Brad Pitt is unsuccessful in asking for review in custody case with Angelina Jolie from court

Brad Pitt has had an appeal in his ongoing custody case with Angelina Jolie denied by the California Supreme Court.

Pitt’s legal team last month asked the court to give the case another look following the disqualification of Judge John Ouderkirk, People reported, citing court docs.

With Ouderkirk’s removal from the case, a ruling giving him more time with his five minor children – Pax, 17, Zahara, 16, Shiloh, 15, and Vivienne and Knox, 13 – was voided, reverting back to a legal agreement previously established in November of 2018.

The California Supreme Court ruled, ‘Petition and stay denied,’ upholding the disqualification from the appellate court in the case, according to the outlet.

Pitt’s rep told the publication that the prior decision made by the appeals court ‘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.’

Pitt’s legal team ‘will continue to do everything that’s legally necessary based on the detailed findings of the independent experts,’ the rep said.

Lawyers for Jolie told People in a statement Wednesday that the court’s recent decision was sound.

‘Ms. Jolie is focused on her family and pleased that her children’s wellbeing will not be guided by unethical behavior,’ Jolie’s legal team told the outlet. ‘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.’

The court said that Ouderkirk’s disqualification this past summer was linked to ‘failure to make mandatory disclosures’ about other interactions he’s had with Pitt’s lawyers that ‘might cause an objective person, aware of all of the facts’ to question his impartiality.

Pitt’s legal team said in their petition that the disqualification of the judge ‘effectively upended the constitutionally authorized temporary judging system in California’ as well as leaving ‘the door [open] to disqualification challenges at any point during a case, even if the party raising the motion has long been on notice about the alleged grounds for disqualification.’

They continued: ‘In so doing, the opinion is guaranteed to fuel disqualification gamesmanship and raises serious questions as to whether the temporary judging system is a viable option in California’s severely backlogged judicial system.’

Ouderkirk was initially hired for the case in 2016 and twice extended, leading both parties to state any potential business dealings with the judge. The Appellate Court took issue with cases he was later hired for, which were not immediately shared with Jolie’s legal team.

Pitt’s legal team said Jolie’s lawyer were ‘made aware of Judge Ouderkirk’s significant professional history with Pitt’s counsel from the very start’ but deliberately took years to ask he be removed from the case.