Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Da but nope! Being sober doesn't undo traumatizing them. Abusers deserve limited contact with their kids

Except in real life (not Hollywood) abusers get 50/50 all the time.

Right? These posts are bizarre. People who had one big blowup with their spouse in front of the kids still get 50/50. No family is perfect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posts here are crazy. There is literally an FBI report substantiating an extreme, physically and verbally abusive episode where both she and her kids appeared to fear for their physical wellbeing and could not escape. Whether it happened before does not even matter.

If that happened between my husband and I, I would also do anything I could to make sure my kids were NEVER in that situation again, and especially not while they are still children. Alcoholics relapse even after getting sober. I wouldn’t take the chance no matter how reformed he seemed, and I certainly wouldn’t take the chance that I wouldn’t be there to help them.

I cannot imagine feeling any other way as a mother. There is no excusing abuse, and there is no reason she has to forgive him for it. I don’t care if it happened once or repeatedly. There’s a line you cannot cross, and once it’s been crossed, it’s over. Good for her for having always been there for her kids. You can say a lot of things about Angelina and her weird past (especially pre children), but she’s never shown anything but dedication towards her kids.

The part of the FBI report that was released was her account of the event. Brad’s account of the event was never released. Regardless, it sounded like a minor domestic dispute, not something extreme like the way Diddy abused Cassie.

You are essentially saying you would try to sever your children’s relationship with their father, the way Jolie has done. In the normal world, Brad would have received some sort of custody of his children. Even alcoholics get to see their children, and he got sober. Jolie used her wealth and position as a celebrity to hire a private judge, have him disqualified and upend the normal family law system. I find her quotes about her children learning that some people have too much power and privilege to be held to account to be ironic, because she wouldn’t have achieved what she did in terms of child custody without her power and privilege.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Da but nope! Being sober doesn't undo traumatizing them. Abusers deserve limited contact with their kids

Except in real life (not Hollywood) abusers get 50/50 all the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posts here are crazy. There is literally an FBI report substantiating an extreme, physically and verbally abusive episode where both she and her kids appeared to fear for their physical wellbeing and could not escape. Whether it happened before does not even matter.

If that happened between my husband and I, I would also do anything I could to make sure my kids were NEVER in that situation again, and especially not while they are still children. Alcoholics relapse even after getting sober. I wouldn’t take the chance no matter how reformed he seemed, and I certainly wouldn’t take the chance that I wouldn’t be there to help them.

I cannot imagine feeling any other way as a mother. There is no excusing abuse, and there is no reason she has to forgive him for it. I don’t care if it happened once or repeatedly. There’s a line you cannot cross, and once it’s been crossed, it’s over. Good for her for having always been there for her kids. You can say a lot of things about Angelina and her weird past (especially pre children), but she’s never shown anything but dedication towards her kids.

The part of the FBI report that was released was her account of the event. Brad’s account of the event was never released. Regardless, it sounded like a minor domestic dispute, not something extreme like the way Diddy abused Cassie.

You are essentially saying you would try to sever your children’s relationship with their father, the way Jolie has done. In the normal world, Brad would have received some sort of custody of his children. Even alcoholics get to see their children, and he got sober. Jolie used her wealth and position as a celebrity to hire a private judge, have him disqualified and upend the normal family law system. I find her quotes about her children learning that some people have too much power and privilege to be held to account to be ironic, because she wouldn’t have achieved what she did in terms of child custody without her power and privilege.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol 😂 finally. Someone posted a link about Giselle and I saw that they signed Christmas day

Angelina did on Christmas, and Brad on the 30th lol. Lots of people saw this coming after she won his correspondences. They'll settle the winery sooner then later so he messages don't leak

Or perhaps she finally settled hoping for an Oscar nom.

Then why wouldn't she settle months ago? That's laughable. He doesn't want his communications out.

What difference would it make? She's been trying to bring him down for years and he's as popular as ever. She probably realizes she won't win in the end. The reputational damage is all hers.

LOL he is not popular as ever. Using his words against is obviously a game changer. Wake up.

Whatever. Look at his career vs hers then come back and tell us who is thriving and who isn't.

DP This is not the flex you think it is. Well, she was a single parent to six children. Ask parents of two children how much their careers take a backseat to active parenting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed something but is there evidence that he was physically abusive before the plane incident?

My uneducated take on it is that they were both emotionally abusive to each other, because they were a terrible match that initially thrived on hot chemistry and drama which then evolved into just drama and resentment. She’s type A and controlling and he avoids conflict by smoking pot and drinking. (That seems to track with me on the Anniston thing, where his leaving her seemed to take her very much by surprise — the marriage wasn’t good but he was too conflict avoidant to tell her that and instead just had an affair and sort of ghosted her.)

I think he comes off a little better in the public eye because people like a conflict avoiding people pleaser better than they like a type A control freak. At the end of the day I wouldn’t want to be married to either of them but if I had to just have dinner with one of them, I’d pick him. She just seems exhausting with a bit of a mean edge.

People just hate women. See the threads on Blake and Gisele as good examples of that

Nah. I don't hate women. But I strongly dislike her.

+1 her behavior screams narcissist, which is surely why she has so few female friends. And obviously lacks empathy for other women, whether Laura Dern or Jennifer Aniston. Worst of all, she showed little regard for her kids having a stable and healthy upbringing but dragged them around the world according to her whims. Very selfish person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed something but is there evidence that he was physically abusive before the plane incident?

My uneducated take on it is that they were both emotionally abusive to each other, because they were a terrible match that initially thrived on hot chemistry and drama which then evolved into just drama and resentment. She’s type A and controlling and he avoids conflict by smoking pot and drinking. (That seems to track with me on the Anniston thing, where his leaving her seemed to take her very much by surprise — the marriage wasn’t good but he was too conflict avoidant to tell her that and instead just had an affair and sort of ghosted her.)

I think he comes off a little better in the public eye because people like a conflict avoiding people pleaser better than they like a type A control freak. At the end of the day I wouldn’t want to be married to either of them but if I had to just have dinner with one of them, I’d pick him. She just seems exhausting with a bit of a mean edge.

People just hate women. See the threads on Blake and Gisele as good examples of that

Nah. I don't hate women. But I strongly dislike her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol 😂 finally. Someone posted a link about Giselle and I saw that they signed Christmas day

Angelina did on Christmas, and Brad on the 30th lol. Lots of people saw this coming after she won his correspondences. They'll settle the winery sooner then later so he messages don't leak

Or perhaps she finally settled hoping for an Oscar nom.

Then why wouldn't she settle months ago? That's laughable. He doesn't want his communications out.

What difference would it make? She's been trying to bring him down for years and he's as popular as ever. She probably realizes she won't win in the end. The reputational damage is all hers.

LOL he is not popular as ever. Using his words against is obviously a game changer. Wake up.

Whatever. Look at his career vs hers then come back and tell us who is thriving and who isn't.

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure Brad’s PR team has found this thread. I hope none of you claiming that she brainwashed her kids are parents. If the kids who are adults want nothing to do with him, including his last name, that speaks volumes.

Anonymous wrote:The posts here are crazy. There is literally an FBI report substantiating an extreme, physically and verbally abusive episode where both she and her kids appeared to fear for their physical wellbeing and could not escape. Whether it happened before does not even matter.

If that happened between my husband and I, I would also do anything I could to make sure my kids were NEVER in that situation again, and especially not while they are still children. Alcoholics relapse even after getting sober. I wouldn’t take the chance no matter how reformed he seemed, and I certainly wouldn’t take the chance that I wouldn’t be there to help them.

I cannot imagine feeling any other way as a mother. There is no excusing abuse, and there is no reason she has to forgive him for it. I don’t care if it happened once or repeatedly. There’s a line you cannot cross, and once it’s been crossed, it’s over. Good for her for having always been there for her kids. You can say a lot of things about Angelina and her weird past (especially pre children), but she’s never shown anything but dedication towards her kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Da but nope! Being sober doesn't undo traumatizing them. Abusers deserve limited contact with their kids

Active abusers yes. But I think the bulk of the research indicates that alienating a child from a parent who does not pose an ongoing threat to them does the child more harm in the long run because the child has so many unresolved issues with the parent. This is one of the reason why there are so many programs to link kids with their incarcerated parents — even if they are awful people, the children need to be able to navigate the relationship. I’m not saying it’s easy but as a parent you aren’t really doing your kid any favor by interfering with that process.

The kids don't seem like they are doing well. Can't wait for the Mommy Dearest books to come out some day.

Daddy dearest. It's getting closer by the day.

None of the children seem to have any skills or career prospects of their own. They seem to latch onto Jolie and live off what she provides them. Writing a book would only be evidence of their dysfunction and Jolie’s poor parenting.

They didn't get a real education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Da but nope! Being sober doesn't undo traumatizing them. Abusers deserve limited contact with their kids

Active abusers yes. But I think the bulk of the research indicates that alienating a child from a parent who does not pose an ongoing threat to them does the child more harm in the long run because the child has so many unresolved issues with the parent. This is one of the reason why there are so many programs to link kids with their incarcerated parents — even if they are awful people, the children need to be able to navigate the relationship. I’m not saying it’s easy but as a parent you aren’t really doing your kid any favor by interfering with that process.

The kids don't seem like they are doing well. Can't wait for the Mommy Dearest books to come out some day.

Daddy dearest. It's getting closer by the day.

None of the children seem to have any skills or career prospects of their own. They seem to latch onto Jolie and live off what she provides them. Writing a book would only be evidence of their dysfunction and Jolie’s poor parenting.