Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
This story is hard to cover, as it’s complicated and sad. Plus I also don’t know if I can trust Kelly Rutherford’s version of events. As you may know, Gossip Girl’s Kelly Rutherford lost custody of her two children, son Hermes, 5, and daughter Helena, 3, when a judge recently ruled that their father, a German man named Daniel Giersch, could keep them with him in Monaco and France. (Technically she was awarded 50/50 custody, which is essentially impossible unless she moves to Monaco.) The children had grown up with their mother in the US, but after Giersch’s US visa was revoked for undisclosed reasons, a judge ruled that he could have the children with him in Monaco. Giersch may have lost his visa due to allegations Kelly made against him in court, which could have definitely factored into the judge’s decision.
Rutherford is of course distraught and upset. She has to fly to France to visit her children when she has time off from work. Her ex husband has been ordered to pay for six round trips a year. In an interview on The Today Show, Rutherford said that the custody decision made no sense, since she’s supposed to have 50/50 custody, but that’s impossible due to her work schedule. Her ex has the children with him overseas for one year until school ends in 2013, although the judge said that could be extended to three years if he’s unable to obtain a US visa. Rutherford doesn’t expect him to try. Here’s more from her interview. Star Jones was there as a legal expert and she had little credibility in my eyes, but maybe that’s just because I’m biased against Star. She seems like a talking head more than a lawyer. Here’s more, from the Today Show’s website. Video is above.
“Gossip Girl” star Kelly Rutherford is the mother of two little children — but the only way she gets to see them these days is by taking an international flight. Thanks to a temporary decision made by an American judge, Hermes (age 5) and Helena (age 3) are to remain in their father’s custody in Monaco and France while he makes an effort to get his revoked U.S. visa reinstated.
It’s a situation that has left Rutherford confused and upset, and she joined TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie on Thursday, with Star Jones sitting nearby to provide legal insight, to discuss the case and where things are going.
“I was just in France two weeks ago, and I’m going back at the end of the month,” said Rutherford about her now-frequent overseas visits to see the children, who are in the care of her ex-husband Daniel Giersch. “I talk to them on Skype, I set my alarm in the morning and call them in the morning to hear their voices when they wake up.”
In theory, this is just a temporary situation as Giersch works to get his visa back — but Giersch has leeway to take years to make that happen.
“He has no motivation to get back in the country,” said Rutherford. “They’re living in his mother’s boyfriend’s home in France — it’s not even in his name.”
Jones added that all the court told Giersch is that he has to make a “good faith effort” in getting the visa (the reasons why it was revoked have yet to be revealed). “Good faith efforts are extremely subjective,” she noted. “Americans have rights of due process and equal protection, and her children are also American citizens and they’ve been effectively deported to another country.”
The situation remains ongoing for now, leaving Rutherford in an agonizing position: She’s contracted to “Gossip Girl,” but wants nothing more than to be with her kids full-time. Even more frustrating is that the judge has declared both Rutherford and Giersch to be good parents. “If I’m an excellent parent, and I’m the mother and I’ve been the primary caregiver of these children … I’ve followed every court order, everything this judge has asked me to do, what happened?” she asked.
“It makes no sense, it doesn’t make sense to anybody,” said Rutherford.
Samantha Guthrie asked Rutherford if there’s more to this story that we don’t know, and Rutherford gave a long convoluted answer about how she was a good parent. She didn’t directly answer the question as far as I could tell. Later, Rutherford claimed that when she tried to inquire about why Geirsch’s visa was revoked, the judge “threatened me and said ‘I’m going to see that as you interfering with your children’s ability to see their father.‘” She added “I’m being accused of asking questions that I think any parent, a mother or a father, would want to know.”
I realize that injustice happens, that people are separated from their kids when they shouldn’t be, and that judges aren’t always impartial and fair. Still, it does seem like she pushed this judge somehow or otherwise made allegations against Giersch that the judge took into account in her decision. Maybe I’m wrong, though, maybe this lady just got screwed out of being with her kids and she’s fighting back in one of the last ways that’s left – through the press.
That last photo is awesome.
Something in the milk ain’t clean. Don’t know all the details, but there’s more to this story for sure…
I agree…not that judges don’t make crazy decisions sometimes, but this just seems awfully fishy. There HAS to be more to this than she is letting on.
I read someplace, Radar perhaps, that the judge was seriously pissed off with her for repeatedly refusing to put the father’s name on the kids birth certificate and found she was committing parental alienation, which the courts HATE.
Move to France.
She has money. Yes, I am saying she should quit her job and move to be with her kids.
Fair doesn’t come into it, on her side. Fair for the kids is what matters.
I find her self interest frustrating and annoying.
If she quits her job, how will she live? No more income. You don’t know how much money she has. Probably has enormous lawyer fees to pay
Why should she move to France? Why is her ex-husband there and for HOW long – he is not a citizen of that country and owns no property there. Why were kids told by the courts that they have to live in France with their German father and start a life there?! Tell me, are the clouds in the sky green or white??? Come on people – this is INSANE!!! Totally team Rutherford here…
This is so sad. Adults who can’t figure out how to work together do a lot of damage to their kids. I did hear something about her alleging that he was making money by some illegal means and that’s why his ability to be in the US was revoked. Also, I very clearly remember her “forgetting” to tell him that she was pregnant with their daughter and/or that the baby had been born. She is not a victim here.
He knew she was pregnant. She didn’t tell him when she went into labour, so he missed the birth of their daughter.
I’m not someone who is militant about maternal rights, but when you’re in labour you need to feel safe and relaxed, or it hurts a million times more. You’re unbelievably vulnerable, too. Last thing I’d want was an ex things were awful with present, so I don’t fault her for that, you know?
Kate – Nope, I don’t blame you one bit. I feel the same way.
(My oldest’s father was abusive. He insisted on being in the room with me while I labored & delivered [we were still together at the time], and it was the worst labor I’ve ever had. He also told me that if I didn’t give our son his last name, I could just leave his name off the birth certificate. I should have taken him up on that!)
Kelly has a long history of using the courts to dispute parental issues that any other person could solve on their own. For example, she dragged her ex into court over a potty training dispute. Seriously!
After their second child was born, she gave an interview about how she was looking forward to raising her kids as a single mother, despite the fact that the father wanted to be involved. I think she has done everything in her power to make that happen.
She made false allegations about her ex being involved in criminal activity and her allegations, later proved to be false, were the reason why his visa was revoked. The court later found that her allegations were a deliberate attempt to get him out of the picture.
Some time ago, the court ordered her to put her ex’s name on the second child’s birth certificate and she refused.
He found out about the birth of his second child via the internet.
This is the same woman who left her first husband shortly after he became ill. He died a couple of years later.
I wouldn’t trust a word out of this bitch’s mouth. Her actions are nothing more than parental alienation at its worst.
Exactly, Vesper! Thanks for that. What she did to her first husband was vile, vile, vile. CB should dig that story out. He died an awful death and she left him the minute she found out he was ill and would need lots of expensive treatment, after a beautiful wedding. There have been interviews with some of his family members and while they did not say they hated her, reading those will make anyone despise Rutherford. She seems to be calculating and manipulative.
And btw, calling your child Hermes? She lucked out calling her second one Helena so she could claim it’s all about the Greek Gods, but we all know she loves herself some Hermes bags. Oh, please.
I saw her on The View and it was heartbreaking. She was sobbing uncontrollably and I do mean uncontrollably. I even cried. Dan Abrams was on. He’s a lawyer, too, and a journalist or commentator. He turned this case inside out reviewing it. He’s a lawyer so would really side with the judge. He said he kept looking for the smoking gun, the one thing that would show why this happened, because he didn’t believe the judge would do this without that. He said he poured back over everything over and over regarding this couple and case that it literally boggled his mind, that this was just wrong. The husband sounds very shifty, would never say what he did for a living or something. She said she realized early in the second pregnancy things didn’t make sense with things he told her and why she left. Anyway, my heart broke because the kids don’t win on this. Dan Abrams is highly respected and once he weighed in and he was skeptical and said it was a miscarriage of justice on these American children taken away. I believed him because he has no agenda.
I saw some of her crying too and felt bad for her. She’s just not one of those warm, likable women.
But it’s awful that her kids are growing up without her.
I too remember her hubby being some nutcase.
Hope she gets her kids back.
Also, she was taking the kids I think two to three times a month 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 are 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. 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.
Well, that certainly casts a bit of a different light on this whole mess, doesn’t it?
Sometimes judges have to make the best decision for the children involved, without allowing their personal feelings to get in the way.
I’m not saying that’s what this judge did, but I would really like to know what led to this decision.
I also wonder, if her kids were born in America, how can this judge allow their father to take them wherever.. 0__o Aren’t they US citizens and isn’t that considered kidnapping?
FS, I think the kids would be considered US citizens, but they could have dual citizenship since their father’s German. But he’s not French, and that’s where they’re living.
(I think it’s “legal” kidnapping, btw.)
EDIT: sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that the judge was based in France – not the USA. /EDIT.
The judge is flouting the law in France by doing this. France (and Monaco) are signed up to the Hague Convention, which means that kids born and raised in one Hague-signatory country must be returned there for those courts to determine custody issues if a parent removes them to another Hague-signatory country. The USA and France are signed up. The French courts were supposed to send the kids straight back for a US court’s jurisdiction, surely?
Unfortunately not all judges are as hot on applying this as they are supposed to be. But God, poor woman.
For those who don’t know, Monaco is NOT in France. It’s a country of its own. A tiny country but a country.
USA is not signed to the hague
Evon: http://www.reunite.org/edit/files/International%20Agreements/Hague%20Convention%20Signatories.pdf
Even if she did make allegations about the kids’ father – how does that affect her right to raise her children ? It’s a whole different issue. The mind boggles. You don’t punish someone for not playing fair with their spouse by taking their kids and sending them accross the ocean. It’s completely disproportionate.
I thought family court is supposed to think of the well being of the children – isn’t that staying in the only country they’ve known so far, with the person who has been caring for them from birth ? It seems the judge was caught up in the petty catfighting between two divorced people (it’s not like that’s a new thing, divorced people squabbling – come on) and completely forgot about the children.
And lastly, it seems people are quick to judge divorced women as crazy man hating bitches who will do anything to malign their ex husband. If it were just Halle Berry, ok, maybe she is crazy. But if we start saying this about every woman who is fighting to keep her children, then I think there is a problem. It could be you someday, fighting for custody of your children. I think that is a very sobering thought.
I agree with this 100%. I can’t imagine anything so heartbreaking My kids are my world !!
I think we need to remember none of us heard all the evidence, nor did any legal expert on TV attempting to dissect the judge’s ruling.
.
And just to play devil’s advocate, why is it ok to only be concerned with her “right” to raise her children. What about his rights?
Exactly. Custody is 100% about the best interests of the kids, full stop. Unless their dad is an unfit parent, it’s not in their best interests to never see him again.
Yes, maybe the judge thought that she could move to Monaco to be with her children, while he couldn’t move to the US without a Visa, so he decided that way? Lots of questions, but we don’t know enough to say that the judge didn’t act for good reasons.
+1000. If I had a dollar for every “B* be crazy” I hear about divorced moms (especially, ahem, the many times I have heard it from Wifey #2), I’d be able to retire from the law and roll around in my cash money all day long.
Judges don’t just let minor kids go off to a foreign country for a year with their dad without a very good reason. What’s going on behind the scenes I wonder?
Exactly. Most judges very strongly favor bringing children of American citizenship back to the United States for no other reason than that it makes jurisdiction much easier. I know the rumors were that Kelly accused her ex of weapons trafficking (along with some other stuff). If a judge believes that one party is acting in bad faith (or worse, attempting to lie to the court), the judge has discretion to really punish that party. If Kelly’s allegations were the reason why her ex’s visa was revoked, that could have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
These children were ripped out of their homes, forced to live away from their mother for the first time, and forced to live in another country. Something is very wrong here. I think the judge, for starters is a misogynist. I am on Kelly’s side.
read the history Paloma. Rutherford has done everything to interfere with her ex having a relationship with their children including trying to hide she had the younger one and refusing to put his name down for father on the birth certificate – even defying a court order to do so for a while. The judge called her out on this so it’s quite shocking that these shows she’s on aren’t pointing this out when she claims to have complied with every order
Thank you, I had no idea about this. I’d not heard anything other than her kids were taken, and nor had I realised that a US court gave her ex the children to take to France without her.
Whole different twist if she has been trying to erase him from their lives.
I’ve read enough to know that Kelly Rutherford is a terrible, terrible person. From how she conducted herself in her first marriage, and the sketchiness of allegations she made about her now-deported baby daddy. The kids are better off in Monaco.
Personally, I’m not that sympathetic.
Kelly has been every bit as ruthless and unscrupulous as Halle Barry in trying to cut her ex out of their children’s lives. She’s pulled a ton of unacceptable stunts, so it wouldn’t surprise me in the least that she had a hand in getting his visa revoked.
For example, Kelly has refused to put Daniel’s name on their daughter’s birth certificate, despite repeated requests to do so from the court. She also hired a PI to spy on Daniel, but that backfired on her when the PI sued Kelly for not paying her bills!
I honestly believe the kids are far better off now that they no longer have to live with such a thoroughly toxic individual.
I agree Violet. From what I’ve read the judge wasn’t happy that Kelly was un-cooperative with his request that she add her ex’s name to the birth certificate. She had been asked to do this more than once and never complied with the judge’s orders. Thus the judge probably thought that if she doesn’t listen to what he tells her to do, she would never bring the kids to France to visit their father if she received primary custody. That makes sense to me.
And I question why she decided to make this such a public story. While I don’t question her love for her kids, she is an actress and she is totally playing the public for support/sympathy. The publicity isn’t going to do anything for her except maybe land her a new role after Gossip Girl ends.
@emmieapricot
The more I read about this custody dispute, the more convinced I am that the judge made the right decision.
I think people may be missing the point about the husband’s American visa – if the kids were to stay in the US then he wouldn’t be able to see them at all. She is able to travel to France so in order for them to share custody the kids have to be in France. It is horrible for her to spend so much time away from her kids but it’s the only way for them to share custody without shipping the kids back and forth across the world.
Okay. They were meeting mostly in Canada for the kids to see him. Cats, the day you have two little ones in America, they are U.S. citizens, and live in America primarily in your custody, and your foreign ex loses his visa and so the judge decides since your ex can’t come and the kids have been traveling to see him, bam, you lose the kids and they will live in a country he is not a citizen of, tell me how you feel and if it’s fair. You work for a living. You won’t see the children like a true mom and now you lose them only because the judge says you can fly and he can’t.
I agree with you. If the judge had given custody to the mom, the father had no chance to ever see his kids since he doesn’t have and get get a visa. She can travel and the father can’t. If the tables were turned and she had no visa, all of you would be on the mom’s side.
In cases like this, the children get their own attorney appointed by the court solely there to represent the children’s interests. The guardian ad litem even said the children should be in their home in America and the court ignored that recommendation.
Don’t be fooled by Kelly’s crocodile tears. There’s a lot more to this to this story, Jayna.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20625222,00.html
Wow. From the link: “Kelly stated on the record that Daniel was dealing drugs and weapons in South America, which under the Victory Act is considered terrorism,” a source tells PEOPLE, adding it’s all untrue. “Just the accusation is enough to revoke his visa.”
If it really wasn’t true, that’s about as low as you can get. Filing TROs (like she did) is a bad enough way to abuse the family court proceedings, but accusing someone of terrorism is inexcusable.
If it was true, he should be in jail.
Accusing your ex of terrorism to get ride of him…Even H.Berry didn’t dare…
No sypmathy from here, she sounds like an absolute nightmare, good god what is with these supposedly successful women (Halle included) who seem to lose their minds when/ after they’ve had their children? Here’s a tip ladies if you want to have kids without sharing custody with their fathers use a SPERM DONOR or ADOPT! Plenty of women seem to do it without any of these custody issues!
Agree with @Lucy – And there is a lot of information out there on the net about Kelly and the custody dispute. The judge even said in his statement that one of the reasons Daniel has custody is that Kelly hasn’t shown that she is willing to work harmoniously with him, he mentioned that she repeatedly ignored court orders such as putting Daniel’s name on the birth certificate. I believe she had a hand in his visa being revoked as well. She also didn’t tell him when she was delivering their daughter. Remember this is the same woman who walked out on her first husband less than 6 months of marriage because he developed a debilitating illness, I think it was something to do with his heart, which he later died of. A cold-hearted woman if there ever was.
And why are people in such an uproar about the children being American Citizens. I don’t hear anyone worrying about the American Citizen children who get deported with their parents to Mexico and Central America. And don’t tell me they have a choice to leave their kids behind with relatives because that is a weak argument. Since the same people are saying the kids belong with their mom.
I agree with Cat — she can travel to visit the kids, and he can’t. For now, this is the only way the kids get to see both parents without the kids themselves having to travel back and forth between countries. Sucks for her, but unless he is an unfit father, that’s the way it’s gotta be for now.
Even though her kids are American, they may have dual citizenship because of their father, so they’re not *only* American. Also, a Visa is for a temporary period of time, right? She had kids with someone she KNEW only had temporary rights to stay in America, and now she’s complaining about it?
If I were the judge, I probably would have left the kids with their mother just because that’s what they were used to. But I can’t say the judge was wrong for doing what she did, given the circumstances.
That’s another thing, she was married to him for years and she never applied for a green card for him? Sorry but when you marry a foreigner (I know this), you can apply for a green card. She had children with this man so INS generally fast tracks the green card if they know the marriage isn’t a sham. I was almost 8 months pregnant when we showed up for the INS interview. They took one look at me and rubber stamped DHs green card.
So why did she not get a green card for him?
Interesting post on another site with the story.
“I had the same judge in my custody case. I am an attorney but do not practice family law. I fought hard for custody after my ex started hitting our son in the face, emotionally abused him (called him names that I cannot publish on public media) and left both kids in the car for extended periods of time in bad parts of town, at night. My son started threatening to hurt himself and was acting out and did indeed hurt himself. I ended up with 53% custody (I started out with 50%). I know of many other cases more egregious than mine–some with the same judge. A friend of mine who has the same judge (Beaudet) tells me that when she was in court one day Judge Beaudet refused to let a mother with stage four cancer take her kids with her to another state where she was receiving medical treatment. To get the extra 3% custody, I had to spend a fortune–paying minor’s counsel (who was worse than useless), a neutral evaluator and my own attorney. The entire system is broken and needs to be re-engineered.”
Wow if this is true it is very serious… I don’t live in the states, but are there any mechanisms to alarm the authorities about this? Because if it is true it is very very disturbing
Jayna – And there we have it. Judges are SUPPOSED to be impartial, not allow their biases/prejudices to enter in, and rule in favor of the children (basing their decisions on the facts presented). But judges with biases DO exist, as do their rulings. And it sounds like this guy may be one of them.
I’m blessed enough to have a family law paralegal mother, who helped with my divorce stuff. When she saw the judge I “drew,” she requested (and was granted) a different judge. (You’re allowed to do that in family court, but only once, I think.)
I’m sorry for what you and your son had to go through. I hope everything is much improved for you both now.
I agree that the system is broken. It may have started out with the best intentions (as did our gov’t), but we all know about the road to hell, now don’t we?
My thoughts exactly. I am going through some custody stuff as well and it has been a mind boggeling experience for me where many, many times I could not even believe that these “Judges” and “Law Guardians” would have the power to make such profound and questionable decisions for the children whose best interests are supposed to be the key factor.The Family Court System in this country is a disgrace and in desperate need of a reform. These poor children have apparently no say in what they want as I am sure they did not request to be shuttled from their home and mother to a complete new environment. My now 111 year old daughter just wrote a letter to the “Law Guardian” who was supposed to represent her interests telling her how much grief her inability and ignorance have caused her and my family. These people are given way to much power and abuse it in the name of justice. disgusting.
yeah, I know one too many 1s. she is 11 not 111
as a mom, it would kill me if my children lived in another country. i would quit whatever i was doing and move to be closer to them. that’s what you do. it would take more then an ocean to keep us apart. she does remind me of halle. i do get a strong feeling of craziness from this one.
Hello All
I have the identical situation going on. But, as someone said above, the system is broken and unbelievably corrupt. I am originally from New York and had full legal and physical custody of my son. In 2010, I married my husband, a German engineer and after lengthy discussions we decided that it would be better for all of us to live in Germany. So like the fool I am, I petitioned the court to modify my custody agreement with my son’s father so that I could move. I can tell you that the Judge decided from the get-go this was not going to happen and set about doing everything he could to ensure that I was found to be unfit so I could not take my son. Many of you will say that something must be wrong with me. That no court would do such a thing. That I must have done something, interfered with the relationship to my son’s father. I did none of these things. I was his custodial parent for four years after my divorce and primary parent for 13 of his 14 years. In October last year, the Judge transfered custody to my son’s father without any finding of fact, without taking into consideration that we agreed that I should have custody. How? Because he can.
You guys have no idea what happens when you go to court. No idea!!!
Things are set up so you pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to law guardians, forensic psychologists all of whom will switch sides on a dime, depending on who they believe has more money. This happens!!!
I am also an attorney and I am ashamed that I am part of such a system. I do not know what happened in the Rutherford case but if she deliberately lied on her ex-spouse then she behaved poorly. She makes other women therefore look vengeful and it is us, the women not in the public eye, who suffer. We do not have the access to publicity that will expose this system.
In these two years, my husband and I suffered so much as a result of the separation from my son. I have cried until I cannot cry anymore. Sometimes I want to give up. I can’t work, I almost stopped functioning. Thankfully, I have a wonderful support system of friends who know me and know the situation with my son and that there was a horrible injustice done to me. Without their support and Celebitchy (truly) to distract me, I don’t know what I would do.
Sorry for the solioquy but I just wanted you guys to know that the legal system is dreadfully broken. I had to see this for myself even though I am also a lawyer and part of the system. My advice, marry well, run from the narcissists. They will drag you to a level you will find incredible and STAY OUT OF COURT. I will say it twice, STAY OUT OF COURT.
Oh Bings, I am SO sorry. The system is indeed broken.
Since you & your ex agree that your son should be with you, is it possible to have a written agreement notarised and kept on file so you could take your son with you to Germany? Or is that not advisable in your case?
I ask because my ex and I had a “fluid” visitation/holiday schedule, and when our daughter went through a particularly nasty rebellious phase as a teen, we adjusted custody (outside the court system) as well.
Bings, I am so very sorry. I lost one of my children in a somewhat similar situation (mine involved a lost job and a move for a new job that would keep a roof over our heads) and there are just no. more. tears. My second husband and I have other children, but all I see every night at dinner is an empty place at the table. It is life destroying.
And I echo EVERYTHING you say about staying out of court. I have seen so many women end up with bad, bad outcomes in family court (LA Superior) — heartbroken and broke. And yes, there are a lot of people out there who will say well, there must have been something wrong with them, they must have all been vindictive, why does she think she has any more rights than the man.
You just have to hold your head high as you can and keep on keeping on.
@Bings – I do not understand your story. It sounds like you are saying that you and the father of your child agreed that you would have custody so why the need to go to court? Was it because the father did not want his child removed from the country? I am just curious because if you both agreed that you would have custody than there would be no reason to go to court.
TG – I sounds like Bings was trying to do things “the right way” so as to avoid being found in contempt of court (violating a court order, which visitation/custody becomes once filed & approved by the judge).
Since no one in Bings’ case had an ax to grind, that may sound like it’s not a concern. However, if ex-Mr. Bings got a wild hair or decided to make Bings’ life miserable, he could have reported her to the authorities, and she would have been in for a world of legal hurt.
@ Bing,
I assuming from what u have said that your child is not your current husband’s child.
If that is the case, and the child’s father lives in the US, it is not uncommon for a judge to not allow the mother to move so far away that it would make it next to impossible for the father of the child to visit. Despite the fact that u have full custody, in the eyes of the court, the father still has rights of visitation and if u were to move to Europe he would not be able to see his child, unless he was wealthy enough to visit on a regular basis.
Both parents legally have the right to spend time with their child, unless they are declared unfit. When u have a child with someone u cannot just make the decision on ur own to move halfway around the world even if u have full custody. In most cases, having both parents involved in their child’s life is considered to be in the best interests of the child. Sometimes, if a parent tries to fight the court enough about an issue involving parental involvement, the court will see it as parental alienation, and give custody to the parent who is more willing to co-parent.
The courts take anything that comes across as parental alienation very seriously, even if that was not your intent.
I don’t think you people get this. It is serious if her ex isn’t allowed back in the US. He wouldn’t even disclose what he did for a living!! That’s important with regards to young children. He is not a citizen of France nor are the kids. Yes, the children should see their father, but if he really is an arms/drug dealer, they should be visiting him behind bars! He could very easily country hop and she never see those kids again! Different countries have different rules and they wouldn’t be able to bring them back.
Ok, but Kelly could have been planning on doing something similar to him. She played a part in getting his visa revoked (or so it’s been rumored). She refused to put his name on the birth certificate. She was fighting for full-custody so she could keep the kids in the US. The kids wouldn’t be in hiding if they were here but he wouldn’t have been able to visit them and she probably wasn’t planning to bring them over to visit him, as she already showed that she doesn’t listen to the judge’s requests/orders.
@Andrea
If there was any evidence to back up Kelly’s wild accusations, Daniel wouldn’t be able to travel freely to other countries, nevermind live outside his native Germany or be granted custody of his children.
Terrible, disturbing situation. At least she is getting publicity to draw attention to her case and gain support. If she was Jane Q. Public with no contacts in the media, I don’t think it would be that easy.
I have heard some scary things about Kelly too, but I still don’t understand all the details about this case. It does bother me that she has a cigarette in her hand while carrying out her son in the first picture. There is something amiss about the childs body language with her as well.
RE: the cigarette- I thought so too, but it’s someone behind her.
Are you not able to see that her two arms are wrapped around her child, and that it’s a person behind her who is smoking?
I feel the same way about the cigarette; tacky.
The arm with the cigarette belongs to a woman behind Kelly. Can’t you see Kelly’s hands clasped together? In addition, the arm holding the cigarette, well that sleeve is black and Kelly is wearing a plaid coat.
You’re a body language expert and you can’t even tell how many arms Kelly has?! lmao
I’m laughing with you.
I don’t think there’s really any great mystery here, but it sure seems like Kelly Rutherford and her attorneys are doing their best to make sure that everyone believes that there is. Pretending that there’s some great mystery probably makes her look a lot better than the truth.
I’ve read several different sources that say that the Judge’s decision in this case plainly states that the reason for the current custody arrangement (the father being named residential parent) is because Kelly was engaging in parental alienation. The courts take parental alienation very seriously and tend to come down hard on a parent when they believe they have been or are engaging in this kind of behavior. Also, she allegedly failed to inform the father of the birth of their daughter and failed to have the father’s name put on the child’s birth certificate, even after being instructed to do so by the Judge on several different occasions. So, all in all, she messed up big time (and it was a continuing pattern of behavior on her part) and the result should not be a surprise to her or anyone else. Parents who fail to foster a relationship with the other parent and/or who engage in parental alienation are not going to be named as the residential parent.
Also, Star Jones was a criminal attorney (prosecutor) and has never, that I can determine, handled a family law matter and Dan Abrams has never even practiced law (he’s been a “legal analyst” and “broadcaster”). There’s a gigantic difference between being a former prosecutor or a “legal analyst” and actually having handled a certain type of legal matter. Just because someone graduated from law school or practiced a different area of law doesn’t automatically qualify that person to give a “expert” opinion on a case. So, I wouldn’t put much stock in what either of these two have to say about this case.
Thank you. I was thinking the same thing. My friend is going through a custody battle where his ex is primary caregiver but she’s been doing things that the court frowns heavily upon, perjury at one court conference, she’s in contempt of a court order and will not work with him to co-parent their child. My friend is doing everything for the best interests of his kid, he’s followed the court orders. I only hope that at the next court date, the judge will give him primary custody because her behavior is toxic for the child. She treats him as if he were a sperm donor and not the father. It’s disgusting, so I don’t sympathize with Kelly.
Very good @Ann – Also, I specifially remember reading that right after the judge ordered both of them in parenting classes to learn how to co-parent somone asked her what she thought and she said she did not see that it would work. So from the get go she has had no intention of co-parenting.
You are so right, Ann.
I completely agree. The judge saw a pattern of behavior in KR that it was “all about her” and not the children – it is in the children’s best interest to have a relationship with their father! So the judge awarded custody to the slightly-less-sleazy parental figure.
Now having lost in family court, she is taking it to the court of public opinion. Whatever. I have no sympathy for women who treat the men that they MARRIED as sperm donors. You’re not allowed to jettison this person from your children’s lives just because you don’t feel like sleeping with them anymore.
FYI, why don’t you read up on parental alienation. it’s a myth and the basis of it was founded by a seriously demented man, Richard Gardener. please read up on it and educate yourself. the fact that the Courts still operate on this nonsense is mystifying and inexplicable. ?
Ms. Heart – Tell that to Nicole Kidman. No one on this site is stupid enough to believe the nonesense you are saying. Parental alienation is very real and happens all the time by both moms and dads. You must be a troll.
@TG
exactly, if parental alienation was really such a detremental factor why did Nicole Kidman walk away. surely she had enough money to pay lawyers to fight for her rights. no troll here, but apparently a lot of misinformed people.
it is however interesting that whenever something is said that doesn’t jive with certain people those certain people immediately resort to name calling. this is an opinion based forum, isn’t it? aren’t we all entitled to our views and perspectives? just a thought.
@ Ms Heart:
OMG, there is no way in hell u have gone to law school or work in family law. To say that there is no such thing as parental alienation is probably the most irresponsible comment I have ever read on this blog.
Courts make decisions based on precidents and statutory law. Over time, the courts have specifically outlined what behaviour constitutes parental alienation. It is not left up to the whim of a judge.
The reason why courts are so adamant about preventing parental alienation is because of a long history of abuse in this area, and many of the “victims” (for lack of a better word) were men.
As for parental alienation being a myth, Halle Berry, and Nicole Kidman are perfect examples, as is Kelly. I’m sure most of us have an acquaintance or someone in our life who has either been a victim of it, or knows someone who has.
Wow the last picture is the best!
I have barely know who she is and I don’t know why the judge ruled that way, but if it were me and my kids, I would just move there to be with them. She has money enough, of course it would suck but hey, my kid comes first.
She’s certainly putting on the best performance of her career in these talk shows. She knows damn well what she did & didn’t do to lose custody. She’s a selfish, vain, materialistic harpy who thinks the world & her children revolve around her. She’s the living embodiment of every worst aspects of the characters in Gossip Girl. If the judge hadn’t stepped in, Daniel would have lost his kids.
She tried to cut the father of the children’s life by making sure his visa would be revoke. She is no different from H.Berry. No excuse. And by the way, she is an actress (meaning she has plenty of free time between shooting), her ex has to provide for plane tickets and a house in France when she is visiting and she is entitled to see the children half of the time. So her situation is not as bad as she wants us to believe.
Wasn’t Gossip Girl cancelled? If so, Kelly has no reason not to move to Europe. She can be actress there. Besides, with the money she made during her run on Gossip Girl she should have no problem being unemployed for a few years. Also, it’s not like she can’t move into a different line of work. I guess what it comes down to, is how much does she love her kids?
I am confused. Why do they have to be in France, and not Germany, where he is from?
I believe their initial courtship was fast?… this is why you should be careful who you have children with..make sure you realllllly know them…..wait a while to make sure the marriage will hopefully work, especially in those early, child rearing years.
Those children are darling. Whoever is in the wrong, I hope they put aside bitterness and work for the best of the child.
Omg this would break my heart. I would purposely give up my career and move to Europe. But what I don’t understand is if her ex was horrible enough to have his visa revoked, Why would they give him the upper hand regarding custody. If he was that bad, then He should have to try to make arrangements to somehow come into the US to see the children. Something doesn’t add up.
Just because the kids are US citizens doesn’t necessarily “protect” them. Illegal immigrants who come over to the US to have children (aka “anchor babies”) have been deported back to their country along with their US born children. I actually read a heartbreaking article about a family deported back to Mexico and the article focused on the family’s son who had grown up in the US until the age of 12 and could barely speak Spanish and just wanted to go back to the US (and he was born in the US so therefore a citizen).
Kelly’s situation is different because she is a US citizen and could legally bring them back to the US if the judge rules in her favor. But they’ve got a non-US citizen father so that screws things up. It’s a difficult situation and both parents seem pretty sketchy.
I’ve been falling this case since it was so acrimonious. During the whole custody hearing, Kelly made some wild accusations against her soon that he was involved in some pretty dark things, gun running, tax evasion, drugs etc., short time later his visa was revoked. She never told her husband when their daughter was born-he found out through the tabloids. The judge ordered her to put his name on their daughters birth certificate. To this day, after repeated orders by the judge, she refused. She hired a private investigator to follow him around (she is currently being sued by that investigator for non payment). She basically made this guys life a living hell. The judge finally had enough.
I think the judge made the right call, after reading all the comments. Parental alienation is IMO a form of child abuse. A parent who can’t separate their own feelings from their child’s needs will damage that child, and shouldn’t be primary carer.
Let’s not forget this woman also wined to a judge that Daniel was potty training their son. If it were up to her he would probably still be in diapers.
What’s interesting Is that, while the kids are going to have to “visit” the non custodial parent either way, the judge didn’t grant custody to the mother, with orders to take the kids to visit dad. She has to be in France to see them, and lots of kids travel to see their parents .. My granddaughter is one of them (parents live states away from each other). I highly doubt the court ordered custody to dad simply bc it was too much trouble to meet in Canada. She fought that as a way of eliminating them from their lives and it backfired big time. Who doesn’t tell the father his daughter is about to be born !??? It’s not like he was goin to be in the delivery room !! (As one poster suggested she wanted to feel “safe” during labor). Something is way wrong with that woman – she’s so full of vengeance.
WTF? do you really think the children would have chosen this scenario? I guarantee you as soon as they are old enough not to be patronized by this crazy “Family” court system they are going back to their mother where they belong. I did not want my ex in the delivery room or anywhere near me when I gave birth to my daughter because he was abusive and stressed me out. he treatened to force his way into the delivery room if I would not allow him, it was a horrible horrible experience and I can sympathize with her. Giving birth is hard enough without added aggravation and drama. let’s not forget that this guy does not have a job, lives at his mama’s boyfriend’s house, his visa got revoked for whatever reasons, IT DID GET REVOKED, doesn’t want to answer any questions about his track record. great role model! I do believe that the judge probably not the only Misogynist who thinks her mission is to punish the “bad” mother by sending her kids overseas. Children are not property that get split up 50/50. they are little people who should have their say as well.
I’m a lawyer who clerked for a family court judge for a year.
Couple of thoughts:
1- My Judge, who was excellent, would always start by telling the parties that he wanted them to take the morning to try and reach a settlement. He told them that it would always be better for them to reach an agreement than to put it in his hands, since he would only hear the legally relevant evidence and he didn’t know them, their children, etc.
2- The legal standard is “the best interest of the child.” That is HUGELY subjective and will vary dramatically from person to person.
3- It is standard practice that when both parents are found to be fit (in this case, both of them were deemed “excellent parents”) it is in the best interest of the children to have parenting time with both parents.
4- Daniel doesn’t have a US visa- he can’t enter the country. So if your goal is for both parents to have parenting time with the children, giving them to Kelly only works if there is some evidence that she will bring them to a country where Daniel can legally go. Based on what I’ve read about her actions in this divorce, I think there is ample evidence that she was not complying with court orders and was not encouraging his relationship with the kids. The only way to ensure that HE got parenting time was to relocate the kids. She can travel to them; he couldn’t.
It’s a bad situation all around, and the kids lose out either way the Judge ruled.
Ms. Heart – it is very easy for good people to get visas revoked. I know a Honduran physician who was refused visas even just for the plane to touch down in the US briefly while taking him to a Canadian medical workshop. He had to cancel an invited talk in the US on his specialty (childhood malnutrition and its consequences). His “crime” was talking against the military bases the US set up in Honduras to train a mercenary force attacking the legally elected government of neighboring Nicaragua- against Honduran law and Constitution. He saw the children of previously middle class farmers displaced by these camps in his clinic, now suffering from malnutrition and susceptible to serious consequences from simple diseases that well-nourished children shake off. For this, he was targeted by death squads and told directly by the US embassy that he was persona non grata until he shut up.
There are many stories like this, the US government has punished peaceful critics this way for generations. Good grief, the Prime Minister of Canada (Trudeau) had trouble getting in because the addled Prez at the time thought he was a socialist and therefore a clear and present danger to us all. Homeland Security is making it hard now for foreign grad students to get in and those who are in are afraid to leave for visits home or conferences because they might not be let back in – putting a serious dent in the US research and educational system in fields like mine (chemistry and physics), not to mention making our foreign colleagues rethink any ideas about hosting international conferences in the US. I remember decades ago when two famous East German scientists were invited as plenary speakers to a conference held at my school – their government had no problem with it, but our government wouldn’t grant them visas (I think using the time-honored tactic of stalling so long that the event is over, and they applied long in advance). I’m on FBI lists myself (even had an illegal wiretap) for peacefully, nonviolently, and quite legally objecting to our government’s stupid wars.
So really, it’s not impossible at all that a foreigner could be barred from the US for frivolous reasons and yes, it can take years to fight it. Obviously that’s what the judge in this case thinks happened and it was due to unproven allegations by the guy’s ex, as part of a clear alienation pattern. When you have children with a guy, you can’t unilaterally do your best to deny him access to those kids after divorce no matter how much you dislike him. It seems here that the judge trusted the father to follow all rules to maintain contact between mom and the kids, but based on her previous behavior did not trust her to follow court orders to maintain contact with their father. He doesn’t doubt their ability to parent individually, but rightly doubts her ability to co-parent if she is in a position to make all the choices. She did this to herself. And why is it considered a fate worse than death to grow up in Europe?
Didn’t she hire a private detective? That might be what she meant by “tr[ing] to inquire about why Geirsch’s visa was revoked,” and maybe that’s why the judge saw that as Kelly “interfering with [her] children’s ability to see their father.”
I have watched the View and I tend to think Ms Rutherford is playing games with the visa revocation and not knowing ‘why’. As (was it Elisabeth Hasselback?) get saying ‘He’s in EXILE’…vile woman.
As someone who was not granted custody of her children via the Hague convention (they did eventually come to live with me about a year and a half later as their father was not particularly capable and they wanted to live with me, where they are still) I know better than most how hard this is. If it isn’t the Hague convention that is being invoked then there is a clear, reasoned rationale behind the judges decision. I don’t believe that mother’s have more rights than father’s do in custody cases. It should be based on what is BEST for the children.
People think the Hague Convention is like the almight God or something. Apparently Brazil didn’t get the memo. David Goldman had to fight for years to get his son back after his wife absconded with their son and then when she died in childbirth the “step-father’s” family continued to kidnap the child and only after our Secrtary of State and Senators and others got involved did they finally release his son and then the grandmother had the audacity to complain that David wouldn’t let her see her grandson. Go figure. The Hague convention doesn’t mean much if the country in which the child is living doesn’t abide by it.
There have been some awful cases between Euro signatories, too. If a local judge wants to ignore it, a lot will, it seems.
The UK doesn’t, though.
How can a judge do something so negative from the children’s perspective.
The children grow up with her as their safe and stable parent-figure, live in a certain culture, speak english and get used to a certain environment, just to have all that taken away from them to be sent to a different place they do not know, taken away from their most important figure in their life and be put in such a foreign environment where everybody speaks a different language and your mother is not there.
What on earth is wrong with the judge?
How could that be in any way for the benefit of the children?
No court in the world would have made such decision unless the mother was proved to be physically abusive, dangerous for the children and unfit due to severe mental problems, which is very far from any reservations that judge might have had regarding her treatment of the father of the children.
That’s absurd. That judge is simply doing a disservice and abusing the position of trust and power.
I don’t care what happened between the parents. Especially when the children are so young.
If the judge thought she should grant more visitation rights or enable the father to have some sort of arrangement then the judge should have ordered such visitation rights but not actually have the children move to France.
This is beyond belief.
I completely agree with you. this juge is an careless cold clueless idiot!
I am the victim of an international divorce highjacking, and it breaks my heart to even talk about it, but in a way, i’m relieved to know i’m not the only one – not as far as KR is concerned, but from the responses…
I was forced to confront a surprise divorce on French territory after my husband and his family had planned it – along with their attorney – for a year in advance. I did not speak French and was alone in a foreign country.
My husband told me it was blackmail and pressured me to “go home.” Good thing i couldn’t think of leaving my 4 yr. old American-born twins…he was trying to trick me into “abandonment.”
He did everything he could to get rid of me and not pay a dime. It was financial for him, he didn’t want to part with any of it. Money was always his true love. But i stuck it out for almost 3 years, paid every single bit of money i had left for my retirement, and fought for the right to be near my kids. The judge’s hands were tied…she saw the amount of money my ex and his family had paid, she saw that they had homes and cars and lives here and that i had nothing. That, and only that, she said, is what allowed it to be in the “best interest” of our kids…
It’s ten years later. I am still in France. I speak French now, and i teach English, can you imagine? And my kids are the two lights of my life. They say i’m their hero. I don’t know what the future will bring, but i was ready to risk mine just to show my kids how much i love them.
If any of you out there are in the same situation as me, please contact me.
Custody fights can get ugly, but I’ll save my sympathy for the men and women I see every day in the course of my job who can’t even dream of having the legal representation this woman had.
Ladies,
I am in a different time zone so forgive me for not answering in a timely manner.
Let me explain a little more
1) My ex-husband and I were divorced in 2007. We did not go to court. We had a settlement where we agreed that I would have sole custody of our son. That agreement was in place 2007-2011 when the Judge transferred custody.
2)I met my new husband in 2009 and we married in 2010. Before my new husband and I went to court, we approached my ex seeking permission to move. He refused. I then went to court to seek a modification of our custody order to relocate.
TG to answer yor question, NY is not one of those states where you can relocate when you have custody. You have to get court permission if the other party does not agree.
3) The Judge from the beginning did not want to hear the case and threatened me from the beginning that he was going to put me through the entire thing. Law guardians, forensics. What he meant was that he was going to so all he could to make sure I run out of money. This is what happens. You will go bankrupt fighting for your children because once the courts get a hold on you, you pay and pay.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Thank you all for the support.
I have been posting on this issue a lot because I am in the same situation. it is absolutely ridiculous what the family court system puts people through. I am a single mother of 2 who does not get a penny of childsupport. my ex gets paid off the books and claims to make nothing but wants sole custody of my two daughters one of them not even his. the court so farhas granted him everything he wished under the guise of parental alienation. he is pro se and I’m paying lawyer’s fees out the wazoo. at this point I am emotionally and financially bankrupt. and that’s exactly where they try to push you. none of this benefits the children and there has to be some way of bringing attention to this scheme called family court.
It’s sad BUT what is more important…your work schedule OR your kids. I know she has to make a living but it make me wonder what she probably said/did for the judge to almost dismiss her as mother and not take into account that children at these ages really need that maternal presence.
I feel sorry for the children the most. When I was 10 my mother divorced my father and took my sister and I from NY back to England where she lived. However as payback my dad decided to fight for custody (he thought if he won she’d come back). The high court in London decided that because we lived in New York for 10 years it was classed as ‘kidnap’ even though she was our mum.
My father won custody and took us back to New York…IT WAS HARROWING being away from our mum….in fact 17 years later i’m still traumatised from it. The court even asked who we’d rather live with and we both said mum!
I hope that this situation gets resolved soon because those children need their mother 🙁