BANG Showbiz English
Brad Pitt has insisted the judge shouldnโt have been removed from his long-running custody case with Angelina Jolie.
The โOnce Upon a Time in Hollywoodโ actorโs legal team have filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to raise an objection to the recent disqualification of private Judge John Ouderkirk from their case, which effectively voided a previous ruling that granted the 57-year-old star more time with the former coupleโs five younger children.
The petition argues that removing the judge โeffectively upended the constitutionally authorised temporary judging system in Californiaโ and now โthrows open the door to disqualification challenges at any point during a case, even if the party raising the motion has long been on notice about the alleged grounds for disqualification.โ
The document added: โIn so doing, the opinion is guaranteed to fuel disqualification gamesmanship and raises serious questions as to whether the temporary judging system is a viable option in Californiaโs severely backlogged judicial system.โ
Angelinaโs team had sought to have the judge โ who was hired in 2016 โ removed because they felt he could be biased in his rulings as he had failed to disclose continuing or new cases heโd been hired by Bradโs lawyers to oversee and the three judges who oversaw a hearing on the matter last month agreed Ouderkirkโs โfailure to make mandatory disclosuresโ about the work he was doing on other cases involving the โMoneyballโ starโs team โmight cause an objective person, aware of all of the factsโ to doubt his impartiality.
However, in Bradโs new petition, they insisted the โMaleficentโ star โ who has Maddox, 20, Pax, 17, Zahara, 16, Shiloh, 15, and 13-year-old twins Knox and Vivienne with Brad โ had been โmade aware of Judge Ouderkirkโs significant professional history with Pittโs counsel from the very startโ of their custody battle but had waited for years to have him removed.
The lawyers argued: โAfter more than four years of contentious litigation, every day of which has harmed the children and their father, an important and considered custody decision will be entirely undone as a result of an administrative error that is wholly unrelated to the merits of the custody dispute itself.
โCalifornia law requires that a party seeking disqualification of a judge file a written statement objecting to continued proceedings before the judge โat the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualificationโ.
โFailure to do so constitutes waiver or forfeiture of the partyโs right to seek disqualification.โ
Bradโs team confirmed to people they are seeking a review in the California Supreme Court.
They said in a statement they wanted the review because: โThe temporary judge, who had been appointed and repeatedly renewed by both sides, was improperly disqualified after providing a detailed, fact-based custodial decision, following a lengthy legal process with multiple witnesses and experts.โ
Angelinaโs team branded the move to have the judge reinstated โdisturbingโ.
Her lawyer, Robert A. Olsen, said: โThe Court of Appeal unanimously refused to tolerate the ethical violations of the private judge who had heard custody matters, and correctly vacated that judgeโs orders.
โMr. Pittโs counselโs petition to the California Supreme Court displays how they are clinging to this private judge who exhibited bias and refused statutorily required evidence.
โIt is disturbing that in full knowledge of unethical behaviour, and having previously failed to disclose their new and ongoing financial relationships with him, Mr. Pittโs counsel would seek to reinstate the private judge. Ms. Jolie hopes Mr. Pitt will instead join with her in focusing on the childrenโs needs, voices, and healing.โ