During these talks, retired Judge John W. Ouderkirk — who officiated their marriage ceremony — was employed by each actors to barter the matter privately.
But Jolie’s attorneys requested Ouderkirk to recuse himself final August, saying he failed to totally disclose all ties to Pitt’s attorneys, persevering with to work with them professionally in different circumstances.
A Superior Court judge initially denied Jolie’s request, saying she waited too lengthy to file the grievance.
But Friday, a three-judge panel from California’s Second District Court of Appeals decided Ouderkirk ought to now not work on the custody dispute. The appeals court agreed with Jolie’s argument that Ouderkirk violated his moral obligation to totally disclose his work on different circumstances involving Pitt’s attorneys.
“Judge Ouderkirk’s failure to make mandatory disclosures violated his ethical obligations; and, under the circumstances here, Judge Ouderkirk’s ethical breach … might cause an objective person, aware of all of the facts, reasonably to entertain a doubt as to Judge Ouderkirk’s ability to be impartial,” the court’s opinion stated.
A consultant for Pitt instructed CNN the appeals court determination was based mostly on “a technical procedural issue.”
“The facts haven’t changed. There is an extraordinary amount of factual evidence which led the judge — and the many experts who testified — to reach their clear conclusion about what is in the children’s best interests. We will continue to do what’s necessary legally based on the detailed findings of what’s best for the children,” Pitt’s consultant stated.
A consultant for Jolie didn’t instantly return CNN’s requests for remark Saturday.