We Can Learn From Celebrity Divorces

            While celebrity couples are not necessarily “average” people when it comes to divorce and custody matters, the well-known idiom “we all put our pants on one leg at a time,” does come to mind. In divorce, celebrities face the same legal issues, emotional challenges, and fear of economic loss as the average person. And while it may be challenging to sympathize with a celebrity who is ordered to give up half of a multi-million-dollar fortune and pay monthly child support that equates to a European vacation, what most of us can agree on is that divorce hurts. What was once whole is separated – finances, custody of the children, homes, and even the family pets. So, what lessons can we learn from the details of celebrity divorces splashed across the New York Times’s renowned gossip column, “Page Six?” Answer: a lot.

            Let’s take the ongoing battle between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, the high-profile celebrity couple who met in 2004, adopted three children, had three biological children, married in 2014, and separated in 2016 after an alleged domestic violence incident in which Jolie accused Pitt of physically abusing her and two of their children on a plane flight from France to Los Angeles (“plane incident”). In September 2016, shortly after the alleged plane incident, Angelina Jolie filed for dissolution of the marriage, citing irreconcilable differences. The couple requested a bifurcated judgment, which separates marital status from other divorce issues like division of property, custody, child support, and spousal support. In April 2019, a judge ruled that the couple’s marriage was officially over and declared them each single. Five years later, and the battle over property division, custody and support continues. Texas attorney Natalie Gregg said it best, “[t]he aftermath of divorce is like a lifetime of heartburn after eating a chili dog chased with a martini every morning.”

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/ CHILD ABUSE & CUSTODY

THE PLANE INCIDENT:

            In September 2016, during a flight on the family’s private jet traveling from Europe to Los Angeles, Jolie alleges an inebriated Pitt physically assaulted her and two of their children on the plane. Entertainment Weekly obtained a heavily redacted report regarding the incident where Jolie alleges Pitt took her to the back of the plane, grabbed her by the head and shoulders, and shook her while yelling “You’re f—ing up this family.” The couple’s children attempted to intervene, and Pitt allegedly choked one and hit another in the face. Jolie filed for divorce shortly thereafter and requested primary custody of the couple’s six children. According to documents obtained by media outlets, including Newsweek, the parties reached a custody agreement in which Jolie was granted physical custody of all six children. Pitt agreed to have therapeutic visitations with the children, also known as “supervised visitation.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) investigated the alleged incident. DCFS ruled that Pitt did not abuse the children, and the FBI declined to bring any criminal charges against Pitt.

So how can allegations of domestic violence or child abuse impact a divorce case?

            In California, domestic violence can be emotional, financial, or physical. California Family Code section 3044 states that upon a finding by the court that a person seeking custody of a child has perpetuated domestic violence within the last five years against the other party seeking custody, or against the child or the child’s sibling(s), the judge must go through a detailed decision-making process before giving an abusive parent custody of a child. Frequently, the judge grants the non-abusive parent sole legal and physical custody of the child(ren). The parent who committed the abuse can still have visitation with the child(ren) but safeguards will be put in place by the court, such as ordering supervised visitation with a professional supervisor or with a mutually agreed upon third party. If a judge gives any custody or unsupervised visits to a parent accused of domestic violence or child abuse, the judge must clearly explain the reasons to support the decision.

            While this writer has not reviewed the couple’s court filings or the court rulings in the Jolie-Pitt matter, based on media reports, it appears Jolie and Pitt proactively addressed the alleged domestic violence incident and mutually agreed that Jolie would have primary physical custody of the children and Pitt would have therapeutic visitation with the children pending further discussion. Pitt also agreed to seek counseling for his alleged alcohol abuse disorder. In a 2017 GQ Magazine interview, Pitt admitted to “boozing too much” and having an alcohol problem. Frequently, in situations where a parent is granted supervised or limited visitation after the parent successfully completes therapeutic classes and demonstrates protracted positive parenting, that parent is then granted more visitation time with the children. Here, it appears Jolie is not supportive of sharing physical custody of the children with Pitt. Since their 2016 agreement in which Pitt agreed to and completed counseling, according to reports, Jolie is allegedly resistant to the children spending time with Pitt. The parties have engaged in several court proceedings to address custody. In 2021, after a lengthy custody trial, Pitt was briefly granted joint custody of the children. Jolie appealed and the decision was overturned by a higher court after a three-judge panel disqualified the trial judge, Judge Ouderkirk, from the case citing a violation of “his ethical obligations” (NPR). The higher court determined Judge Ouderkirk did not disclose a business relationship he had with Pitt’s attorneys. Of note, Judge Ouderkirk presided over Jolie and Pitt’s 2014 nuptials at their French estate, Château Miraval. After the couple separated, they hired Judge Ouderkirk to serve as a private judge to oversee their divorce and to keep the matter private.

ALLEGATIONS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

            Fast forward to 2024, three of the six Jolie-Pitt children have reached majority and are no longer subject to custody rulings by the court. The parties’ daughter, Shiloh, is 17 and has elected to live with Pitt at the time of this article. According to court documents obtained by Entertainment Tonight, a former security guard who worked for the couple for over two decades, including four years after the couple divorced, has come forward and alleged Jolie discouraged the children from attending custody visitation with Pitt and instructed the children not to talk to Pitt. The security guard’s allegations, if true, are serious as they demonstrate Jolie may have engaged in parental alienation, which is a form of child abuse. Parental alienation is when a parent campaigns to unjustly denigrate the other parent with the intention of turning the child against the denigrated or “target” or “rejected” parent. This destructive behavior frequently occurs in custody/divorce cases and is emotionally and psychologically damaging to the child(ren) (Psychology Today). In custody cases where the court determines a parent is engaging in parental alienation, the court may limit the offending parent’s time with the child(ren), order the rejected parent and child(ren) to enter reunification therapy, which is intended to rebuild trust between the rejected parent and child, or in severe cases, the court can award the rejected parent sole legal and physical custody of the child(ren). It is too early to tell what impact the security guard’s allegations will have on the Jolie-Pitt custody matter.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & SPOUSAL SUPPORT

            While criminal charges were not filed against Pitt regarding the alleged plane incident in California, courts will consider allegations and convictions for domestic violence when considering an order for spousal support. The criminal conviction of an abusive spouse must be considered in making a reduction or elimination of a spousal support award in accordance with California Family Code section 4324.5 or 4325 (California Family Code §4320(m)). Since the onset of their marital strife, neither Jolie or Pitt has sought spousal support. In the event Jolie ups the ante and does request spousal support, her allegations of domestic violence may become a factor.

            If you are a victim of domestic violence or if your children are being abused, the National Domestic Violence Hotline (thehotline.org) allows you to speak confidentially with trained advocates online or by the phone, which is recommended for those who think their online activity is being monitored by their abuser (800-799-7233). They can help survivors develop a plan to achieve safety for themselves and their children.

PROPERTY DIVISION- CHÂTEAU MIRAVAL

            While the Jolie-Pitt custody battle will subside as each child reaches the age of majority, there is no end in sight for the parties’ ongoing property dispute. Among the many real estate holdings still shared by the parties, Château Miraval Winery (Château Miraval) in France has become the “foyer de bataille,” or the focus of the battle. The couple’s respective holding companies bought Château Miraval for a cool $27,156,000 in 2008, with Pitt having a 60% majority ownership. Château Miraval was where the couple was married in 2014 and served as a family safe-haven and business venture, thereafter.

            In 2021, Jolie sold her 40% share of Château Miraval to the Tenute del Mondo wine group, a subsidiary of the Stoli Group, run by Russian oligarch, Yuri Shefler. According to media reports, Bloomberg (via Associated Press), in 2022, Pitt filed a lawsuit accusing Jolie of violating “contractual rights” after Jolie sold her share of Château Miraval without Pitt’s knowledge or consent. Pitt contends the couple had an oral agreement not to sell their respective interests to third parties without prior consent from each other. Courthouse News Service

            In October 2022, Jolie responded  asserting that the couple did not have an agreement requiring two-party consent to sell a party’s interest in the Château and counter-sued alleging past instances of spousal abuse and asserts that she did offer to sell her interest in Château Miraval to Pitt but that the negotiations broke down when Pitt demanded Jolie sign a Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA), contractually prohibiting her from talking about Pitt’s alleged physical and emotional abuse of her and the children (Los Angeles Times). Pitt denied such allegations. It is curious that Jolie never brought forth prior allegations of abuse during the 2016 plane incident.

            Pitt recently secured a significant victory in the battle when a judge determined that Jolie’s move to sell her share of Château Miraval without Pitt’s knowledge or consent did breach their original agreement (The Economic Times). Jolie has appealed the decision, and the appellate court has not yet ruled. Depending on the outcome of the appeal, the matter may proceed to trial if the couple cannot resolve their differences.

            A new motion filed by Jolie’s legal team seeks to release communications they claim prove Pitt would not allow Jolie to sell her share of Château Miraval to him unless she agreed to sign the NDA to silence her regarding her allegations of past acts of domestic violence (Los Angeles Times). As part of the discovery process, Pitt requested that Jolie produce all NDAs previously signed by her and all NDAs that she had requested third parties to sign. In May 2024, after Jolie failed to produce the documents requested, lawyers for Pitt asked a superior court judge to compel Jolie to produce the requested documents. Superior Court Judge Lia Martin stated that she would likely grant the motion, with the limitation that Jolie would only be required to produce NDAs dating back to 2014, the year Jolie and Pitt were married Courthouse News Service.

            The Jolie-Pitt property battle underscores the importance that agreements should be documented in writing and, when possible, drafted by an attorney and signed by both parties. Had Jolie and Pitt entered into a formal written agreement regarding how the parties would dispose of their respective interests in the Chateau and whether the couple would enter an NDA should one or both of them sell their interest, the “he said-she said” aspect of this case would not be at issue. If the matter proceeds, the court must decide if Pitt’s alleged attempt to force Jolie to sign an NDA excuses Jolie from selling to a third party without Pitt’s consent. Sadly, the length of their legal battle may exceed the entirety of their marital relationship—it’s already getting close.

CONCLUSION

            This ongoing battle is potentially tragic for the family, especially the children. While emotions understandably run high during custody and divorce litigation, it is important to take a step back and evaluate the cost of “the win.” If it is at the expense of the children’s mental and physical well-being, “the win” is most likely a loss. While the Jolie-Pitt legal saga continues, we don’t need to read the last chapter to glean lessons from this highly publicized divorce case.

Author Traci S. Mason is a family law attorney licensed in California with over 19 years of litigation experience.  You can reach her at mason@portersimon.com.

DISCLAIMER: This article is not a substitute for professional legal advice.  This article does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor is it a solicitation to offer legal advice.