Who, What, When, Where?!: Miscellaneous Celebrity News 2.0

[BlackberryJam]

1 hour ago, xfuse said:

No they haven't.  People testified on what they believed was in the best interest of the children but they didn't get to be heard. 

Yes, they did. The professionals in the case present the information regarding the children’s wishes as well as what they believe is in the children’s best interests, even if those wishes go against the recommendation of the professional.

This idea that children must appear in court to have their wishes heard is absolute nonsense and all the data shows that having children appear in court is traumatic and devastating for children so it’s to be avoided if possible.

[GaT]

Britney Spears' Longtime Agent Cade Hudson Speaks Out, Says #FreeBritney

Quote

CH goes all in, writing ... "This is a violation of someone's basic human rights that were taken away. I've kept my mouth shut out of the fear of losing my job as her agent and losing the career I worked my ass off for 15 years to build, out of threats from the man we all know who, but I won't even dignify mentioning his name. I’m officially done being quiet."

 

[xfuse]

8 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

The professionals in the case present the information regarding the children’s wishes

They didn't. Three of them wanted to testify. They were refused. 

Is it telling that the one that is 19 did testify and it wasn't very flattering to Mr. Pitt?

8 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

This idea that children must appear in court to have their wishes heard is absolute nonsense and all the data shows that having children appear in court is traumatic and devastating for children so it’s to be avoided if possible.

And it's more traumatic to be told that your wishes and your voice wouldn't be heard. 

One of these kids was less than a year away from being old enough to sign any legal document or join the military and go to war but couldn't stand up in court to say what they want about his parents. 

 

[BlackberryJam]

3 minutes ago, xfuse said:

They didn't. Three of them wanted to testify. They were refused. 

Is it telling that the one that is 19 did testify and it wasn't very flattering to Mr. Pitt?

And it's more traumatic to be told that your wishes and your voice wouldn't be heard. 

One of these kids was less than a year away from being old enough to sign any legal document or join the military and go to war but couldn't stand up in court to say what they want about his parents. 

 

Testifying and having your wishes presented are totally different. Professionals presented their wishes without subjecting the children to cross-examination.

I worked in solely in custody law for more than a decade. I've done the evaluations, ruled on the custody petitions and motions, heard and met with the mental health providers, completed a freaking lot of legal education on custody to the point that I became the presenter, read the studies and actually met with hundreds of children subject to custody/parenting time actions.

Testifying is horrifying, traumatic and damaging to children and they should be kept out of open court if at all possible. Even at 17.

This was my career for far too long.

Also it's Angelina and her team saying the children want to testify, so I take that with a grain of salt. I've heard too many parents spew that same line only for the children not to actually want that, but just want to please their parents.

[xfuse]

29 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

This was my career for far too long.

But were you one of those children who wanted their voice heard and were denied?

I know quite a few and I include myself in that group. It carries with you for decades after. It carries the message that your voice is not important.

[merylinkid]

I do family law right now -- EVERY SINGLE STUDY says that having the kids testify is traumatic.   Being a witness in court is tough enough for adults.  To inflict it on kids is terrible.    Not matter what the kids feel like they had to choose between Mom and Dad when they want to love BOTH parents without worrying about making the other parent mad for loving the one the other parent wants them to hate.  The kids voice MAY NOT influence the outcome.   The judge treats it like every other witness, determining credibility and weighing it in conjunction with all the other evidence.    So the outcome might not be what the kid necessarily wants.   They feel the outcome is their fault no matter how it comes out -- and they don't get weighing the evidence.   Because their brains aren't finished yet (even at 17) and the higher level functioning that abstracts thing isn't developed.   So they are still stuck in the world revolves around them stage.   They don't understand things happenening NOT in relation to them.   Like a kid MIGHT say I want to live with my dad, but the court hears all the other evidence why its not a good idea to live but just visit.   So the kid sees dad is sad that the kid can't live with him.   The kid thinks he didn't advocate hard enough and it is all his fault his dad his sad.

Getting back to the Pitt-Jolie case, we don't know WHY Maddox doesn't want to see his dad.   Angelina is a pretty controlling person -- we've known that for years.   She adopted Maddox first.   Who knows what she is telling him out of the public?   Or perhaps Brad did do something so bad Dad doesn't want to see him.   We don't know.    So to take it that ONE child doesn't want to see him now that the child is an adult, does not mean the REST OF THE KIDS feel the same way.    

Family cases are complex.   But one basic thing you can take away -- the parent who tries NOT to involve the kids in the dispute between Mom and Dad is actually thinking about the kids.   

One person asked above if Brad can ask the appeals court to institute the ruling anyway?  Probably  not.    Since he agreed to go back to the previous ruling if the Judge was found to have a conflict of interest, he is stuck with that agreement.   There's no appealing an agreement.   He can't say "oops I only said that because I THOUGHT it wouldn't go against me."   That is a known probability before you agree so you are stuck.   The court will not protect you from a bad bargain absent fraud or mutual mistake.   

[letter8358]

Before Twitter, Rosie O'Donnell reflects the time to spoiling the ending of Fight Club on her old talk show

 

Edited July 25, 2021 by letter8358

[WinnieWinkle]

18 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

 They feel the outcome is their fault no matter how it comes out -- and they don't get weighing the evidence.   Because their brains aren't finished yet (even at 17) and the higher level functioning that abstracts thing isn't developed.

What magically happens the day a kid turns 18?  I find this attitude very problematic.  I can agree that the younger you are the more traumatic it might be to have to testify in court about anything but especially, of course, about things related to family.  I have  a very hard time justifying denying a 17 yr old the opportunity to speak up on their own behalf.

[letter8358]

Amanda Kloots is getting criticized by dating a year after her husband Nick Codero's death

She could do what she wants. She is a celebrity and I don't understand why everyone would be surprised at this. There were other celebrities that married a year or two after their spouse passed away. Why should she be criticized?

[merylinkid]

12 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

What magically happens the day a kid turns 18? 

The kid is an adult and custody no longer applies.   The kid then is solely in charge of the decision -- and has to live with the consequences.    In court, the someone ELSE makes the decision and the kid doesn't get that they do NOT have control over it.   So it affects them no matter what.   

[biakbiak]

3 minutes ago, letter8358 said:

She is a celebrity and I don't understand why everyone would be surprised at this. There were other celebrities that married a year or two after their spouse passed away.

It’s hardly something that only happens with celebrities, it’s quite common among even among commoners.

 

[BlackberryJam]

1 hour ago, WinnieWinkle said:

What magically happens the day a kid turns 18?  I find this attitude very problematic.  I can agree that the younger you are the more traumatic it might be to have to testify in court about anything but especially, of course, about things related to family.  I have  a very hard time justifying denying a 17 yr old the opportunity to speak up on their own behalf.

The children do get to speak up, just not in open court. Not in front of their parents.

3 hours ago, xfuse said:

But were you one of those children who wanted their voice heard and were denied?

I know quite a few and I include myself in that group. It carries with you for decades after. It carries the message that your voice is not important.

I'm sorry that happened to you, but testifying in open court is much, much worse. 

Moreover, the professionals in the case are supposed to relay to the children that the judge will be made aware of their wishes. So the Pitt-Jolie children should already know their wishes are being heard.

@merylinkid is dead right. Just because a child wants to reside with one parent doesn't mean that's the right decision. Children say they want to live with one parent over the other for reasons like less rules, wanting the preferred parent not to be lonely, or feeling obligated to care for the preferred parent. Once I even heard a child say that he wanted to live with one parent because they ate McDonald's while the other made him eat veggies. Children want to live with drug dealing, abusive parents because children love their parents.

Children's wishes are considered by the court, but are not dispositive of the issue. Children are supposed to hear that from professionals as well. That's all part of the training.

Children don't get magically wiser at 18. That's just the arbitrary date the law had chosen to hand over decision-making.

Edited July 25, 2021 by BlackberryJam
Typos

[Pickles Aplenty]

2 hours ago, letter8358 said:

Amanda Kloots is getting criticized by dating a year after her husband Nick Codero's death

She could do what she wants. She is a celebrity and I don't understand why everyone would be surprised at this. There were other celebrities that married a year or two after their spouse passed away. Why should she be criticized?

Clearly, Amanda must wear her best mourning dress and finest jet for two full years before even setting eyes on another man.  Because this is 1853, apparently.

[letter8358]

Piers Morgan tested positive for Covid 19

Karma! He was at an event, so it was predictable!

Edited July 25, 2021 by letter8358

[biakbiak]

Piers Morgan is vile piece of shit but I thank him for this part:

"This is definitely the roughest I've felt from any illness in my adult life, BUT, as I slowly come out the other side, coughing and spluttering, I'm still here — unlike so many millions around the world who've lost their lives to COVID in this pandemic," he adds. 

Morgan credits his survival to being vaccinated. 

"For that, I owe a heartfelt debt of thanks to the brilliant scientists up in Oxford who created the Astra-Zeneca vaccine with such astonishing speed," he writes.

[xfuse]

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

I do family law right now -- EVERY SINGLE STUDY says that having the kids testify is traumatic

Does EVERY SINGLE STUDY a part of studies where children testify about physical or sexual abuse because most studies I have found does including children testifying about physical and sexual abuse and not just against their parents. 

How about studies done based on just children testifying in cases of cases of custody in divorce.

3 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I'm sorry that happened to you, but testifying in open court is much, much worse. 

No it wouldn't been. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, xfuse said:

But were you one of those children who wanted their voice heard and were denied?

I know quite a few and I include myself in that group. It carries with you for decades after. It carries the message that your voice is not important.

That’s awful and I feel for kids who felt they weren’t heard. 

At the end of the day I have to hope that the courts are acting in the best interests of the children and it is impossible to know if they are based on the little bit that we know. We are hearing one side of events and I have seen too many parents flat out lie in custody cases to not take what Angelina is saying with a shaker of salt. Even well meaning parents can inadvertently play mind games with their kids heads.

The California courts have rules in place to walk that delicate line between giving kids a voice and protecting them. It’s possible that the courts have completely messed this up but the kids not testifying isn’t a guarantee of that. Just because Angelina says the kids want to testify it doesn’t mean that they actually do. I’m not even saying that she is lying. Kids will tell one parent they absolutely want to be heard because they want to make them happy when they really do not want to testify. 

The big missing piece of information in this case is why the kids didn’t testify. California law requires that if kids express a desire to testify, through the correct channels, they get to unless the judge deems it not in their best interests. That reason has to go on the record. 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Guest

[BlackberryJam]

3 minutes ago, xfuse said:

Does EVERY SINGLE STUDY a part of studies where children testify about physical or sexual abuse because most studies I have found does including children testifying about physical and sexual abuse and not just against their parents. 

How about studies done based on just children testifying in cases of cases of custody in divorce.

No it wouldn't been. 

This is personal for you, and not about celeb gossip so I’m moving on.

As @Dani mentioned, the reasons for the Pitt-Jolie children not testifying would be part of the court record, which is sealed. No one but Angelina is talking, which seems telling. 

[biakbiak]

I find the fact that custody proceedings are not sealed as a matter of course abhorrent.

Edited July 25, 2021 by biakbiak

[Mabinogia]

13 minutes ago, Dani said:

The big missing piece of information in this case is why the kids didn’t testify. California law requires that if kids express a desire to testify, through the correct channels, they get to unless the judge deems it not in their best interests. That reason has to go on the record. 

I didn't realize that, re: Cal law. The bottom line is, it's really none of our business why the kids didn't testify. My heart goes out to them because no matter who is doing the right thing or the wrong thing of if both parents are fucking up left and right, the kids are the ones who are suffering. I hope that they, the children, at least have each other to lean on because right now I don't think they can really count on either of their parents to look out for their best interests 100%. When something like this is being reported on so publicly, it is human nature for both Brad and Angie to be distracted by public opinion and trying to control public opinion and I think the kids' actual wants and needs are bound to be lost in all that. :(

It must be such fun for them (I mean that 100% sarcastically) to watch strangers tearing one and/or the other of their parents apart. It once again makes me wonder why anyone in their right mind would want to be famous. 

[BlackberryJam]

11 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

I find the fact that custody proceedings are not sealed as a matter of course abhorrent.

This is a tough situation. By rule, Court proceedings are supposed to be open and transparent. Secrecy breeds distrust in the system, and sadly sometimes corruption.  Cases are generally labeled by the initials of the children and not available online like other Courts. But, you can still truck down to the court house and pull the file. 

The Jolie-Pitt court records are sealed, however. None of the professionals are talking, none of the reports are public. 

[GaT]

5 hours ago, letter8358 said:

Amanda Kloots is getting criticized by dating a year after her husband Nick Codero's death

She could do what she wants. She is a celebrity and I don't understand why everyone would be surprised at this. There were other celebrities that married a year or two after their spouse passed away. Why should she be criticized?

Supposedly, the happier your marriage was before your spouse died the more likely someone is to get married fairly quickly again. They were happy before, & they're trying to recreate that. Someone who was very unhappy is a lot less likely to marry quickly.

2 hours ago, letter8358 said:

Piers Morgan tested positive for Covid 19

Karma! He was at an event, so it was predictable!

So happy to hear this, I hope every bit of misery he's caused other people is dumped on him now.

[Irlandesa]

8 minutes ago, GaT said:

Supposedly, the happier your marriage was before your spouse died the more likely someone is to get married fairly quickly again. They were happy before, & they're trying to recreate that. Someone who was very unhappy is a lot less likely to marry quickly.

Plus, even as she fought to keep him alive for months, she might have also been grieving before he actually died since it was such a long process where he faced setback after setback.

Her feelings about dating are the only ones that matter. I might get being careful about dating if the kids are old enough to remember their father (and are still living at home).  It might feel kind of fast.  But her son likely will not remember his father. 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Irlandesa

[Bastet]

31 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I might get being careful about dating if the kids are old enough to remember their father (and are still living at home).  It might feel kind of fast.  But her son likely will not remember his father. 

Also, just because she's dating doesn't mean she's introducing those she dates to the kid.  Or, even if she is, that she's positioning them as anything more than "This is [name]" like any other person in her life the kid encounters.

[Irlandesa]

12 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Also, just because she's dating doesn't mean she's introducing those she dates to the kid. 

Right. I was thinking more along the lines of kids not necessarily understanding why their mom was "replacing their dad" so soon which usually happens when kids are more aware of what marriage means. 

[Spartan Girl]

People can just STFU about Amanda Kloots. She deserved to be happy. Besides, dating is just dating.

[biakbiak]

2 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

dating is just dating.

Not to mention what she actually stated was that it was hard for her, so nice of assholes on the internet to make it even harder.

Edited July 25, 2021 by biakbiak

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Plus, even as she fought to keep him alive for months, she might have also been grieving before he actually died since it was such a long process where he faced setback after setback.

Her feelings about dating are the only ones that matter. I might get being careful about dating if the kids are old enough to remember their father (and are still living at home).  It might feel kind of fast.  But her son likely will not remember his father. 

Exactly. Her feelings are the only ones that matter. If she feels she's ready to date then good for her getting back out there. Date, have fun do whatever she wants to do. If she feels she's not ready that's fine too. Some people end up ready after a year, some people need longer and some people are never ready. There's nothing wrong with any of it.

[SuprSuprElevated]

2 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Exactly. Her feelings are the only ones that matter. If she feels she's ready to date then good for her getting back out there. Date, have fun do whatever she wants to do. If she feels she's not ready that's fine too. Some people end up ready after a year, some people need longer and some people are never ready. There's nothing wrong with any of it.

Exactly right.  At the risk of generalizing, I'm going to generalize and say that in my experience, men typically move on quickly, whereas women are slower to begin the process.  This probably wouldn't be a discussion if the roles had been reversed.

Edited July 26, 2021 by SuprSuprElevated

[Stats Queen]

10 hours ago, letter8358 said:

Amanda Kloots is getting criticized by dating a year after her husband Nick Codero's death

She could do what she wants. She is a celebrity and I don't understand why everyone would be surprised at this. There were other celebrities that married a year or two after their spouse passed away. Why should she be criticized?

People suck.

If nothing else, this long period of the being world closed down, isolation taking a toll on mental health and child development,  so many people losing loved ones because of this pandemic (and not being able to be with loved ones) should have taught any decent human being that nothing is guaranteed and life is precious and don’t take it for granted. 
If I was the one who was gone, I would want my husband to find happiness and love as I love him unconditionally.

On the flip side, maybe things are getting back to some normalcy since “lovely” people have the time and energy to actually comment on someone else’s life.

[RealHousewife]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

People can just STFU about Amanda Kloots. She deserved to be happy. Besides, dating is just dating.

I watch The Talk, and she seems like such a sweetheart. Being cruel to her is like kicking a puppy. 

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

This probably wouldn't be a discussion if the roles had been reversed.

Maybe we are getting closer to gender equality but in the bad direction because there was a bunch of talk about Patton Oswalt, including multiple people speculating he murdered his wife. The fact that she was so beloved in the true crime community probably contributed to this but it was brought up various places.

[Irlandesa]

29 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Maybe we are getting closer to gender equality but in the bad direction because there was a bunch of talk about Patton Oswalt

Yeah.  I think with Patton, though, it was that he was engaged about a year after his first wife's death.  I don't know if he'd get the same criticism if he were only dating then. 

(Not that I judge him.  He just seems to have been lucky enough to find someone who doesn't seem threatened that he clearly still loved/admired his first wife and someone that seems to get along well with his daughter.)

[aradia22]

Quote

Exactly right.  At the risk of generalizing, I'm going to generalize and say that in my experience, men typically move on quickly, whereas women are slower to begin the process.  This probably wouldn't be a discussion if the roles had been reversed.

I was going to make the exact same generalization. I think it's so common that people have rationalized it (e.g. men tend to not have the strong support systems that women do so they rush to fill that with another partner, or they feel the vacuum of caretaker/housekeeper/sexual partner more intensely because of gender roles). I don't think no one side eyes it but it's usually like, 'oh, there goes another widower/divorced guy, doing what they typically do...'

[biakbiak]

2 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

think with Patton, though, it was that he was engaged about a year after his first wife's death.  I don't know if he'd get the same criticism if he were only dating then. 

They started dating more than a year after she died and then got engaged after a few months of dating. 

[Irlandesa]

20 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

They started dating more than a year after she died and then got engaged after a few months of dating. 

I know.  And I think the engagement is the first time many of us heard that they were dating so it was somewhat of a surprise. 

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Stats Queen said:

On the flip side, maybe things are getting back to some normalcy since “lovely” people have the time and energy to actually comment on someone else’s life.

I hate to burst your bubble, but people never stopped doing that during the pandemic. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Spartan Girl

[Zella]

4 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Maybe we are getting closer to gender equality but in the bad direction because there was a bunch of talk about Patton Oswalt, including multiple people speculating he murdered his wife. The fact that she was so beloved in the true crime community probably contributed to this but it was brought up various places.

True crime commenters can be pretty damned demented too, so it sadly doesn't surprise me that more than one of them jumped to that conclusion. I say that as someone who hangs out on a lot of true crime discussion forums, but the speculation there is some of the craziest, most unhinged shit I've ever seen on the internet. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Zella

[VCRTracking]

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by VCRTracking

[GaT]

16 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

 

 

 

You know, they were "caught" by the papps kissing in Ben's car, they were "caught" early morning walking out of the place Jennifer was renting, now they're "caught" re-creating a scene from the "Jenny From the Block" video. I am sick of hearing about Bennifer & seeing their "oh my, does that man have a camera????" moments which they have carefully arranged to be photographed.

Edited July 26, 2021 by GaT
added a "be"

[merylinkid]

16 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

It must be such fun for them (I mean that 100% sarcastically) to watch strangers tearing one and/or the other of their parents apart.

This is the worst part about either parent talking.   The kids are old enough to read.   They see the tabloid headlines in the supermarket.   They see stuff on the internet.   For goodness sakes, SHUT UP for your kids' sake.   And make it clear that none of your people are to leak anything either.   That way at least you can look the kids in the face and say "the tabloids make stuff up all the time."   Even if they happen to hit on your true position.   

The kids don't need to know that Angelina is fighting to keep Brad from ever seeing them without supervision.   The kids don't need to know that Brad thinks Angelina is a liar (which is what his position boils down to).   The kids need to know BOTH parents love them.   that's it.

[Peace 47]

5 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

 

 

 

[DrSpaceman73]

Personally I'd rather not know about pitt and Jolie's custody battle.  It's a personal matter, keep it that way.  I don't read anything about it.  I'm not particularly a huge fan or a 'hater' of either one.  When it involves kids, dragging that into the Public sphere is unfair to minors.  

Two adult celebrities going through a divorce, sure, I can see it. It happens.  The kids are powerless in terms of the media involvement though.   

[letter8358]

Emmy Rossum shares the same thing as to how we feel about those anti-vaxxers: "Stop being an irresponsible idiot and get the vaccine."

How I would love to say that to those that refuse the shot. Unfortunately.....we still have irresponsible idiots acting like freaking children. Disgusting.

[Popples]

 

[Cementhead]

Issa Rae has one of, if not the, best smiles in the world.  That photo is gorgeous!

[DearEvette]

2 hours ago, Cementhead said:

Issa Rae has one of, if not the, best smiles in the world.  That photo is gorgeous!

Agreed!  I have always felt that the description 'her smile lit up a room' could be applied to her.  Also, how dapper does her man look in his red tux?  Congrats to them.

Edited July 26, 2021 by DearEvette

[Pickles Aplenty]

I don't have a horse in the Jolie/Pitt race.  I just want this thing to END, for the kids' sake.  Hasn't it been five years since Angelina filed?  

On a more positive note, Issa Rae is an absolutely gorgeous woman.

[shoregirl]

Issa Rae looks glowing in that photo. She is so pretty.

[Blergh]

While I agree that that commenter was a total clod to dis Miss Kloots re her dating timing (as though she was Hamlet's mother remarrying ASAP after his father's murder), I like that she seemed to brush the clod's snipe off  like a piece of lint instead of collapsing like an accordion.