have been made that have not been made public.
Peter Harvey, a lawyer for Jolie who is close to the case but not directly involved, said the actress “supports joint custody” but the situation is complicated and he can’t go into detail because the court proceedings are under seal.
Divorce lawyers for both sides declined to comment on the new filings.
Harvey, a former attorney general of New Jersey who has been working with Jolie on policy issues, told The Associated Press, “Ms. Jolie has been working privately for four and a half years to both heal her family and to fight for improvements to the system to ensure that other families do not experience what hers has endured.”
Jolie has sought to disqualify Ouderkirk, a private judge she and Pitt chose to maintain their privacy, arguing that he has an improper business relationship with one of Pitt's attorneys.
She said in Monday’s filing that if the tentative custody decision is made final by Ouderkirk, she will appeal it.
"The recent decision in the custody matter is a tentative one. This is a statutory process that is underway, and we are a long way from a final resolution of anything. Angelina believes that she and the children have been denied a fair trial and will continue to seek the best solution for the children and their wellbeing," a source close to Jolie told CNN.
"This is a statutory process that is underway, and we are a long way from a final resolution of anything.
Angelina believes that she and the children have been denied a fair trial and will continue to seek the best solution for the children and their wellbeing."
Angelina "'supports joint custody' but the situation is complicated and he can’t go into detail because the court proceedings are under seal.
"Ms. Jolie has been working privately for four and a half years to both heal her family and to fight for improvements to the system to ensure that other families do not experience what hers has endured."
(Almost all other quotes that have appeared outside of AP and CNN are fake. Harvey, a lawyer working with Angelina but not directly on the case, was the only one they authorized to speak for them, their lawyers and reps all declined to comment. Harvey did not reveal any details of Judge Ouderkirk's tentative decision.)
Bley on 05/21 filed a "Request (for statement of decision and principal controverted issues (filed under Seal))" and a "Request (to modify tentative Order (filed under Seal))" with Judge Ouderkirk. She had two other sealed filings that were not described. The statement of decision will show how the judge arrived at his decisions and will identify the specific areas that need Higher court clarification much as the Offer of proof does.
A proper request for statement asks the court “to address the principal controverted issues,” which “must be specified in the request.” (Rule 3.1590(d); see also Code Civ.Proc., § 632.) The “principal” issues are the ultimate facts and legal rules on which the court rests its decision,
Spiegel/ Boutrous filed an unsealed reply to their own request for judicial notice on 05/24. It is not in reply to Bley/ Olson's latest filing; both filings were entered at the same time. Per the AP, they stated that the Judge "conducted an extensive proceeding over the past six months" and "reached a tentative ruling and order.”
After trial, the judge first issues a tentative decision. (Rule 3.1590(a).) It may be oral in open court or written. (Ibid.) Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the tentative decision “does not constitute a judgment and is not binding on the court.” (Id., subs. (b).) Thus, a tentative decision cannot support a judgment.Judge Ouderkirk's tentative decision did not modify the stipulated custody judgement.
Since the tentative decision is not binding, the judge can change it as he or she deems necessary. (Miramar Hotel Corp. v. Frank B. Hall & Co. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1126, 1129.) Indeed, the trial judge is free to reverse the tentative decision altogether and enter a wholly different judgment. (Canal-Randolph Anaheim, Inc. v. Willkoski (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 477, 494.)
Spiegel et al asserted that Olson/ Bley's arguments (presumably regarding the decision re disqualification) “lacked credibility in many important areas, and the existing custody order between the parties must be modified, per Mr. Pitt’s request, in the best interests of the children.” And that the delays (due to the issue of disqualification) “work grave harm upon the children, who will be further denied permanence and stability.” If the Judge is disqualified, his decisions since the statement of disqualification was filed last August will be vacated. The hearings will have to take place again before a different judge.
Peter Harvey's statement implies that they are also working on improvements to the statutes and guidelines governing the actions of the DCFS. A more public campaign with their direct personal involvement -- Jolie-Pitt vs. the system -- may have to wait until they are ready to talk freely and explain their story. (At the rate they're going, that will hopefully be before the twins graduate from college. 😏)
With all the important documents sealed and the true purposes of the filings hidden, direct quotes are how they've communicated their true intent. Their quotes have all been consistent from the start.
I wrote previously on how things might have been different if the DCFS was not called:
The other big question they must ponder is how different things might have been if the DCFS was never involved. If the family might have healed faster. The DCFS met the plane when it landed and interviewed everyone as they stepped off. What they saw and heard led to their decision to open an investigation for child abuse. The DCFS regarded Brad as a threat to the children and they put in place a child safety plan and placed a restraining order on Brad, restricting him from going near the children or the place where they lived. That forced Angelina to file the petition in order to comply with DCFS requirements and convince the DCFS she would protect the children from Brad if they allowed the children to stay with her. They were prohibited from having any direct contact and all communications had to go through their lawyers while the safety plan was in effect. The process the family is trying to complete is one of the safeguards for the children that the DCFS put in place before it ended it's investigation and cleared Brad of child abuse.
"The job of the DCFS is to make sure the children are in a safe and secure situation. As we said earlier this week, childcare professionals encouraged a legal agreement accepted and signed by both sides that was in the best interest of the children. Angelina said from the beginning that she felt she had to take action for the health of the family and is relieved that after their 8-week involvement, the DCFS is now satisfied the safeguards are put in place that will allow the children to heal."
If the DCFS was never involved, the family would still have the various trauma, anger management, forgiveness, cognitive behavior, etc. therapists, but there would be no lawyers. The petition, filed in court 5 days after they arrived back in L.A. and while the DCFS' safety plan was in place, would not have been filed without the DCFS' involvement.
Brad immediately wanted to challenge the DCFS's actions in court and his lawyers drafted the S&O to seal (to prevent public disclosure of the DCFS's findings) a week after the petition was filed. He also wanted to push past the children's therapists and have nontherapeutic visits with the children against their recommendations. Angelina did not want them to resort to litigation to rush reunification.
— Brad, GQ May 2017
Brad immediately wanted to challenge the DCFS's actions in court and his lawyers drafted the S&O to seal (to prevent public disclosure of the DCFS's findings) a week after the petition was filed. He also wanted to push past the children's therapists and have nontherapeutic visits with the children against their recommendations. Angelina did not want them to resort to litigation to rush reunification.
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.
Sincerely,
Laura A. Wasser
"I was really on my back and chained to a system when Child Services was called."
"It's just very, very jarring for the kids, to suddenly have their family ripped apart. If anyone can make sense of it, we have to."
"I heard one lawyer say, “No one wins in court—it's just a matter of who gets hurt worse.” And it seems to be true, you spend a year just focused on building a case to prove your point and why you're right and why they're wrong, and it's just an investment in vitriolic hatred. I just refuse. And fortunately my partner in this agrees"
"And you know, after that, we've been able to work together to sort this out. We're both doing our best."
They've never faced a more challenging situation and it is one that should make them stronger and closer. They can look back on this years from now and see how they rose together to meet the challenge as a beautiful thing.
"I’m happy we did that film (By the Sea) because we did explore something together, and whatever it was, maybe it didn’t solve certain things, but we did communicate something that maybe needed to be communicated to each other.” -- Awards Chatter, Dec. 2017
She had said:
"We thought, this is the best honeymoon because we felt, as the film says in the end—whatever you go through, weather the storm and stay together. It was a message to each other of we are going to weather whatever comes and we are going to stick together."
****
Trial Court Case:BD646058
Court of Appeal Case:B308958
Division:7
Case Caption:Jolie v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al.
Case Type:CV
Filing Date:11/23/2020
Completion Date:
Oral Argument Date/Time:
****
"I’m happy we did that film (By the Sea) because we did explore something together, and whatever it was, maybe it didn’t solve certain things, but we did communicate something that maybe needed to be communicated to each other.” -- Awards Chatter, Dec. 2017
She had said:
"We thought, this is the best honeymoon because we felt, as the film says in the end—whatever you go through, weather the storm and stay together. It was a message to each other of we are going to weather whatever comes and we are going to stick together."
****
Trial Court Case:BD646058
Court of Appeal Case:B308958
Division:7
Case Caption:Jolie v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al.
Case Type:CV
Filing Date:11/23/2020
Completion Date:
Oral Argument Date/Time:
****
By Andrew Dalton and Jocelyn Gecker • Published May 26, 2021 • Updated on May 26, 2021 at 4:25 pm
LOS ANGELES (AP)
Angelina Jolie criticized a judge who is deciding on child custody in her divorce with Brad Pitt, saying in a court filing that the judge refused to allow their children to testify.
“Judge Ouderkirk denied Ms. Jolie a fair trial, improperly excluding her evidence relevant to the children’s health, safety, and welfare, evidence critical to making her case,” according to the filing in California’s Second District Court of Appeal.
The actress also said the judge “has failed to adequately consider” a section of the California courts code, which says it is detrimental to the best interest of the child if custody is awarded to a person with a history of domestic violence. Her filing did not give details about what it was referring to.
Jolie sought a divorce in 2016, days after a disagreement broke out on a private flight ferrying the actors and their children from France to Los Angeles. Pitt was accused of being abusive toward his then-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. Jolie's attorney said at the time that she sought a divorce “for the health of the family.”
Her new filing says the judge has “refused to hear the minor teenagers’ input as to their experiences, needs, or wishes as to their custody fate,” citing a California code that says a child 14 or over should be allowed to testify if they want to.
Three of Jolie and Pitt's six children are teenagers, 17-year-old Pax, 16-year-old Zahara, and 14-year-old Shiloh. The oldest, Maddox, is 19 and not subject to the custody decision. They also have 12-year-old twins, Vivienne and Knox.
Pitt's attorneys said, “Ouderkirk has conducted an extensive proceeding over the past six months in a thorough, fair manner and reached a tentative ruling and order after hearing from experts and percipient witnesses.”
Pitt's filing said the judge found Jolie's testimony “lacked credibility in many important areas, and the existing custody order between the parties must be modified, per Mr. Pitt’s request, in the best interests of the children.”
It says Jolie’s objections and further delays in reaching an arrangement would “work grave harm upon the children, who will be further denied permanence and stability.”
It’s not clear what the current custody arrangement is because the court seals most files. When the divorce process began, Pitt sought joint custody and Jolie sought primary physical custody — meaning the children would live more than half the time with her. But changes have been made that have not been made public.
Peter Harvey, a lawyer for Jolie who is close to the case but not directly involved, said the actress “supports joint custody” but the situation is complicated and he can’t go into detail because the court proceedings are under seal.
Divorce lawyers for both sides declined to comment on the new filings.
Harvey, a former attorney general of New Jersey who has been working with Jolie on policy issues, told The Associated Press, “Ms. Jolie has been working privately for four and a half years to both heal her family and to fight for improvements to the system to ensure that other families do not experience what hers has endured.”
Jolie has sought to disqualify Ouderkirk, a private judge she and Pitt chose to maintain their privacy, arguing that he has an improper business relationship with one of Pitt's attorneys.
She said in Monday’s filing that if the tentative custody decision is made final by Ouderkirk, she will appeal it.
