Los Angeles, July 23 (AP) A California appeals court on Friday disqualified a private judge being used in a divorce case by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, giving Jolie a major victory. The Second District Court of Appeals agreed with Jolie that Judge John W. Oderkirk did not adequately disclose Pitt’s business relationships with attorneys.
Judge Ouderkirk’s moral breach, which is considered to have been with the disclosure of information about his recent professional relationship with Pitt’s attorney, casts an impartial person, aware of all the facts, doubts about the judge’s ability to be impartial. could justifiably cause to be entertained. Disqualification is required, the court ruled. The decision means the custody battle over the couple’s five minor children, which was about to end, could resume.
The judge already ruled on the divorced couple, but set aside child custody issues. Like many celebrity couples, Pitt and Jolie opted to appoint their own judge in order to increase their secrecy in the divorce proceedings.
Oderkirk refused to disqualify himself when Jolie asked him in a filing in August. A lower court judge ruled that Jolie’s request for disqualification came too late. Jolie’s lawyers then appealed. Lawyers for both sides did not immediately comment on the decision.
Jolie, 46, and Pitt, 57, were among Hollywood’s most prominent couples for 12 years. When Jolie filed for divorce in 2016, they had been married for two years. They were declared divorced in April 2019 after their lawyers asked for a ruling that allowed a married couple to declare single, while other issues remained, including finances and child custody. In May, Jolie and her lawyers criticized Oderkirk for not allowing the couple’s children to testify in the proceedings.
The actress also said that the judges failed to adequately consider a section of the California Court Code that says custody of a person with a history of domestic violence would be detrimental to the best interest of the child. Is. Her filing did not provide details about what she was saying, but her lawyers submitted a document under seal in March that allegedly provides additional information. The ruling did not specify whether children should be allowed to testify in the case. (AP).
read all Breaking News, breaking news And coronavirus news Here