Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's legal battle for custody is likely to start again. Image Source: Harper's Bazaar

According to the reports, on Wednesday, the California Supreme Court refused to consider actor Brad Pitt’s appeal of a court ruling that disqualified the judge in his custody battle with actress Angelina Jolie.

Angelina Jolie pushed to remove the private judge John Ouderkirk from the case because of a conflict of interest, given that he has a business relationship with Brad Pitt’s attorneys. But, a lower court initially found that the judge could continue with the case, and he ended up ruling that Brad could spend more time with the children. The decision was reversed by an appellate court after a panel of three judges found out that he ‘violated the ethical obligations' and he was disqualified in July. Later, Brad Pitt’s legal team appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court.

According to PEOPLE, "the high court upheld the appellate court's disqualification decision in a ruling […] simply stating: "Petition and stay denied." In simpler words, this means that the couple has to stick with the custody arrangement that has been in place since November 2018.

Brad Pitt’s representative mentioned to PEOPLE that the appeals court’s previous decision was based on a technical procedural issue and the Supreme Court's decision not to review that procedural issue does not change the extraordinary amount of factual evidence which led the trial judge — and the many experts who testified — to reach their clear conclusion about what is in the children's best interests."

The representative of the actor further added that they would continue to do everything that is legally necessary based on the detailed findings of the independent experts. As a representative for actress Angelina Jolie mentioned to PEOPLE, the actress welcomed the decision.

Angelina’s representative, lawyer Robert Olson, stated, "Ms. Jolie is focused on her family and pleased that her children's wellbeing will not be guided by unethical behavior. As reinforced by California's appellate courts, our judiciary prioritizes ethics and children's best interests, and won't tolerate judicial misconduct to reward the interests of a party. Ms. Jolie is glad for the family to now move forward cooperatively."

Angelina Jolie and kids at the premiere of "Eternals". Image Source: The Times

When Judge John Ouderkirk was hired in 2016, the couple listed their business relationships with the judge, and he has been extended twice during their five-year custody battle. At issue, according to the Appellate Court, were additional cases he was later hired to judge, which he didn't disclose to Jolie's attorneys.

However, Brad Pitt's attorneys claim in the petition that Jolie had been "made aware of Judge Ouderkirk's significant professional history with Pitt's counsel from the very start" of the custody case, but waited years to seek his disqualification'.  He argued that Jolie’s effort to disqualify the judge was aimed at preventing his tentative custody decision, which was favorable to Pitt, from taking effect.

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt share six children together including 20-year-old Maddox, 17-year-old Pax, 16-year-old Zahara, 15-year-old Shiloh, 13-year-old Vivienne, and 13-year-old Knox. Out of which only the five minors are subject to custody decisions. The couple, who were together for 10 years, got married in 2014 before deciding to go their separate ways in 2016. Ouderkirk declared the couple divorced in April 2019 but took up the issue of custody as a separate matter and behind closed doors. The decision of the court seems like the estranged couple would have to start over with the custody battle with a new judge. 

Brangelina with their kids on their wedding day. Image Source: Film Daily 

The California legal system relies on private judges who are paid by the litigants and work under the supervision of the courts to read briefs, conduct trials, and make verdicts in civil matters such as divorces and custody cases. The private judging system, which has been enshrined in California's constitution for decades, aims to provide faster resolution (and more privacy) in legal cases involving people who are willing to pay, leaving official state judges and courts more available for criminal cases and citizens with fewer resources.

Because private judges in California are typically former state court judges with substantial professional ties to local lawyers, full transparency is an issue. During the virtual appellate court session, however, some justices raised whether California should have a private judicial system at all.