Fox News87%

Angelina Jolie achieves 'complete cutting of ties' between kids and Brad Pitt as twins turn 18: expert 63%

7/22/2026, 1:00:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Representativeness Heuristic, and Optimism Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 12.1% saturation with 104 hits. Analysis detected 903 faulty-reasoning hits from 856 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.2% and a BS Rank of 63% (7,659 of 20,371 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.40% of the article peer group.

A decade after one of Hollywood's most bitter divorces began, Angelina Jolie has finally achieved a "complete cutting of ties" with ex-husband Brad Pitt. 
With the former couple's youngest children now 18, the last legal thread connecting Jolie and Pitt has effectively been severed, a family law expert explained to Fox News Digital. 
The expert argued the Oscar winner has reached the outcome she had been seeking since filing for divorce in 2016. 
"For those that followed the Pitt/Jolie divorce since 2016, it should be no surprise that Angelina Jolie is finally able to achieve what she attempted to get in the 2016 divorce  a complete cutting of ties between the children and Brad Pitt," Holly Davis, cofounder of Kirker Davis LLP, told Fox News Digital. 
BRAD PITT FACES FRESH FAMILY BLOW AS DAUGHTER CLEARS MAJOR HURDLE TO DROP HIS LAST NAME 
Pitt and Jolie share six children: Maddox, Zahara, Shiloh, Pax, Knox and Vivienne. 
Twins Knox and Vivienne reaching adulthood on July 12 means custody issues are no longer before the court, giving Jolie the freedom to make decisions that previously required court oversight. 
"Because she was unable to achieve this result in the parties' divorce, she had to wait until the youngest children were 18 to be able to do the things that the court would not allow her to do," Davis explained. 
What ultimately drove the children's estrangement from their father remains impossible to know from the outside, according to Davis. 
"Whether or not she influenced them in hating their father based on the legitimate problems in her romantic relationship with Brad, or whether they all suffered similar difficult moments as a family which lead to their decision to no longer see him, will be anyone's guess," the family attorney said. 
Jolie and Pitt's daughter Vivienne is seeking to remove "Pitt" legally from her last name  from Vivienne Marcheline Jolie-Pitt to Vivienne Marcheline Jolie  just over a week after turning 18, according to People magazine . 
The petition was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, with the reason for the name change noted as "personal," per the outlet, with the hearing scheduled for November 2. 
Two years prior, Vivienne worked on the Broadway play "The Outsiders" with mom Angelina, and was credited as "Vivienne Jolie" in the playbill. 
Vivienne worked as a producer assistant on the musical while Angelina served as a producer. 
BRAD PITT FIGHTS FOR SURVIVAL IN 'HEART OF THE BEAST' TRAILER AS FANS SAY HE'S 'COOLER' THAN YOUNGER ACTORS 
Jolie may have effectively severed the remaining legal family ties, but experts say the public fallout might not significantly damage Pitt's Hollywood standing. 
"Brandwise, it’s not that big of a hit to Brad Pitt’s name or brand," entertainment attorney Tre Lovell told Fox News Digital. 
"He’s such a universally well-known star, and his divorce with Angelina Jolie and strained relationship with his kids have been well publicized." 
"Most of the public would chalk it up to an unfortunate problem with the relationship with his kids, but as far as his brand, it’s still strong and would survive any type of criticism in this area," the lawyer for Los Angeles-based Lovell Firm explained. 
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER 
Five of Pitt and Jolie's children have distanced themselves from the actor by dropping his surname, with Vivienne and three of her siblings choosing to make the change official legally. 
"[Pitt's] talent remains unquestioned. 
But when multiple adult children publicly choose to stop using your surname, the conversation inevitably shifts from career to character," crisis communications expert Kaivan Shroff told Fox News Digital. 
"Whether fair or unfair, that’s the kind of narrative no amount of good publicity can easily overcome." 
Zahara filed to formally remove "Pitt" from her surname in June. 
If granted, her legal name will change from Zahara Marley Jolie-Pitt to Zahara Marley Jolie. 
Her name change follows Shiloh's name change in 2024. 
Maddox also reportedly filed a petition in May. 
"This isn’t about a single family decision…it’s about accumulation," he added. 
"One child dropping a famous last name might be dismissed as an isolated event. 
When it happens repeatedly across multiple adult children, it stops looking like celebrity gossip and starts becoming part of a public figure’s legacy." 
LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? 
CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS 
The public's reaction to the family drama, however, remains open to interpretation. 
While some experts believe the repeated rejection of Pitt's surname could become part of his public legacy, others contend the developments may instead generate sympathy for the Oscar-winning actor. 
"One of the primary things that parents should focus on in a divorce is the well-being of the child, and that often means striving for the child to have a healthy relationship with both parents," Jordan Matthews told Fox News Digital. 
The entertainment attorney for Los Angeles-based Holtz Matthews LLP argued that while the decision to drop Pitt's last name was "highly personal," it is likely to leave many members of the public "sympathetic to Pitt’s position." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic5.3%This article: 6.9%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.9%This article: 2.3%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias2.3%This article: 4.7%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 2.0%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.4%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias3.4%This article: 1.3%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect1.3%This article: 6.9%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias6.9%This article: 5.4%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias5.4%This article: 5.4%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.8%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority6.8%This article: 3.4%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.1%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization12.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.7%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.7%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.2%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.8%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote5.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.8%

856 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers46%attributed speech465writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Davis • 54 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Davis • 40 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Davis • 19 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Davis • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageTre Lovell • 22 words • 0.0% coverageTre Lovell • 22 words • 0.0% coverageTre Lovell • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coveragecrisis communications expert Kaivan Shroff • 4 words • 0.0% coverageKaivan Shroff • 29 words • 0.0% coverageKaivan Shroff • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKaivan Shroff • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKaivan Shroff • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKaivan Shroff • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJordan Matthews • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tre Lovell

100%flagged-word coverage
89 attributed words23% of attributed speech59% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Tre Lovell: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.