The trial of the child custody case between 46-year-old Angelina Jolie and 57-year-old Brad Pitt already claims to be the longest and most bitter star dispute.
Last week, Jolie won and secured the removal of Judge John Uderkirk, who was leading their case. The California Court of Appeals ruled, finding that the judge failed in his ethical duty by hiding his current cases, which involved Pitt's lawyers. Uderkirk himself previously claimed that the "Maleficent" star clearly failed to prove any bias on his part.
But it seems that it is not worth expecting that with this victory of Angelina, the proceedings will stop. The situation was commented on by the well-known lawyer Mark Vincent Kaplan, who represented such celebrities as Kevin Federline, Charlie Sheen and Paula Abdul, to the Us Weekly publication.
According to an influential Hollywood lawyer, Jolie and Pitt have already spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions" on litigation. And these expenses can only increase if they start over. And such a development of events cannot be excluded.
There is nothing more expensive than disputed custody. I am sure that both can afford to continue litigation, which is not a reason for this, but probably spending will not be an important factor for each of them, given their wealth,
- the lawyer said.
The court's decision means that the current guardianship order can be canceled, and the trial will begin anew.
In May, Uderkirk granted Pitt the right to joint custody of their children: 19-year-old Maddox, 17-year-old Pax, 16-year-old Zahara, 15-year-old Shiloh and 13-year-old twins Knox and Vivienne. However, Kaplan admits that such a development is not an instant victory for Angelina.
She still has an uphill battle ahead of her,
- the expert on legal issues believes.
Kaplan's assumption is confirmed by the reaction of Pitt and his lawyers to the removal of the judge — this event did not shock them at all.
The decision of the Court of Appeal was based on a technical procedural issue. The facts have not changed. There is a huge amount of factual evidence that allowed the judge and many experts who testified to come to a clear conclusion about what is in the best interests of children. We will continue to do what is legally necessary and act on the basis of detailed conclusions about what is best for children,
- Pitt's representative said earlier.