What is your take on the Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt divorce saga? What happened on the plane?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's poison and he was a fool for drinking it.

+100 and I'm sure he'd agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's poison and he was a fool for drinking it.

+100 and I'm sure he'd agree.

And he left Aniston for crazy. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's poison and he was a fool for drinking it.

+100 and I'm sure he'd agree.

And he left Aniston for crazy. Why?

AJ was at the peak of her beauty and pretty wild at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's poison and he was a fool for drinking it.

+100 and I'm sure he'd agree.

And he left Aniston for crazy. Why?

He's not that bright and AJ is super manipulative. She picked the right mark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's poison and he was a fool for drinking it.

+100 and I'm sure he'd agree.

And he left Aniston for crazy. Why?

He's not that bright and AJ is super manipulative. She picked the right mark.

Agree. She's far more clever than he, and knew how to push his buttons with wild sex and promises of bio babies (which she claimed never to want before). She went after him like a heat seeking missile, his wife was working long hours, and the sex had probably gotten a little stale after seven years. I've never liked her, but he's worse, since he broke his vows and humiliated Aniston in the worst possible way. He's always gotten a pass for that.

However, I think Pitt and Jolie are both missing sensitivity chips, even if I think he's probably the better parent of the two in terms of understanding that settled normality, regular schools, and rules are important for the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's poison and he was a fool for drinking it.

+100 and I'm sure he'd agree.

And he left Aniston for crazy. Why?

I agree with everything others have posted above, but I also think she was probably having fertility problems. Friends planned a season around an expected pregnancy that didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No winners here. Those kids must be very screwed up. She did get a partial victory in the sense that she was able to ice him out for a long time, and make sure the kids' bond was mostly broken. Very sad.

The kids aren’t babies though. Maybe she’s trying to protect the kids — who have decided for their own reasons that they don’t want him to have custody and decision- making powers over them. It does happen, it it may have much more to do with him as a father than anything else.
While there are no winners here, being forced by the courts to be in the custody of someone that you feel isn’t a good parent can leave you feeling very helpless and very screwed.

Yes, of course children make decisions and decide they don't want to see a parent. That doesn't mean they should get their wish. Children are children, not adults.

Children are not chattel. They have thoughts, opinions and ideas. They should be heard.

I'm sure the children express their ideas and opinions all day long if they are like most children. But that doesn't mean they get to decide certain things better left to adults.

Adulthood doesn’t automatically come with either wisdom or compassion. Fortunately, most judges actually do take children’s wishes into account, knowing that the kids themselves may experience sides of their parents that other adults might never get to see.

PP, I guess you don’t know much about child abuse. Or maybe you do. Either way, your insistence on the “better left to adults” stance is quite far from the “best interests of the child” standards that have been a goal for many decades when it comes to making custody decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No winners here. Those kids must be very screwed up. She did get a partial victory in the sense that she was able to ice him out for a long time, and make sure the kids' bond was mostly broken. Very sad.

The kids aren’t babies though. Maybe she’s trying to protect the kids — who have decided for their own reasons that they don’t want him to have custody and decision- making powers over them. It does happen, it it may have much more to do with him as a father than anything else.
While there are no winners here, being forced by the courts to be in the custody of someone that you feel isn’t a good parent can leave you feeling very helpless and very screwed.

Yes, of course children make decisions and decide they don't want to see a parent. That doesn't mean they should get their wish. Children are children, not adults.

Children are not chattel. They have thoughts, opinions and ideas. They should be heard.

I'm sure the children express their ideas and opinions all day long if they are like most children. But that doesn't mean they get to decide certain things better left to adults.

Adulthood doesn’t automatically come with either wisdom or compassion. Fortunately, most judges actually do take children’s wishes into account, knowing that the kids themselves may experience sides of their parents that other adults might never get to see.

PP, I guess you don’t know much about child abuse. Or maybe you do. Either way, your insistence on the “better left to adults” stance is quite far from the “best interests of the child” standards that have been a goal for many decades when it comes to making custody decisions.

There's no abuse here. It's been a long public "private" divorce. We all know now that there's no abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No winners here. Those kids must be very screwed up. She did get a partial victory in the sense that she was able to ice him out for a long time, and make sure the kids' bond was mostly broken. Very sad.

The kids aren’t babies though. Maybe she’s trying to protect the kids — who have decided for their own reasons that they don’t want him to have custody and decision- making powers over them. It does happen, it it may have much more to do with him as a father than anything else.
While there are no winners here, being forced by the courts to be in the custody of someone that you feel isn’t a good parent can leave you feeling very helpless and very screwed.

Yes, of course children make decisions and decide they don't want to see a parent. That doesn't mean they should get their wish. Children are children, not adults.

Children are not chattel. They have thoughts, opinions and ideas. They should be heard.

I'm sure the children express their ideas and opinions all day long if they are like most children. But that doesn't mean they get to decide certain things better left to adults.

Adulthood doesn’t automatically come with either wisdom or compassion. Fortunately, most judges actually do take children’s wishes into account, knowing that the kids themselves may experience sides of their parents that other adults might never get to see.

PP, I guess you don’t know much about child abuse. Or maybe you do. Either way, your insistence on the “better left to adults” stance is quite far from the “best interests of the child” standards that have been a goal for many decades when it comes to making custody decisions.

DP. You’re missing the point. While children should be able to voice their feelings and have them taken into account, what’s in the best interests of the children is ultimately decided by the judge (who is an adult), not the children themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No winners here. Those kids must be very screwed up. She did get a partial victory in the sense that she was able to ice him out for a long time, and make sure the kids' bond was mostly broken. Very sad.

The kids aren’t babies though. Maybe she’s trying to protect the kids — who have decided for their own reasons that they don’t want him to have custody and decision- making powers over them. It does happen, it it may have much more to do with him as a father than anything else.
While there are no winners here, being forced by the courts to be in the custody of someone that you feel isn’t a good parent can leave you feeling very helpless and very screwed.

Yes, of course children make decisions and decide they don't want to see a parent. That doesn't mean they should get their wish. Children are children, not adults.

Children are not chattel. They have thoughts, opinions and ideas. They should be heard.

I'm sure the children express their ideas and opinions all day long if they are like most children. But that doesn't mean they get to decide certain things better left to adults.

Adulthood doesn’t automatically come with either wisdom or compassion. Fortunately, most judges actually do take children’s wishes into account, knowing that the kids themselves may experience sides of their parents that other adults might never get to see.

PP, I guess you don’t know much about child abuse. Or maybe you do. Either way, your insistence on the “better left to adults” stance is quite far from the “best interests of the child” standards that have been a goal for many decades when it comes to making custody decisions.

Do you really think the kids will have some new information to share by testifying that hasn’t come up before with any of the other people involved in this case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No winners here. Those kids must be very screwed up. She did get a partial victory in the sense that she was able to ice him out for a long time, and make sure the kids' bond was mostly broken. Very sad.

The kids aren’t babies though. Maybe she’s trying to protect the kids — who have decided for their own reasons that they don’t want him to have custody and decision- making powers over them. It does happen, it it may have much more to do with him as a father than anything else.
While there are no winners here, being forced by the courts to be in the custody of someone that you feel isn’t a good parent can leave you feeling very helpless and very screwed.

Yes, of course children make decisions and decide they don't want to see a parent. That doesn't mean they should get their wish. Children are children, not adults.

Children are not chattel. They have thoughts, opinions and ideas. They should be heard.

I'm sure the children express their ideas and opinions all day long if they are like most children. But that doesn't mean they get to decide certain things better left to adults.

Adulthood doesn’t automatically come with either wisdom or compassion. Fortunately, most judges actually do take children’s wishes into account, knowing that the kids themselves may experience sides of their parents that other adults might never get to see.

PP, I guess you don’t know much about child abuse. Or maybe you do. Either way, your insistence on the “better left to adults” stance is quite far from the “best interests of the child” standards that have been a goal for many decades when it comes to making custody decisions.

DP. You’re missing the point. While children should be able to voice their feelings and have them taken into account, what’s in the best interests of the children is ultimately decided by the judge (who is an adult), not the children themselves.

"...most judges actually do take children's wishes into account". It's bolded, in case you needed to read it twice. You seem to be missing more than the point.

[Anonymous]

The judge is correct on this one. Time to shut this down, Angie. You look like a fool and everyone seems to know that but you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge is correct on this one. Time to shut this down, Angie. You look like a fool and everyone seems to know that but you.

+1 But if she can't win outright delays work in her favor.

[Anonymous]

And he left Aniston for crazy. Why?

Because she wanted to be Rachel forever. She didn't''t seem to have any interests or passions and she never wanted any kids. Sht gets boring.

[Anonymous]

It's clear that the majority of people on this thread have zero idea what family court is actually like (and that is something to be thankful for) and also have no idea about the serious systemic problems that have been ongoing for decades. One thing that is absolutely true and has now been studied extensively (see Joan Meier at GW and her major study), is that when a mother states that abuse has been going on, the majority of the time she is not believed.