The 2nd District Court of Appeal agreed with Ms Jolie that Judge John W Ouderkirk didn’t sufficiently disclose business relationships with Mr Pitt’s attorneys.“Judge Ouderkirk’s ethical breach, considered together with the information disclosed concerning his recent professional relationships with Pitt’s counsel, might cause an objective person, aware of all the facts, reasonably to entertain a doubt as to the judge’s ability to be impartial. “Disqualification is required,” the court ruled.The decision means that the custody fight over the couple’s five minor children, which was nearing an end, could be starting over.RELATED: Truth about Britney Spears’ 55-hr marriageRELATED: Katie Hopkins’ huge Aussie paydayThe judge already ruled the pair divorced, but separated the child custody issues.Like many celebrity couples, Mr Pitt and Ms Jolie opted to hire their own judge to increase their privacy in the divorce proceedings.Mr Ouderkirk declined to disqualify himself when Ms Jolie asked him to in a filing in August.A lower court judge ruled that Ms Jolie’s request for disqualification came too late. Ms Jolie’s lawyers then appealed.Lawyers for the two sides did not have an immediate comment on the ruling.Ms Jolie, 46, and Mr Pitt, 57, were among Hollywood’s most prominent couples for 12 years.They had been married for two years when Ms Jolie filed for divorce in 2016. They were declared divorced in April 2019, after their lawyers asked for a judgment that allowed a married couple to be declared single while other issues remained, including finances and child custody.In May, Ms Jolie and her lawyers criticised Mr Ouderkirk for not allowing the couple’s children to testify in the proceedings.Jolie 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, but her lawyers submitted a document under seal in March that purportedly offers additional information.The ruling does not address whether the children should be allowed to testify in the case.This article originally appeared in Page Six and was reproduced here with their permission.
Powered by WPeMatico
