Renowned Hollywood actress and director, Angelina Jolie, has raised concerns about the impartiality of the judge who presided over her child custody case, suggesting a bias in favor of her ex-husband, Brad Pitt. Jolie is now leveraging her own experience to advocate for legislative measures aimed at addressing corruption within the legal system.
In a letter dated September 29, which was obtained by The NY Post, Jolie appealed to California Governor Gavin Newsom to support “Piqui’s Law.” This proposed legislation would mandate domestic violence training for judges, mediators, and other court professionals, emphasizing the impact of child abuse and trauma.
According to a source close to Jolie, the actress’s motivation to champion this legislation stems from the traumatic experiences she encountered under the jurisdiction of Judge John W. Ouderkirk in Los Angeles. Allegedly, Judge Ouderkirk refused to allow Jolie’s children to testify about the domestic violence they purportedly endured at the hands of their father.
“This is a deeply personal matter for her, and understandably so,” stated a source close to Jolie in an interview with The Post. “Consider the obstacles she faced when dealing with a biased judge, subsequently removed by the appellate court due to his unethical financial dealings with Brad Pitt’s legal team. The judge’s refusal to review evidence of domestic abuse adds to the urgency of this issue.”
Formerly a private judge who officiated Jolie and Pitt’s wedding, Ouderkirk ruled in May 2021 that the couple would share joint custody of their six children: Maddox, Pax, Zahara, Shiloh, and twins Knox and Vivienne. Jolie contested the judge’s preliminary custody decision and filed a petition with the appellate court to remove Ouderkirk from the case.
In July 2021, the appellate court sided with Jolie, disqualifying Ouderkirk from the case due to his failure to adequately disclose business associations with Pitt’s attorneys.
Contrary to Jolie’s assertions, sources close to Pitt’s legal team denied any impropriety on the part of Judge Ouderkirk. “Judge Ouderkirk’s involvement in other cases, which he disclosed, does not imply any collaboration,” said a source close to Brad Pitt, as reported by the Post. “It is disappointing to witness Jolie resorting to misleading tactics, reminiscent of Donald Trump, and making false representations without considering the harm it inflicts on innocent parties simply fulfilling their professional duties.”
While Jolie’s support for Piqui’s Law holds potential, it is important to note that it is unrelated to her ongoing custody case. It remains perplexing as to why she would utilize her advocacy efforts to discredit objective facts in order to advance her own interests.
If enacted, Piqui’s Law, named after a 5-year-old boy tragically killed by his father in 2017, would not only safeguard abused children from being separated from their non-violent parent, but also prevent their placement in reunification camps.
