Actress Kelly Rutherford of Gossip Girl, 46, has been involved in a long international custody battle with her ex, German-born Daniel Giersch. The two split after two years, in late 2008 when Kelly was pregnant with their second child. Daniel was so mad that Kelly didn’t personally tell him about their daughter Helena’s 2009 birth that he issued a statement about it, saying he “wanted nothing than to hold our newborn daughter for a few moments” and that he sought “to coparent both our children responsibly and with love.” Whether he was being upfront about that is unclear, but those two never figured out how to coparent. They also have a son, Hermes, now 8.
In September, 2012, Kelly essentially lost custody of her children when a California judge ruled that the children could stay with their father overseas. Kelly was technically awarded 50/50 custody, but the children were allowed to remain abroad with Daniel, who is unable to travel to the US after his Visa was revoked in 2012. Kelly accused Daniel during their divorce of dealing drugs and guns, and her lawyer tipped off the State Department that his businesses were shady, which led to his deportation. Daniel and the children live in Monaco, where his parents have a home. Daniel must pay for six round trip visits for Kelly to see her children each year and she is allowed to keep them with her in New York for the summers. Kelly has repeatedly said that this custody arrangement is unfair, that her children were essentially deported, and that the custody judge had it out for her.
As a result of her protracted legal battle, Kelly filed for bankruptcy in 2013. She claimed all her money had gone to fighting for her children. She’s tried multiple times to have her custody situation reversed so she can keep the children with her in New York, and she eventually brought the case up to the federal level, where it was just dismissed.
She was most recently in federal court arguing for her children’s constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. The court dismissed the case, saying, “The children have not been deported.” Hermés and Helena will “retain their United States citizenship, and once they reach the age of majority, they will be free to choose where to reside…Under such circumstances it would plainly be improper for the federal courts to assume jurisdiction over the case.”
The California court had mandated Giersch continued to apply for a new visa so he could return to the U.S. with the children. However, the State Department confirmed to ABC News that it hasn’t happened.
“I told my son…’You know, mommy is still fighting for you,'” Rutherford said. “My children, not only were they taken away, but they were sent to a foreign country. I don’t know how you even explain to someone what it feels like.”
ABC News reached out to Giersch for comment. “Daniel Giersch continues to protect the children from any negativity and therefore will continue to not engage in any of these unfortunate and false media fabrications which only served one person, but clearly not the children,” his lawyer said in response.
As I’ve said throughout this case, I have mixed feelings about it and more than anything I just feel for the children. It sounds awful for any mother to be separated from her children like that, but what about their father? Did Kelly intend to shut Daniel off entirely and did it blow up in her face? Either way, it’s sad and awful. I don’t know what happened between Kelly and her ex, maybe it was bad enough for her to want him out of his children’s lives, but under regular circumstances he would deserve a chance to coparent.
photo credit: WENN.com
Good.
Exactly.
Kelly’s a piece of work.
This stuff she tried to pull always reminds me of what she did to her first husband.
She’s a manipulative taker.
When the kids are 12 or so, they will be allowed to live with the parent of their choice. Her best bet until then would be to become the very best parent she can be. The kids will ultimately decide and that will be it. From what I’ve seen with people I know in this situation, the kids usually decide to at least stay with the other parent for a year or so to get to know them better. They may or may not decide to go back to the custodial parent.
She’s the original “GONE GIRL”.
LOL that was my first reaction when I read the headline too!!!!
She did everything she could so that he couldn’t see his own kids and she got what she deserved. She does not seem like a nice woman at all.
Me too Like… Well.. there you have the fruits of your labor.. also is it me or the head to toe white on her and the children for reasons?? cause it looks like a corny way to send a message of innocence
@QQ
LOL yeahm the freaking white everywhere always, came here just to comment on this. Not sure what message she’s trying to send but what I’m reading is “control freak”. Also, Funny Games and cult member.
Exactly! I actually had the same judge that Kelly had, Theresa Beaudet in the California court. She’s a tough judge, I’m not going to pretend that she isn’t, but there is a standard guideline that California courts follow (for better or for worse) and that is that they are going to do just about everything possible to make sure that the mom and the dad have joint custody. No matter what.
My ex, the father of my two boys, actually moved out of New York City where we both lived to Los Angeles and we wound up filing here (which I don’t think was a coincidence on his part). The boys had lived with me exclusively for over a year while he was out here and I was still in New York City and prior to that I was a stay at home mom until the divorce, so my kids had not ever known anything different then living with me. In New York it’s actually possible to file for primary physical custody and have one parent awarded. I was so naïve and so shocked when I found out that that wasn’t the case in California. That it didn’t matter whether or not he had been around my kids for over a year: it didn’t even matter that he had left and moved out of the state and left the kids with me. Once we started the divorce proceedings it was going to be a 50-50 schedule no matter what. Did I cry you bet I did!!! Was it shocking to all of a sudden have my kids not with me two nights out of the week? Of course it was but it didn’t change the fact that California really, really wants it to be fair. They want both parents to have every opportunity to get the chance to foster a healthy relationship with the children. And this judge in particular has a tendency to favor fathers, to advocate for them if they are willing and able to step up, because I think there seen so many cases where fathers have to fight and fight and fight to have a standing chance of being able to have a relationship with their kids.
Ultimately it wound up being a great thing. My kids are teenagers now and the four of us actually have a really nice working relationship, we live a block and a half away from each other and I have accepted the fact that he was their dad and he loved them just as much as I did. Even though I *personally* think he’s not always awesome all the time, as coparents we are okay and my kids are better off for it.
From the time I started reading about her experience I’ve just had such disdain. I think she took low blows and was really selfish. Not taking into consideration that whether she likes it or not, whether she wants to be with him, whether she feels that he should have a relationship with his children it’s not her decision! She really, really kind of gave divorce and coparenting a bad name!! She was selfish, devious and did everything she could to sabotage the relationship he had with his children and now she’s suffering the repercussions.
So as someone who’s been through it with the exact same judge I really have no sympathy for her. I know it sucks, it’s not easy to share your kids and of course everyone wishes that you could just take your kids and move away from the person that you don’t like and don’t want to be married to you anymore and probably don’t have a relationship anymore- but that’s not fair to your kids and I’m kind of happy that the California court makes it like that and really forces parents to coparent.
Thanks for your story Little Darling you sounds like a great mom. I can imagine emotions run so high soon after divorce and it is difficult not too feel angry at an ex and want him out of your life but when things have calmed down you realise you want what is best for your kids which is for them to have two loving parents who can co parent effectively.
Little Darling, thank you for sharing. You have a great perspective on this. I am so happy to hear you and your kids made it through everything for the better. You must be a great mom!
What a fascinating story. I am happy it worked out. I think you’d have a different point of view if your ex moved to a foreign country and you were told by the same judge to co-parent. We all make mistakes and Kelly certainly did, but as a mom to a toddler, i can’t imagine trying to bridge a international 50/50 split.
Little Darling, I too, really appreciate your comments and perspective. My parents managed to maintain an air of amicability when they split, which allowed us as kids to adjust and cope so much better. 20 years on they have a good friendship and it means we can all happily holiday together – with my husband and their only grandchild. It was no doubt very hard for them, but they did it, and they did it for us. I will be forever grateful for that, and for how it has led to us being a happy extended family now.
@pix~ you move. I mean, I would not let ANYTHING get in the way of being with my kids.
Hell, I would kiss my exes ass so hard it’s close to flossing in order to establish a working co parent relationship, firstly. I don’t care how much I hated him, if I needed to convince whomever that I could parent peacefully in order to be close to my kids I would do it.
She gambled, allegedly, and it wasn’t worth the risk of potentially losing her kids. It is a risk I would never ever play in court.
I feel for her, I really do, but it seems to me that A) her ex isn’t even trying to get back to US yet, right? He has not filed for renewal of visa yet even though it was court ordered? Or is he not allowed back yet? And B) I’m sure he would help finance Kelly a bit to get on her feet if she moved there while it was all worked out.
Instead fighting all these years, change your damn tune, let the anger go and work on building a relationship with your ex so that you have more access to your kids. It never seemed to me that he was the unreasonable one in this case. A lot of this happened because of her actions, all he wanted was to be a 50:50 part of his kids. It was the judges of the court who keep making this decision because she keeps fighting it!
Girl, change your plan because so far it’s not working! You know? Her kids are not getting any younger.
So interesting to hear your experience and perspective. I still come to the same conclusion regarding Kelly – she’s still trying to win rather than make it work. She knows her reputation has been tarnished and she’s still trying to win it back – but the wrong way.
Thanks for sharing your story. So glad everything worked out for you & your kids.
I truly applaud your maturity and concern for your children’s well being. It was hard, and you must have been so angry, but you put them first and everyone flourished. Good for you, Little Darling.
God, I’d hate to have to constantly go from one house to the other. Had to sleep 1 night of the week at my grandma’s for a year and it was so so exhausting
I totally agree. Enough has come out about this woman which verifies what a nut job she is. Her ex did NOTHING wrong. The guns and drugs accusations were fabricated to get his visa revoked as Ms Rutherford erroneously thought she’d be given custody of the children. What a piece of work she is. Zero sympathy.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this case as well. And, honestly, her quote to her son isn’t helping her case with me.
I mean, way to freak the kid out. Why drag the children into the mess, rather than trying to normalize what is surely a difficult and scary time for them? There have to be better ways to let your children know you love them and want to be with them, than to say, “I’m fighting to get you back,” right?
IDK. It does seem that if she’s able to have the children all Summer, in addition to 6 paid-for visits through the rest of the year – she’s closer to 50/50 custody than many parents get.
That quote of what she said to her son totally tipped me to the other side. I’ve always been on the fence about it, wondering exactly what happened and who is being truthful. I think I always had a gut feeling she has been manipulative, and her saying that made me realize she is. You don’t say something like to your kid. Period. She tried to get him out of their lives, I believe and it back fired. I truly feel for the kids and can’t imagine what she says that she doesn’t tell people. Poor kids. 😞
I feel sorry for the kids…
Me too.
Why feel sorry for the kids? Yeah, they’ve got a crazy, conniving mom and I’m sure they’ve seen some ugly fights. But they are living in an island S. of France with their grandparents and their father, and they’ll grow up tri-lingual. That kind of life doesn’t sound so bad.
Better a stable, peaceful co-parenting situation rather than nasty, manipulative, warring parents regardless of setting. Those kids will have issues.
I agree with Tracking. Rutherford is highly manipulative and I see alot of selfishness in her. Just the statement she’s quotes as telling her son isn’t healthy for him. It was for her. She seems to play the victim to her kids and that’s not cool. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, regardless of what happens prior to and post divorce, unless one of them are dangerous or abusive, children deserve to love both their parents. We don’t get to sway them one way or the other. Using subtle manipulation to influence them and turn them against the other parent does not help the kids. It only bolsters that parent’s agenda – to smear the other parent and put themselves in a better light. I don’t know what the father did to cause such disdain between he and Kelly, but regardless of any crimes he committed here, he seems the more responsible and mature parent re the children simply by refraining from counter-attacks in the media and staying quiet. She would do well to do the same.
Are you kidding me? So much in this world right now points to how glamour and wealth isn’t making people happy and you say this? We should be hoping that every child has a stable home life as a priority – no matter what form that takes.
Hell I’m 31 and I still wish I had more parental stability in my life and I haven’t lived with my parents for 10 years.
Their mother is getting all the bad press but their father is clearly no prize, these kids deserve sympathy, tri-lingual or not.
It really blew in her face thinking that being American she would be given full custody.
She needs to stop the parental alienation and use more thoughtful words When talking to her children.
yeah, when I read this…
“Did Kelly intend to shut Daniel off entirely and did it blow up in her face?”
I said, “YOU BETCHA!”
she was hoping he’d get deported (or arrested?) and would be either forbidden from seeing them or very restricted. she was ok with his “shady businesses” when she had two kids with him, but then used whatever it was she knew/suspected to try to take away his parental rights.
and like everyone else on here, I feel bad ONLY for the kids. some people should NOT be parents.
Doofus – I agree with you. She tried the parental alienation route and getting the dad deported, and not putting the dad’s name on the birth certificate, after the judge ordered it multiple times. It blew up in her face because the judge got fed up, and concluded he was the better parent. I think the kids are fine. I think they have a stable life with their dad, who loves them. In fact, I have never seen one thing about him trying to not work out an amicable arrangement with their mother, which also helped his cause.
yes, apparently HE is trying to be amicable, SHE is not.
Thank you. What she did was revolting. Anyone who’s been through this situation knows how brutal it is to cut kids off from a dad (or mom) who loves them and wants to be in their lives. Her selfish actions will continue to come back and haunt her for many years to come. Shame on her.
It’s really hard for men to get more parental rights. It certainly was when this was initially starting.
Last time I checked a mother has to be pretty unfit to not get custody of her kids in the U.S. I would be interested to know what the rest of the story is here.
That’s not true. She was awarded 50/50 custody, which is pretty much the norm most family courts strive for these days.
That is not what happened though. They have 50/50 but because he can’t enter the US, the kids stay in Europe. The bigger story is why can’t he have an American visa. Visas aren’t just taken away because someone calls the state department. The state department has to investigate to see if the claims are valid. It appears the claims against him were valid since it was taken away.
No, visas can be revoked at the discretion of the state department when a “potential reason for ineligibility is suspected.”
Basically, making the allegation can be sufficient to get a visa revoked. Especially since, in this case, the allegation involved the buzz words of arms dealing, drug running and terrorism.
Trust me, there are all kind of stupid and petty reasons over which Visa can be revoked or not given. Just say drugs, guns, terrorism-I think 95% of people who decide about those things wouldn’t even check-they just revoke it.
For example, my husband couldn’t get a visa for a honeymoon trip to NYC because he was a driver in a car accident when he was 18 in which a person got injured: no matter the fact that he hasn’t got a record (or file), that he’s a model citizen, that he was exonerated, he was refused on the basis of “moral curvitude”. After he finally managed to get a temporary tourist visa, a guy at JFK almost sent him home because he answered the question-for what were you arrested-with “I was never arrested”(And he wasn’t!!!). They took him for an individual questioning and almost sent him back home.
Visa’s can be revoked basically at will. The State Department has full discretion. I know someone who lost their visa because somehow someone got the idea that they no longer worked for the company that sponsored their visa. They did work there, they could prove they were still working there, all their paperwork was in order, there was nothing at all that suggested they no longer worked there, the company and their lawyers even got involved to try and help…this person still lost their visa because it was ‘suspected’ they had lied about their employment status. They still have no idea how it even happened, they ended up working for the same company in a different country.
You can try and fight it, but that can take many years and a hell of a lot of money, and in the meantime you’re making a new life overseas. Most people just have to accept it and move on even if it was the height of ridiculousness.
Wow. Is this just America, or is it everywhere? I’ve heard that European countries aren’t as stringent as the North American countries. Canada apparently doesn’t have much leeway either. Sending a guy back home because of an accident years ago sounds like a petty power trip.
It’s not that arbitrary, visas are not revoked just because someone says “drugs”, this guy obviously has reasons why he is not pursuing his visa.
In Michigan co parenting is forced. If your ex is an alcoholic, porn addict, sex addict, and bi polar off his meds, he still gets every other weekend, Wednesday overnights, and alternate holidays with the kids if he has a place for them to stay. Unless arrested and found guilty, even medical records will not stop the Friend of the Court from granting the biological father these visits. The caseworker said he needed to be given a chance to step up. If the father has no interest in the kids, the fact his child support is less when he takes them makes it worth his time to pick up the kids and set them in front of a TV. In my daughter’s case, her ex gave up the custody agreement the FOC arranged in trade for his 401K. The money was gone in one month, never paid the child support owed, and now he is asking for custody or overnight visits. When the kids didn’t want to go with him, it was my daughter’s fault for not fostering the relationship after all the years she protected them from him. So here, unless one of the parents has caused medically documented physical harm to the child, custody is 50/50 or arranged visits at the very least.
Sorry this is so long, but the mother not getting full custody unless she is unfit is from the 1950’s. Now it’s all about father’s rights. My ex son in law had an ADAM attorney who worked at a reduced rate with a liberal payment plan until he wasn’t paid from the 401K.
I don’t like her. She gives me weird vibes and I don’t think she acts in the childrens best interest.
I have two children & would do whatever I had to do in order to be with them. If that meant packing up my life & moving to Europe, so be it. Let go of the hate you have for your ex and just be with them. Life is too short. And, yes, I understand she’ s an actress & her life is in L.A., but what’s more important?
I tend to agree. I’d take a simpler life in the South of France near my children over my career far away from them, anyday.
With what money if your job is as an American actress? Monaco is an extremely expensive place to live, as is France in general. Especially if you don’t work.
It might be extremely difficult or impossible for Kelly to get a visa to live in Monaco even if she wanted. Being able to live in Europe with only american nationality is incredibly hard. I’m sure Monaco is especially stringent in visa matters. She has neither money in the bank to promise to invest in Monaco nor a company to sponsor her visa there.
If he is paying for 6 round trips for her each year he would likely use that money towards her staying there instead.
I agree! Plus lots of actors / actresses are based in Europe … it wouldn’t have been super damaging to her career either, I don’t think.
career?
(sorry, that was snarky, but after Melrose Place, I didn’t even realize she was still working.)
😀
This.
I would move too. I don’t understand why she hasn’t.
Exactly! If Kelly weren’t so intent on having things exactly her way, she could already be spending untold amounts of time with her children. She would’ve dropped these ridiculous suits and moved overseas if her true motivation was the children’s best interests. Poor kids.
Honestly, does she have a “career” now anyway??
Exactly. She tried to exclude their father from their lives and it blew up in her face. Now, if she really loved them, she would work it out so she could be near them. I can’t feel much sympathy for her. I do feel for her children, as it sounds like she’s making it as traumatic for them as possible.
@GNAT
Exactly (lol). My mom always said that if she ever divorced my dad before their youngest kid was out of the house, she’d buy a house right next door to my dad, if possible. So that we’d be able to go to and from each house, without having to be separated.
It’s ridiculous with the way some people act (for no good reason). I think I told this story before, but my mom is a massage therapist. So she gets people telling her their stuff ALL the time. One man in his late twenties came in, and was telling her about his custody battle with his ex. He was engaged to the mother of his child (a toddler), and then he broke up with the mother. He said he wasn’t ready to get married (to her, I suppose), etc. But he still wanted to be a father, as always. Nope. His ex decided that sine he didn’t want to marry her, he couldn’t be a father either. She moved to another state, etc……my mom was pissed because in her experience, men who divorce their wives (and have kids), DON’T have anything to do with the kids at all. Her own father did nothing for them. When he died, she didn’t even feel anything (her work was trying to get her to take a day off)….
@Virgilia omg that’s terrible! Well, who can blame her for not feeling anything that he died….basically a stranger who has also done her great wrong.
Kelly IS the deadbeat dad in this case in a sense…..in that she’s the awful person in this mess…..maybe her ex isn’t an angel, but I’ve never read anything about him trying to turn the kids against her and he seems willing to coparent.
This is the part I don’t get. She works in one of the most flexible industries out there. You went broke and spilled all your dirty laundry on the tabloids to avoid moving to an absolutely gorgeous place in the world? People sacrifice an incredible amount for their children daily all over the world. I just can’t feel bad for someone who thinks location is more important (even though it isn’t for her!) than living in the same country as their children and then she has the gall to act like she’s a victim. What would her husband be were the roles reversed?
ITA!! I would live in a shoe box in Monaco and do manual labor if it meant being with my children. There is no way I’d be in LA if my children lived in Monaco.
Ha, ha, my children are THIRTY and I’m thinking of moving to be closer to them! I would do whatever it took to be near my young kids, and I feel very sorry for her kids.
He would still have custody so what is the point of moving there?
Technically they have fifty fifty joint custody.. if she lived there even part of the school year, she would see alot more of them than traveling back and forth a few times a month
I haven’t been following this story so I’m getting background info here. Did she get what she got because she wasn’t willing to move to Monaco? Can we assume that her visitation rights would have been more evenly split if she was willing to leave live near them? A visit once every 6 weeks and summers with the kids doesn’t seem like 50/50 to me. I would move in a heartbeat if it meant I’d be closer to my kids and have more time with them.
The kids really got shafted in all this mess. They deserve so much better than this.
Basically she got what she got because she got her husband’s (ex?) visa revoked so he can’t stay in the U.S. where their home (and then his home) was, so he had to move to Monaco where his parents live. She would be able to have 50% custody with her kids if she hadn’t intentionally gotten him kicked out of the country (thinking it would work in her favor) or if she moved to Monaco.
I wondered that too, but if she doesn’t have money and doesn’t speak French, she’s not likely to get a visa. If she doesn’t have a bachelor’s she won’t even get work as an English teacher. Unless having kids there gives her an in?
I was thinking the same thing. I’d rather work a menial job in France and have access to my kids than live thousands of miles away and continue a fight that will damage them in the long run. Look at how much time has been wasted already. Just move already!
I know when he was deported he lived in Canada, and Kelly would fly with the kids every weekend or every other weekend for them to see him on weekends. That worked out until he moved farther away.
I worked with divorce attorneys and divorce court for years and I have witnessed so much. People turn into something else when divorcing through the stress of it all and it’s hard to watch and believe. Emotions get the better of people.
There are no winners, because the children will always be far away from one parent. That’s all I’ve got. They are beautiful children.
Interesting perspective, thanks. Just curious, do you advocate that people try to stay together for the sake of the kids or do you think a couple can divorce amicably without permanently damaging the kids? I have been having this discussion with a friend of mine who is unsure of whether she wants to stay in her marriage.
As the child of parents who stayed together for our sake I say they should split, give the kids a chance to see a healthy adult relationship later on.
He won’t get a visa, she’s insisting on her way it the highway–sounds like the kids are pawns in a game they both will do whatever it takes to win.
Agreed. I don’t think she can the difference between her GG character and her reality.
Perhaps if she had put his name on the birth certificate as instructed by a judge numerous times, and not been found to be trying to alienate the children from their father she would not be in this mess.
It is also her ex lawyer who made the allegations that had her husband’s green card removed and nothing has been proved since.
She is crying now but she was intent on denying her kids their father.
Plays the victim well but most of this is self inflicted.
Agree completely. This is a result of her putting her own anger and vindictiveness above her children’s best interests.
Never go against what a judge tells you to do, they have power! Perhaps
She was a bit overconfident in the beginning but she may have had good reason. Everyone is so fighting for the father but is he a good person deserving of the majority of time with the kids. Personally the best fathers that I know always want their children to have a mother!!!
Therefore, I don’t think well of him
He pays for her visits and she can stay as long as she wants. He takes the kids to the airport to greet her with happy signs. He’s not trying to interfere with their having a mother, but she wants them to be fatherless. When you have children, unless it’s a virgin birth, there are two parents legally and morally involved. In divorce, the parents have to share time with the kids and often they have the kids stay with one parent during the school year and the other during the summer for the kids’ sake. If the parents live close to each other, they can split the time differently. But she made sure he can’t live close to them in the US and she refuses to relocate to Europe so she can live close to them. Otherwise, he would have continued to stay in the U.S.
It’s her fault he can’t live in the US.
Personally, if my mother didn’t want to even admit my father is my father, didn’t want to let him see me, tried to alienate me from him every step of the way, including making false accusations, lying to the state and starting a state investigation which has to had cost taxpayers some money, all just because she decided mother is all those kids need, I’d willfully and very quickly send my mother to hell.
And btw, a good mother thinks her children need dad in their life, no?
some mothers aren’t good mothers and some fathers are much, much better parents than some mothers. I think that’s the case here.
Yeah, I feel like the majority of this mess is her doing. And rather than suck it up and move to be near the kids (who live outside the US because she got their dad kicked out), she’s crying victim. She’s made horrible choices, time to make the best of it and do what’s good for the kids.
I try to have sympathy for her, but I cannot help but feel that she brought this on herself at the expense of their kids. I just shudder to think what will happen when they are old enough to Google themselves and their parents.
Because visa revocation and removal (deportation) proceedings are not generally public record, we will never know exactly why Daniel Giersch was deported. But most of the media reports strongly imply that someone on Kelly’s legal team – if not Kelly herself – may have instigated the revocation of his U.S. visa/deportation on terrorism and/or fraud grounds. Although the California family court judge has ordered Daniel to keep applying for a U.S. visa, these charges would effectively make him permanently ineligible to return to the U.S. legally. This explains why the media continues to report that he has not applied for a U.S. visa; what would be the point if it will only be summarily and permanently denied?
I strongly suspect she or her lawyers thought that getting him deported would be the magic bullet to ensure that she was awarded sole custody. After all, immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal. A visa can be revoked with little, if any, real evidence of wrongdoing. In removal proceedings the U.S. government only has to prove that the person is amenable to deportation by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. If Kelly and her lawyers thought her best chance to win full custody of her kids was to set this man up to be deported by making dubious allegations against him, this strategy backfired horribly.
Bingo. This is why I do not feel bad for her in the slightest. She has done everything possible to not only alienate her children from their father, but also to ensure that he is not in their lives. They thought having him deported would ensure that she ended up with the kids all of the time and I’m glad that the judge didn’t buy it. If one parent refuses to encourage a relationship with the other (absent abuse, etc etc), then I fully and strongly believe that the kids are better off with the other parent – the one who will encourage a relationship. I’ve seen cases where judges give full custody to the non-alienating parent with only supervised access to the other, so she actually made out pretty well here. If its her fault he was deported, she has to live with the consequences of that. And I don’t buy for one second that her counsel arranged for the possible deportation without her knowing about it.
Best interests of the kids is the primary concern here, and it is amazing how quickly kids can be damaged by parental alienation.
Wow very interesting information on the VISA and deportation process. I can buy your theory that this was a shady strategy to get full custody that ended up blowing up in her face.
Like most people I have mixed feelings. Regardless of how awful Kelly has behaved I do pity her children. No one has alleged she’s a bad mother so this must be painful for them, especially as small children. Plus they were uprooted and moved to a totally new country. I hope there is a way for the ex to get his VISA back. Even if he retains custody it will be easier for the kids to see more of their mom if he gets his VISA back.
The children were small when they moved; many children move all over the world during their childhood (kids of diplomats, anybody?). They moved to European country with great education and benefits; their dad speaks the language and they probably know the language from before (all of my friends with parents from other countries communicated in that language with the said parent), so I don’t really get what is so specially traumatic in moving out of USA when you’re what….3, 4?
The editorial that Dan Abrams wrote on Kelly’s behalf basically stated that her lawyer tipped off the State Department about Giersch, which the judge cited as reasoning for allowing the children to remain with him. Abrams quoted the judge as saying “[Kelly’s former lawyer] immediately took away one parent’s ability to be with his children.“
Good grief, what a screed. I love how that writer is carrying on about the kids being forced to live in France as if France were some unspeakable hellhole.
Anyhow, I don’t have much sympathy for anyone in this story other than those kids.
Interesting editorial by Dan Abrams. He doesn’t seem to understand that all her attorney had to do was make some possibly plausible allegations about him being involved in terrorist or criminal activities to initiate visa revocation proceedings. Then Giersch has the burden of proof to show why his visa should NOT be revoked as opposed to the government being required to prove why it should be. Trying to prove a negative is not easy.
Abrams also seems a little histrionic about how Giersch was not totally forthcoming about his business activities. If he were in immigration proceedings at the time, he had every reason in the world to be as vague as possible. His lawyers would have demanded it and would have sought all sorts of limits on what he would testify about in divorce court. Anything he said there could have easily been used to deport him or even seek criminal charges against him – which, now that I think about it, may have been Kelly and her team’s ultimate goal all along. What better way to prove the other parent unfit than by getting a bunch of federal criminal charges filed against him?
Too bad for her…she played with fire and got royally burned.
That video clip of her is ridiculous – “I haven’t done anything personally to have him deported”. Having your lawyer do it (or agreeing to your lawyer doing it) is the same thing as doing it. And there is no way that her lawyer did that without her knowing or condoning it. I also love the comment – “it doesn’t benefit me in any way to have him deported” – sure, now that you know that the judge won’t give you custody because of it!
@Angie
She tried to take their kids from their father……that makes her a bad mother, just as it would make someone a bad father if they didn’t ever see or support their kids, OR try to take the kids from their mother.
She is lucky she’s a woman. The press in the US was slanted in her favor. I was visiting relatives when she was ordered to let their father take the kids with him. All of my aunts were watching–the news made it out that she wasn’t ever going to see her kids again. All of my aunts were VERY sympathetic (especially since they’ve had issues with abusive men)…….
I can’t stand this woman.. she has never wanted to coparent, even before the little girl was born she was trying to interfere with her husband’s custody time with the son. She let him find out his daughter was born from the press, he had to go to court to get his name on her birth certificate..which she repeatedly ignored court orders to do.. she’s still trying to alienate the kids with the things she tells them about the custody battle.. she acts like the kids are living in a shack in some third world country .. I just can’t feel sorry for her. And, every story Dan Abrams writes about this is so one sided and biased, he never points out that she may have done anything wrong.. I just have to roll my eyes
Sounds like Halle Berry’s twin. Tried to claim the ex is shady/corrupt/racist/fill in the blank…to get the law to revoke his parental rights or deported. Back fired and blew up in her face. Yeah, no sympathy from me. Move to Monaco if you want 50% time with your kids cause you were responsible for throwing their Dad out of the country.
Halle Berry 2.0 indeed. She got what she deserved. KARMA
Halle is probably wondering how to revoke Gabriel’s visa.
There are no angels here except the children. However she definitely was trying to exclude him permanently. If you don’t want to co-parent, adopt or get a surrogate/donor. Otherwise the other parent can and should be included.
If he lives in Monaco, they he is filthy rich. Sometimes when you are filthy rich, you can get anything, including custody.
It sounds like his parents are rich not him. He didn’t get custody because of that. He got custody because she tried to be clever and it backfired.
well I am sure his parent’s money helps him too.
I don’t know all the dirty details here but the mere thought of *my* kids being taken away from me makes me short of breath. I can’t even imagine.
Indeed, you can’t begin to imagine. You lose your breath and you never fully get it back. Not ever.
My question is this (and one of the reasons why I’m on the dad’s side)–how do you accuse someone of weapons dealing (or whatever illegal thing she accused him of to get his visa revoked), and then the accused person just flits off into the field full of butterflies and daisies…..with two kids? If her ex was really dealing illegal weapons in America, and that was found to have been true, why wouldn’t he have gone through a trial, OR a trial in his home country?
Yeah, that’s the whole point. The bar is set very low for deportation in these days of Homeland Security. I think he may not have gone through some required paperwork when he was living in the US earlier, which could be the hook to just bar him without pesky things like evidence. She just wanted to get rid of him. If there was really a basis for her accusations, he would have had other troubles – but he didn’t.
She acts as though those children only belong to her and are only Americans. They have dual citizenship. They weren’t whisked away to a “foreign country” but to their other HOME. They are also European, and it’s good for them to be educated in Europe so they will be comfortable in several languages. They spend summers in the US with her, and their dad pays for their mom to have extended visits with them. She could relocate there for a few years if she wanted, many times she actually hasn’t been working steadily and so she would have no trouble with occasional commutes back across the ocean. Other people do it. But she has to shut up around her kids, she’s just trying to stress them out so everybody will be convinced that dad must be an ogre when they travel back to him and look distressed. Young kids often have trouble when shifting between parents, no matter how wonderful both parents are, but she is making it so much harder for them. That’s not love, that’s possessiveness and revenge.
She has repeatedly ticked off judges because she so obviously is engaging in parental alienation tactics and refused to comply with court orders. She was even openly threatening to refuse to send the kids back to their dad at the end of the summer. She’s lucky she hasn’t lost all her custody rights.
this times million!
@jwoolmann EXCELLENT comment!
I don’t feel sorry for her at all, she brought this on herself by trying to play dirty and push him out of their lives. Plus she could easily just move to Monaco, I would’ve been there long ago if I were her, there’s no excuse when it comes to your children, and why is she involving her son and telling him “she’s fighting for him”, there’s no point in that and she’s obviously a very selfish person to do that.
I have a dear friend whose father was awarded full physical custody of her and her sibling during a divorce. The mother was evaluated by the court and her history reviewed, she was seen as an unfit parent. And she had also gone around trying to make the father out to be a terrible human being. It is not as uncommon as some may think for a father to get full custody of a child(ren). Because in some cases, it is for the child’s health and safety that they are removed from the mothers care.
I guess what confuses me is neither parent is a French citizen or Monegasque. I know Giersch’s Mother lives in Monaco, but how can a judge rule that the children have to live in a country where neither parent is a citizen? Especially as they are American citizens and American born.
He is a German citizen, and the children likely acquired German citizenship automatically at birth through him. As Germans they can stay in Monaco for up to 90 days without a visa. They are also U.S. citizens by virtue of being born on U.S. soil.
It would not be difficult for him to establish a legal residence in Monaco despite not having French citizenship. With enough money he could get a residence permit in Monaco and eventually become eligible for citizenship. His kids would also get residence permits as his dependents.
The way I see it – please keep on mind I am not an expert- the judge’s decision is that these two children can live with their father, period. He does have German nationality but he can choose to reside in another country, so whether it is Monaco or some other country, his children can live wherever he lives. Plus, as it was mentioned by so many other posters, they have dual citizenship. And that’s really significant in this case.
The country is not important. The judge didn´t order them to live in Monaco. Giersch has 50/50 custody and the right to determine the place of residence of his children. So the judge ordered that the kids should live with the father so they are where he is and currently this place is Monaco.
Giersch is german = EU citizenship. He is allowed to live and work in every EU country he likes. Monaco is tied to the EU and applies the free movement in the EU.
It´s obvious you are not european…
Two words : Schengen Area
Daniel (german) Hermes and Helena (Americans_-Germans?) Can live and work in any country who belongs to the Schengen Area
What everyone else says. I carry a British/EU passport and I’ve been tempted to look into moving back many a time.
Good? As a mother I have full compassion for her. Her x sounds like a complete a-hole!!
What is the deal with white? It feels creepy, in an “aren’t I the good parent” type of way. It feels very staged and PR.
People who dress their kids like that get the side eye from me. I have a neighbor from hell who does shit like that. Has her kid dress in brand new clothes and shoes that he’s not allowed to get dirty (and she freaks if she even sees him going near dirt), and he’s a KID. What do you think he’s going to do?
I have been fascinated by this story from the get go because well it is just unusual and different. I have a few questions that may have been asked already?
Do you think he really was doing something shady or was he just deported quickly and swiftly over the accusations (you would think they would find some proof)?
Why doesn’t she move to France? Plenty of Americans live abroad and isn’t her children >her career. I know a lot of Americans shudder at the idea of living abroad (when I mentioned I was moving to Canada I got the most idiotic questions/concerns) but in this case it seems justified even if you didn’t want to.
This is a very grey area case. he may be shady, she may be manipulative…good luck to those kids!
No he was found innocent of all the claims she and her laser brought against him. But in the U.S. if you are accused of such crimes whether your innocent or guilty you will be deported.
As for why she does not move to France she never given a valid reason why she won’t move.
Boy are these comments one- sided. I admit I know nothing about this woman, but if the children were born in the US, they are citizens regardless of where dad is from, and denying their rights to ever return home seems wrong. Again, I’ve never seen this woman’s show, don’t know if she’s deranged/mean, whatever..but personalities aside, this kinda smells.
But they weren’t “den[ied] their rights to ever return home.” They still have their US passport as well as their German one and they spend their summers in the US with their mother. If their father were allowed to stay in the US, they would probably be in the US full-time.
Where are you getting the impression they can never return ‘home’? She has joint custody. She’s just not allowed to keep them all the time. The dad lives in Europe because he was deported – they used to live in NY, but her lawyer gave a bogus tip that got his Visa revoked. Kelly gambled and lost, and spent all of her money on a legal battle that was entirely of her own making.
As a family law attorney based in Los Angeles, I think the judge made a mistake. I understand she had a difficult decision to make but I see no reason why Kelly should have to fly every two weeks to France to visit her children when the father’s actions made him ineligible for residency in the US. Imagine if the father committed a crime, Kelly reported it and he was sent to an out of state prison. Should Kelly have been forced relocate the children to facilitate father’s parenting time. The children’s Minor’s Counsel appointed by the court actually recommended that Kelly have primary custody in New York which the judge disregarded.
Everyone assumes Kelly submitted false to statements to immigration but what if she was telling the truth. I would hope the State Dept would conduct a basic investigation before throwing someone out of the country instead of relying solely on the word of an ex wife who some say has ulterior motives. Since Daniel’s immigration file is not public record, we have no way to know what really happened. I am not aware of him being exonerated of any wrongdoing.
I do not know why Kelly is wasting time in federal court when the father is not abiding by CA court orders. The judge ordered Daniel to make a good faith attempt to regain entry to the US and he apparently has not per the State Department. His refusal to cooperate constitutes a change of circumstance. In addition, the France court is not going to enforce the CA court orders and has limited Kelly’s parenting time within the United States. These two facts alone are grounds to modify the parenting plan.
People keep saying she should move to France without knowing if she could obtain legal residency or employment. Kelly is not married to an EU citizen and she has no job prospects. Daniel is not going to subsidize her living expenses. These issues came up with Gabriel Aubry. As an American actress who does not speak French with no connections, I do not see how Kelly could support herself long term in a foreign country. She is no Angelina Jolie.
I hope Kelly files for a modification or an appeal in California which could be more successful.
Finally, a voice of reason!
Perhaps the Judge felt Kelly would continue to prevent the father from having a part in the kids’ lives if the kids stayed with Kelly in the US.
thank you for being the voice of reason. the california courts are really not for best interest of the child. i know, i have been through this jacked up system here.
Normally, I’m on the mother’s side, but not this time. Kelly dumped her first husband months after marrying him when he was diagnosed with a serious heart condition. She couldn’t be bothered with a sick husband. He died two years later.
Karma. It’s a bitch
I think they both have done wrong. I will post what I posted on here back in 2012 when Dan Abrams poured over all of the evidence. I think she was very vindictive. I think he was very shifty. I know she said when she was pregnant with the second baby he was lying about his dealings and nothing added up and why she left him.
“Also, she was taking the kids I think two to three times a month, sometimes every weekend to see him. Mostly they would meet in Canada. The judge said, it’s not good for the kids to fly so much, so since he has no visa, he gets the kids in a country he’s not a citizen of (he’s German) and she can fly. So they’re yanked out of a home and country they have always known, school for the one, and, bam, they live in France now and mom can visit. Dan Abrams even said, because the children were enrolled at one of those schools that speak French, too, that the Judge said this was the plan all along, for the kids to be in France or something. I can’t remember. She said it was crazy. It was just a bilingual school, not a plan to live in France. The fear is he’s not a French citizen,he could disappear and they wouldn’t be able to trace him. She said he has no bank accounts, no way to trace him. So as long as her children are there and safe she can live with this, because she knows they’re okay and that’s the most important thing. It’s that fear of what if they disappeared that she couldn’t live with.”
” “My children, not only were they taken away, but they were sent to a foreign country. I don’t know how you even explain to someone what it feels like.””
She makes it sound like they were sent to live on the streets of Cambodia and not with their other parent in one of the most affluent countries in the world.
As a parent of teen boys who went thru a divorce in California, this case struck a chord. Their father wanted to move to NY with them. They had and still have a great relationship with him and I. They were old enough to choose. I could not afford housing for them (don’t want to bash ex here). They went with their Dad 2 years ago. I had been a stay at home Mom since they were born so this was a very painful time for me and everyone involved. But I did not want to have a huge fight that would have dealt more hurt than was necessary. They are now both over 18 and we speak on the phone reguraly. They visit a couple times a year. Although it sucks I don’t see them as often as I would like due to financial diffuculty, we have an amazing relationship. It took a while to achieve that, but my main concern was their happiness. They appreciate me more than they did before and are far more respectful. I think they needed distance for that. Getting to my point (finally), I never saw divorce and my children as a winning/losing thing. It was more, how can we make this less painful than it already is. I think that should have been the first priority always in Ms. Rutherfords mind. Sadly, it does not seem it ever was.
In the state of PA they allow parents to lie and bring kids to court and lie about parent and judges allow this to go on and allow parents to get away with not abiding by court orders.
They do nothing. They do not follow the rules the CA has. It is a very sick system and judges do not care. You could go bankrupt trying to fight and all for a judge to do nothing to force anyone to follow court orders.
I’m sorry…but if my kids were sent to live with their father in another country ….I’d MOVE…especially if I were rich…stop bitching about missing your kids and move to them…kids come first….
so why didn’t the father stay in Canada? Kinda trick manuever to move to Monacco. I am sorry I side with her. He should have stayed in Canada if he want it easier on the kids.