Angelina Jolie has reportedly expressed her concerns regarding the judge overseeing her custody case with Brad Pitt, claiming bias towards her ex-husband. To address this issue, the actress has written a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, urging his support for ‘Piqui’s Law.’ This proposed bill aims to prevent children from being placed in ‘reunification camps,’ which subject them to living with an abusive parent. Additionally, the law would establish training programs for judicial officers and mediators, highlighting the impact of child abuse and trauma. Jolie emphasized the origins of ‘Piqui’s Law,’ named after a tragic incident involving a 5-year-old boy who was killed by his father in 2017. The boy’s mother, Ana Estevez, fought tirelessly in the California family court to protect her child, and has since collaborated with legislators to ensure that signs of abuse are not disregarded, as they can lead to harm and even death for countless children in the country.
In a heartfelt letter, Angelina Jolie took to writing to California Governor Gavin Newsom, appealing for his support towards a crucial bill. This bill, if passed, aims to implement domestic violence training for judges and is of utmost importance to the actress.
The actress, who is currently 48 years old, supposedly mentioned her own legal dispute for child custody. During the proceedings, the judge allegedly refused her children the chance to express their experiences with abuse inflicted by their father.
According to a close source, Jolie is advocating for legislation in light of her negative experiences with Judge John Ouderkirk during her custody battle with Brad Pitt. The source mentioned that Ouderkirk, who previously officiated their wedding, refused to let the children testify about domestic violence they had experienced from their father. Jolie believed that this was a personal matter, especially due to her disagreements with the “biased” Ouderkirk. The judge was eventually removed from the case after failing to disclose his connections with Pitt’s attorneys. Jolie argued that California law permitted children aged 14 and above to testify, which Ouderkirk disregarded. She challenged the judge’s custody decision and had him disqualified. The source emphasized that Jolie has been fighting for her family privately while also advocating for other families publicly. On the contrary, sources close to Pitt claimed that Jolie is distorting the truth and attempting to harm the reputations of those who testified against her. Despite acknowledging that the legislation she supports has merit, they asserted that it has no relevance to her custody case. They found it perplexing that she would use her advocacy as a means to disregard factual evidence and further her own interests.
Jolie took a brave step by contesting the judge’s initial custody ruling and took the matter to the appellate court, requesting the judge to be recused from the case.
The judge, John Ouderkirk, was ultimately disqualified from the case due to his failure to disclose his business connections with Brad Pitt’s legal team. People close to Pitt’s legal team claimed that the decision to remove Ouderkirk was purely based on a procedural issue and had no bearing on the actual facts of the case. They vehemently denied any business partnerships involving the judge. Angelina Jolie fought for custody of their children following a 2016 incident documented in an FBI report. While on a private flight to France, Pitt, who had been drinking, allegedly grabbed Jolie by the head and shook her, as well as shook her by the shoulders during an argument concerning one of their children. Jolie claimed that Pitt also punched the ceiling multiple times and shouted profanities, accusing her of ruining their family. Pitt allegedly charged at one of their children when they defended Jolie, but she managed to hold him back, sustaining injuries to her back and elbow in the process. Jolie filed for divorce shortly afterward, but no charges were pursued by the FBI against Pitt.
According to an insider who is familiar with Pitt’s situation, no unethical activities were involved, and they strongly criticized Jolie’s actions as being damaging to Pitt’s reputation.
The ongoing custody dispute arises from an incident in 2016, where Pitt is said to have reportedly shaken Jolie, hit a ceiling, and made a concerning approach towards one of their offspring.
Governor Newsom has until October 14th to either approve or reject the legislation known as ‘Piqui’s Law,’ also referred to as Senate Bill 331. In the event that he does not make a decision, the bill will automatically be enacted into law on January 1st.
According to a source familiar with the matter, Angelina Jolie feels a personal connection to her support for the bill, and there are valid reasons behind it. The source also stated that Brad Pitt has never denied his abusive behavior and questioned what similar incidents could be happening across the country if this happened to Jolie in her court case. On the other hand, a different source close to Pitt acknowledged his wrongdoing regarding the plane incident but emphasized that no charges were filed against him. This source mentioned that despite the introduction of FBI reports into evidence during the custody hearing, Pitt was still granted 50/50 custody. Jolie has allegedly made efforts to discredit anyone who testified or argued against her, including Judge Ouderkirk and a child evaluator involved in the case. The bill, known as ‘Piqui’s Law’ or Senate Bill 331, has been passed by the California legislature and awaits Governor Newsom’s signature to be fully enacted. The bill is named after Aramazd Andressian Jr., a young boy who tragically lost his life to his father’s violence after a trip to Disneyland. Despite his mother’s warnings about the danger her ex-husband posed, the father was granted joint custody and took the boy, affectionately known as ‘Piqui,’ on a vacation before his tragic demise. Activists have rallied outside Pasadena City Hall, urging Governor Newsom to support the bill, and he has until October 14 to either sign or veto it. If no action is taken, the bill will become law on January 1.