Kelly Rutherford may keep her children in the US in violation of court order

67th Annual Cannes Film Festival - Portraits
Yesterday we heard that former Gossip Girl actress Kelly Rutherford, 45, was trying to make a federal case out of her custody battle in an attempt to keep her children, 5 and 7, with her in the US instead of sending them back to their father in Monaco. Rutherford’s children are scheduled to return next week to their father, a German man named Daniel Giersch. Giersch is unable to travel to the US as he cannot obtain a visa. Rutherford’s lawyer admits calling the state department to have Giersch’s visa revoked, and it is assumed that the judge took that into account when determining where the children would live.

Rutherford had her day in court and it did not go well. According to TMZ, the judge claimed that he did not have jurisdiction over this case. He did promise, however, to look into Giersch’s immigration status. Rutherford was reportedly in tears and said outside the courtroom that “My own country won’t save my children and I pay taxes!” TMZ has a video interview with Rutherford’s lawyer, made after the verdict, in which he states his essential argument – that the children were deported by the judge in California who presided over the custody case.

Rutherford’s latest legal move is news to her ex. Giersch’s lawyer told Radar Online that he’s only learning about this now and is currently preparing a response. Rutherford may also attempt to keep her children in the US, which would be in violation of court order and international custody laws. What’s more is that Giersch has supposedly paid for Rutherford to visit the children in France several times, so it’s not like he’s blocking her attempts to see them.

Rutherford had asserted in documents filed Monday that the children were illegally deported from the United States to live with Giersch, a German citizen, who had been granted custody after his visa was revoked. (During recent proceedings Rutherford’s former attorney, Matthew Rich revealed that he had actually been the one who called the State Department to get Giersch’s visa revoked.)

According to the court documents, Rutherford is seeking “an order declaring unconstitutional the California state order requiring [her kids] to live in a foreign country.” And she hinted that if she didn’t get it, she could take extreme measures.

“As children, Petitioners’ only option short of obtaining relief from this Court would be to have their mother retain them in the United States in violation of the California order, and have the the California court (or other jurisdiction) hold the mother in contempt and/or impose sanctions,” her court filing read. “Such an option would deny the children a meaningful remedy and expose the mother and her children to unjust punishment.”

But if the children aren’t returned to Giersch by August 20, he could file a police report in France, where he is currently living, which would get the FBI involved.

The Federal Parenting Kidnapping Prevention Act “encompasses the taking, retention or concealment of a child by a parent, other family member, or their agent, in derogation of the custody rights, including visitation rights, of another parent or family member. Because of the harmful effects on children, parental kidnapping has been characterized as a form of child abuse,” according to

Giersch’s attorney, Fahi Hallin told exclusively, “Daniel wasn’t given notice, or provided a copy of Ms. Rutherford’s legal papers. We are reviewing and will be preparing a response.”

Adding to Giersch’s fury, the attorney claims, is the fact that he has voluntarily paid for Rutherford’s expenses to travel to Europe to visit the kids.

“Daniel has voluntarily paid for Kelly to go to Europe on multiple occasions: plane tickets, housing, and car,” Hallin said. “No one ordered Daniel to do this, but it was something he wanted to do. Kelly is currently with the children in New York City. She can go to Europe anytime to see the children, and Daniel has supported that.”

The ongoing legal battle with her ex has forced the blond beauty to declare bankruptcy.

The once successful 45-year-old star now relies on an income of just $1,279.33 a month, according to court documents — a far cry from the $486,000 she used to pull in annually while Gossip Girl was on the air.

Rutherford has insisted the legal bills have been worth it, however. She has said, “I will never stop fighting for my children. They’re my babies and they’re very young and this is going to affect them profoundly and I want to be there as much as I can to show them that this isn’t my fault, this isn’t something I wanted.”

[From Radar Online]

This whole argument that the kids were deported falls flat for me. The judge ruled that they should be with their father. There are countless American children who live with a parent in a different country and visit their other parent in the US. This isn’t unique to Rutherford’s situation. Were all those children essentially deported? If a judge accepts this argument, doesn’t it open up the possibility that all non-custodial US parents can make a case that their children were deported?

I get that Rutherford is a concerned mother, by outside appearances, and that she wants to have her kids full time. It seems like she’s only hurting her children by continuing to fight their father in court. I should be fair, I don’t have any insight into the dynamic she has with her ex husband. Maybe this whole thing was incredibly unjust, maybe the guy really is shady and she’s a loving mother fighting back with everything she has. However it seems like she’s only hurting herself, and her kids, by continuing to fight this in court. Plus her kids have the expectation of returning to their father and Oma in Monaco. They’ve lived there for two years and they think they’re returning home soon. I bet she wishes she didn’t get her ex kicked out of the country.

Kelly Rutherford leaving the Martinez

The Club Monaco Southampton Store Opening

67th Annual Cannes Film Festival - Portraits

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

166 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford may keep her children in the US in violation of court order”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. K says:

    Something about her is just kind of…sinister? I don’t believe a word she says. Sometimes the mother isn’t the best person to raise the kids.

    • Lady Macbeth (Hiddles F.) says:

      It smells fishy to me too…..

    • QQ says:

      Right?! i was coming to say that the feeling I get from her is STRAIGHT UP Entitlement?, is that she wants her kids on her own terms and is not willing to coparent even though she picked that dude to marry and make kids not once but twice and she was perfectly willing to do anything NOT to share including accuse him of shady shit…and it all blew up on her face… And IN SPITE OF IT ALL she is still not willing to be mature about this, take the L and accommodate him or herself in a part time arrangement

      • Lady Macbeth (Hiddles F.) says:


      • Diana says:

        So true. Those are his kids, too, and unless there is truly something wrong with him, she needs to learn to co-parent in the best interests of her children.

        I can’t imagine how stressed these kids must be, ping ponging back and forth between two clearly hostile parents. So damaging.

      • insomniac says:

        I agree. As far as I can tell he’s never tried to block her from seeing their children; she’s the one who fixed it so he can’t return to the US. And she’s the one being all “NO NO NO MINE MINE MINE” with the kids.

        And it sure does look like Bankrupt Lady likes to shop in some ritzy stores. Is she broke like Tori Spelling is broke?

      • K says:


      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        I shade anyone who names their child Hermes.

      • Miffy says:

        QQ nailed it. My thoughts exactly.

        She’s totally winning mother of the year with her blatant disregard for her spoiled and entitled attitude potentially forcing her kids to emigrate not once but twice in a bid to get.her own way.

    • Belle Epoch says:

      NO sympathy, though she clearly expects it. She brought this on herself and has made things worse every step of the way. I bet the kids are better off with Dad than this wackadoodle.

    • Sherry says:

      I just flat out do not like her. Like someone else said, she seems to have an entitlement issue. She seems to forget that she was playing a billionaire’s wife and not actually one in real life. I think she pulled some really shady stuff with her ex-husband and now Karma is biting her in the behind. Also, the only time you see these kids is in pap shots when they’re with her mom, which leads me to think she’s called them to get the “adoring mother” photos. I am willing to bet they have a much healthier and happier life with their father away from all of their mother’s drama.

    • holly hobby says:

      She’s a cold hearted b—-h that’s why. Not too many people remember this but she was married for a hot minute to some international banker (her wedding was featured in INStyle magazine). When the magazine came out, she was already filing for divorce. Why? Because hubby #1 suffered a debilitating heart attack and she left him. Here’s the info:

      kelly rutherford’s life imitates her art
      She’s played hookers, groupies and back stabbing socialites, but Kelly’s real life packs more drama than any of her characters’ ever did. Her first husband, banker Carlos Tarajano, suffered a heart attack a few months after their marriage. The formerly vibrant young man was enfeebled, and Kelly grew ever more distant until she finally left him just six months after their vows.


      I sort of remembered this because hubby #1′s family were furious at her defection and went to the press about it. He died after she left.

    • Heather says:

      Maybe it was a not-so-bright idea to have his VISA revoked? Kinda backfired I’d say. What did they think would happen? I’m not aware of any reason why, as a father, he wouldn’t be allowed to have shared custody.

  2. AG-UK says:

    Lord what a mess. Revoked visa… maybe he had a long term US visa not the ESTA one.

    • Lady Macbeth (Hiddles F.) says:

      Children are 7 and 5, so my assumption is that he was a legal US resident there?

    • bettyrose says:

      As a European, can’t he just get a US tourist visa at point of entry like we do in Europe? What did he do to lose the right to even enter the country??

      • Lady Macbeth (Hiddles F.) says:

        If you get deported, there is a stamp on your passport. Therefore he’s been denied entry to US even for tourism.

      • bettyrose says:

        Thanks for the explanation. It’s hard not to confuse her with her GG character.

      • Miss M says:

        He was deported. He cannot entry US for , at least, 10 years.

      • Mixtape says:

        What he did to lose his right was get divorced from the US citizen to which he was married without doing the necessary paperwork while they were married to get a permanent resident green card. It might have gone unnoticed by the authorities for some time, but her lawyer called them up and tipped them off. She played dirty and she lost hard.

  3. Lady Macbeth (Hiddles F.) says:

    Maybe it is just me… but this lady (never saw her show at all) spent all the money she earned and now she doesn’t even have the money to travel and she doesn’t want to bother to do that at all. If she didn’t want to have this issue, maybe she shouldn’t have married a person with another nationality. And it is incredibly mean she had her ex’s visa revoked. Awful, really.

    • Lilalis says:

      How can you get somebodys visa blocked/revoked? Is it that easy to get somebody out of the country or did he actually do something illegal?

      • SunnySide says:

        It’s pretty easy to get it revoked. Who knows, maybe he did do something, but a visa status getting revoked isn’t proof either way unfortunately.

      • Dani says:

        She made a claim that he was illegal trading guns or something of the sort, maybe it was drugs, but she made it a huge thing and it ended up not being true in the end.

      • Stef Leppard says:

        I believe he was doing some shady business dealings and her lawyer let it be known so that his visa would be revoked. I could be wrong but that’s what I recall hearing.

      • Charlotte says:

        Didn’t she claim him to be an arms dealer or something? But she was full of it, even though there is apparently some genuine shadiness in his history somewhere.

        This whole story leaves me so uneasy. I know there’s way more to it, and I feel so sorry for the babies.

      • LAK says:

        If a person is accused, the immigration dept’s stance seems to be to revoke visa such that person has to leave the country, then carry out investigation.

        Unfortunately, being denied or revoked, even if it is later found to be baseless, counts against you when you later apply to re-enter the USA even if you are from a favoured ESTA nation.

      • Lady Macbeth (Hiddles F.) says:



      • minime says:

        That is exactly my question. I can’t understand how a person (who actually is also a multimillionaire) can get his VISA revoked after living for a considerable time in the USA and having children and so on and so on, without doing anything wrong. It’s difficult for me to understand how this is really possible. They are both sketchy, but I don’t think he’s such an innocent person as some want to believe. In the end, people don’t even know what he really does for a living! And what kind of legal system is that, that assumes his VISA was revoked without a reason, gives him custody of the children, forcing them to move to a foreign country away from their mom, instead of reversing a decision that was considered a mistake (revoking the VISA)?? That is all so strange. And wouldn’t she get legal trouble if she provided fake information to get him deported?? What a mess…

      • Tammy says:

        State Department found there was sufficient evidence to deport him…he was either involved in fraud or drugs/guns deal in South America (which is considered a terrorist act). Apparently she was not full of it or made it up because if she had a) he would not been deported and b) she’d be residing in a federal prison.

      • L says:

        @Tammy-you keep saying this-are you really Kelly in disguise?

        Anyways, no the State department did not find sufficient evidence to deport. Even a mere baseless accusation from her and her lawyers (which both have admitted to in court, and both have said they made up and only did to get the custody hearing to go their way) is enough. A accusation is enough. They deport solely on accusations all the time. Even once he was cleared-which he was by the State department-an investigation is enough to trigger it so that he can’t get a new visa.

        She’s not in prison because they don’t do that. They assume that the person is operating under the best interest. Even if it turns out later that the person made it up.

      • Tammy says:

        @ L, no I am not Kelly in disguise and you’re wrong…a baseless accusation is not enough to deport someone and revoke their visa.. the State Department had sufficient evidence to deport him.

        The grounds to revoke a non immigrant visa:

      • Erinn says:

        Tammy – both of those links are extremely questionable as ‘proof’. 1) anyone can upload anything to scribd. 2) The link you provided for the visa revocation says “US consular officials have broad discretion to revoke non-immigrant visas” – broad discretion, and the point of that lawyer’s website is to help out people who believe their visa’s have been revoked unfairly. Doesn’t exactly prove your point.

      • Tammy says:

        Why hasn’t he tried to get his visa reinstated, then?

      • Erinn says:

        Because he doesn’t have to? And there’s a process to do it. You can’t just march up and ask nicely and have it reinstated. He doesn’t NEED to go to the US. He has his children with him other than when they’re with their mother in the summer. I’m sure if she had the kids all the time, he would try to. But there’s nothing he needs to be in the US for.

      • FLORC says:

        She can easily do this to him, but Bieber keeps on going…
        We need her secret!

        1st time following this. So, if her kids go to Monaco could he keep them there and deny her rights to see them? Is this a real fear?

      • Lady Macbeth says:

        @ Florc

        Not without the intervention of a judge. If he illegally keeps his children in Monaco it would be like he kidnapped them.

      • ol cranky says:

        in this case, they asserted he was involved in illegal activity; his visa was revoked and he was deported just on her attorney’s say so. In the post 911 US, there isn’t much due process for someone here on a visa when someone else is hell bent and determined to concoct stories to get them deported (unless that someone is Justin Bieber who is just an evil plague on us and possibly a harbinger of the apocalypse)

      • jwoolman says:

        The US government has often used visa denial for political reasons. I know a doctor in Honduras who couldn’t even get a visa to fly over the US with a short stop to get to a Canadian conference on his specialty, malnutrition in children. His only crime was speaking out against illegal US-supported contra bases which displaced farmers, whose children were showing up in his clinic with diseases that would be mild for well-nourished children (which they used to be) but could be fatal for the malnourished. The US Embassy told him point blank that he would have to shut up if he ever wanted a visa. This is not an unusual occurrence, depending on the particular Administration in Washington. Now we have Homeland Security, which gutted the previously effective FEMA (resulting in the mess of the Katrina aftermath) and seems to have a life of its own. It is not at all hard to get accused falsely of terrorist supporting activities (I have been myself when very legally objecting in public to various stupid wars, they even tapped my phone) and once the accusation had been made- that makes you suspect regardless of the evidence against it. So I don’t find it hard to believe that just the accusation would be enough to deny him a visa. And she and her lawyer knew it when they concocted the scheme.

    • Audrey says:

      She could have probably gotten endorsements to make money if she didn’t do such crap

      What about the undue hardship on her kids of being ripped away from the dad who is raising them and would be unable to even visit?

      She’s self centered and is shooting herself in the foot. If she keeps the kids, she faces jail and total loss of custody. I’m sure he’ll already question whether he’ll be footing the bill for her to visit already

      • Bitca says:

        @ol cranky FTW.
        For instance, Nigella Lawson, Charles Saatchi’s ex–in the wake of the UK pap tableau showing him grasping her neck in a not-sexy manner while dining al fresco–is barred from entering the US, right? Nigella’s no Peter Doherty, or even a Mossie, but her ad-man husband found witnesses to expose her as a druggie in court, & under cross, she admitted to having used cocaine & marijuana. No more States-side biz for her.

        And this makes sense. Almost 50k US citizens are on no-fly lists now–& the DHS & other US Agencies, Bureaux, Depts, Units etc have approx 680k residents in the Terror Watch List dbase–all it takes is “reasonable suspicion” of any sort of terrorist connection. It follows, that if the US is such a hotbed of home-grown terrorism, we must err on the side of caution with foreigners wherever possible, even on grounds of Unreasonable Suspicion. Ergo, Ms Rutherford’s lawyer was acting in the nat’l interest by dropping hints re her latest ex, a (non-Saudi) foreigner. Her lovely kids look miserable in the above photos, but as Kelly implies, they are so very young; once they’re settled, any little upheavals will be forgotten soon…. :\

  4. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    She has made such a mess of this, and has been selfish and underhanded. I feel so sorry for those children.

  5. Trillian says:

    Well if it’s so important for her to live with her kids, she should move to Monaco. After all, she had a hand in making it impossible for the dad to stay in the US with them. Some parents really suck. Get over yourselves and put the kids’ welfare first!

    • lisa says:

      that makes total sense. she could come to the us if she gets a job. he would support her or help support her there.

      hell, i’ll move to monaco on his dime and spend time with those kids.

    • Stef Leppard says:

      I totally agree!! I get that she wants them in the US but if I were her, at this point I would cut my losses and move to Monaco and like work at McDonald’s or something. It’s not like she has anything going on career-wise in the US. And anyway, my kids would be more important to me than my career and living in the US but that’s just me. I’m sure other people don’t feel the same.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I agree. She made this mess, now she’s trying to circumvent the law to get her way. If being near her children was that important to her, I’m sure she could find a “normal” job in Europe.

    • TQB says:

      At first this seemed unreasonable but yeah, what the heck lady – it’s not like she’s working much here. She got him kicked out of the country; surprise, now she has to go, too. I’m on board.

    • holly hobby says:

      That would be a logical move for a sane person but not for her. Frankly, her career is on a down swing. She is too old to play ingenue in HW and I doubt there’s much demand for her. Why not move to Monaco and live off spousal support? The ex would probably support her since he’s already paying for her travel expenses.

    • Katie says:

      That’s what I was thinking. If I’d exhausted all possible way to keep my children in the US, I’d start figuring out how to move to where they’d be living. She’s not doing everything possible to stay with her kids, she’s doing everything possible to keep them from their father. It’s not about them. It’s about her.

    • lucy2 says:

      That’s what I’ve been thinking too. Her actions led to them all living there, and their lives are established there, so if she wants to be around them, she needs to go to them.
      And for heaven’s sake, it’s Monaco, it’s not like they’re living in a dangerous or impoverished area and she’d be downgrading her life to move to them.

  6. JennySerenity says:

    Wow, I do NOT see how that will work out, particularly as she’s the one who got her ex deported in the first place. Plus, I see an extremely pissed off family court judge when she realizes Kelly went over her head. I feel sorry for the children.

  7. SunnySide says:

    Serious parental alienation here. I feel sorry for the kids and their father. She seems like an even more vindictive and extreme Halle Berry to me. Like she thinks her kids are possessions and pawns to use to battle and punish their exes. Many children do not have good, loving, involved fathers and I hate seeing kids that do get pulled from them. Giersch’s cooperation with the court and facilitation of the childrens’ relationship with their mother speaks volumes to me. She has sabotaged him in every way (getting HIM deported in an effort to keep him from his children) and he is putting aside personal feelings for the sake of his children. I applaud his efforts and wish him and his children a peaceful resolution. Rutherford is vile.

    • eliza says:

      He got himself deported for shady business practices. That is on him. If he was such a great person, maybe he would still be in this country.

      I don’t feel sorry for either adult. This is all about trying to rule over the other party and the only ones who suffer are the kids.

      • Lady Macbeth (Hiddles F.) says:

        Hmm… the article above doesn’t say that. Pretty sure he was doing some shady business (I don’t think US authorities deport people with no reason) but the article is clear that her lawyer blew the whistle to the authorities. He was probably conducting his business in an illegal way and his ex wife out of revenge had him deported.

      • SunnySide says:

        Her lawyer admitted to making the call to get his visa revoked.

        Typically custody goes to the parent who facilitates a relationship between the other parent and the children… By all court documented evidence the only accommodating one is their father. He deserves custody… Their mother is cleat shady and vindictive. You just have to look at her court maneuvers to see that. She doesn’t seem to have her kids’ best interests in mind at all.

      • SunnySide says:

        Btw great people get deported from the US all the time. Immigration is complicated. I’m a US citizen married to someone from another country and have looked into the system quite a bit personally. Also a friend of mine was deported due to his business being “too successful”. Not a whiff of any shady practices; it was decided that his business competed too much with the businesses owned by citizens and his visa was revoked. His kids were ripped out of school and the whole family went back to Switzerland.

      • don't kill me i'm french says:

        He’s bussiness lawyer .HER lawyer said to the Department Giersh was involved in fraud and weapons dealing in South Africa when he worked in Europe what it can be considered as terrorism under Victory act in USA.The Department found no clue that it’s true but just the allegations and the investigation for terrorism are enough to revoke his visa.

      • Lady Macbeth (Hiddles F.) says:


        Goodness gracious!! That was unfair.

        My husband and I have different nationalities too, but being both EU nationals we don’t have issues with visas being revoked, thank God!

    • Stef Leppard says:

      “even more vindictive and extreme Halle Berry”
      And that’s really saying something!

  8. Toot says:

    Definitely on the father’s side.

    He’s been fair and even allowed the children to spend the summer like the court order says. He’s not allowed to come to the country thanks to her, so she’s trying to totally cut him out of her kids’ life.

    If he hasn’t abused the children, and there hasn’t been any evidence released of this and we know Kelly would release this if she had it, I can’t side with Kelly. Kelly’s just coming off as a cold hearted cow to me.

  9. Olivia says:

    Yeah. Please. She created this situation when she had her lawyer intervene to revoke the visa. And assuming there was no cause other than this woman’s ill-will towards her ex, I’d be willing to bet that the lawyer’s intervention amounts to an ethical violation as well.

    On a bright note, I bet those kids are going to be just fine in Germany. It’s a lovely place, I understand.

    • Tammy says:

      State Department found sufficient evidence to deport him.

      • anon33 says:

        note the use of the word “blog.” not a reputable source, either.

      • jwoolman says:

        There are a significant number of Americans who are convinced that the USA is the only free country in the world, the only place anybody can be truly happy, and that it is the worst possible fate to go live in another country unless on a US military base. That’s where the antagonism toward the custody decision is coming from. Heaven forbid that a US-born child go to school and live somewhere else and even (gasp!) become fluent in other languages. Fate worse than death. I suspect the attitude is traced back to days when immigrants essentially has to cut all ties with their homeland because of the difficulty and expense of travel. Most immigrants actually weren’t fleeing persecution but hoping for better economic opportunities. So even when they ran into corruption and very difficult times here, they convinced themselves that this still had to be the best of all possible worlds (even when it obviously wasn’t).

  10. aenflex says:

    I don’t know the story at all, and I do feel for her in some measure. I take it as a lesson – don’t do anything to jeopardize your custodial rights as a parent.

  11. Lexie says:

    Exactly, CB. Did she think she could get her husband kicked out of the country and keep the kids to herself? This is all the result of her shady actions. And I remember reading about her first marriage. I get no good feelings about this lady.

    • Tx says:

      +1. That’s exactly what she thought! but she and her lawyer are not too bright, apparently. His rights do not cease to exist once he leaves the country

      • LNG says:

        She seems to be getting some absolutely terrible legal advice (or is not listening to the good advice that she is getting!!!). The second she meddled with his visa she showed that she had no intention of fostering a relationship between him and the kids.

        He, on the other hand, is getting great advice. By doing everything he can to facilitate the children’s relationship with their mother (going above and beyond by paying for her to exercise access), he is making it very very difficult for any court to find that the current custody situation is not in the best interests of the children. She needs to be careful, if she retains the kids in the US in violation of the court order I could see a court ordering that she only get access to the kids in Europe, and even requiring that it be supervised access.

  12. Lilix40 says:

    Jesus. What a mess.

    One of my uncles had a similar situation a few years back (as in, co-parent in different countries, not the legal battle). My cousin was born in the US, when my uncle and the kid’s mom were still married. After the divorce, my uncle was granted my cousin’s custody (the mother had some serious drugs issues). Fast forward a few years, and the company he works for sends him back to Brazil. They went to court, figured out how things would work out regarding the mom’s visitation rights (my cousin was still underage) and that was it. He occasionally travels to the US to visit his mom and brothers, and talks to her regularly on the phone, Skype, or whatever. There was a bit of drama, but nothing to this level.

    Fortunately, my uncle and his ex-wife were able to put my cousin’s best interests as their priority.

  13. Tig says:

    Not surprised with the judge’s ruling- Federal courts almost never interfere with state custody rulings. I sincerely hope she’s not nuts enough to refuse to send them back- being jailed for possible kidnapping would likely mean she would only see them in Monaco.

    • RobN says:

      Not surprised, either. The Federal court system does not want to be in the business of overseeing child custody agreements that have historically been the purview of the state systems. I’d be surprised if the claim isn’t tossed purely on jurisdictional grounds.

    • anon33 says:

      I’m glad someone else said this. The absolute hubris of both she and her lawyer taking this to the federal courts is rather astiounding.

  14. Anna says:

    Wasn’t she absolutely horrible to her ex-husband right up until he died?
    I never really liked her but when I found out she hid the birth of their daughter from the father and refused to put his name on the birth certificate it completely turned me off of her. I bet she regrets causing all those problems with his visa and hiring a private detective to follow him because he’s got the kids now. She seems like a very mean and spiteful woman.

    • KAI says:

      She divorced her first husband shortly after his heart disease diagnosis and he died a few years later. She’s a piece of work.

  15. GeeMoney says:

    I find it hard to believe that any woman on this site would be insanely critical of her and what’s she done to try and have her kids full time. I mean, damn. The woman went broke trying to be with her children. She has sued the gov’t to be with her children. Obviously, she REALLY loves them and wants to take care of them – look at all of the hoops she’s jumping through to win custody of them! Have some sympathy.

    Perhaps I have a soft spot for her b/c I was a huge Melrose Place and Gossip Girl fan… but I hope that her and her ex-husband can be adults and really try and work together and come to some type of joint custody agreement, especially for the sake of the children.

    • Greyson says:

      You should read up more on this story. She has been vindictive and trying to cut him out of their children’s lives every since she decided she didn’t want to be with him. The reason he has primary custody is because one of her schemes backfired..

      • Dani2 says:

        Exactly. I have no sympathy for her at all, it’s the kids that I feel sorry for, they’re the ones that will really suffer the consequences of her actions.

    • starrywonder says:

      She lost custody because the family court judge rightfully smacked her down and said she setting up her own kids to be alienated from their father. I don’t have sympathy for this woman. Everyone about the ex’s visa being revoked is what caused the ire with the family court judge. She wanted him gone completely so she could have the kids to herself and it backfired when the judge ruled that her husband could have primary custody. What she is talking about doing is kidnapping. Frankly if the situation was reversed everyone would be jumping up and down regarding the husband kidnapping his children from her.

    • Talie says:

      I agree, I’m aghast at how a majority of female commenters continually treat celebrity mothers like the devil and the fathers are always angelic. Did they have a bad breakup and she acted irrationally — probably. Is that evidence that she is an unfit or unstable or unloving mother… um, no.

      A lot about this case is fishy, but it makes zero sense how the woman who carried these children in her womb is having them ripped away from her.

      • Dani2 says:

        Urm, I think the fact that she lied to get him removed from the country, refused to put his name on the birth certificate of their daughter, tried to terminate his parental rights is indeed proof that she is a bad mother. A good mother wouldn’t do the things she’s done. She would put her children first but all she’s done all she can to erase their father from their lives.
        And I haven’t seen posters on this site continually treating celebrity mothers badly whilst treating celebrity dads well, you can’t just go around fabricating stories to support your argument.
        This lady is in the wrong, it’s obvious.

      • Scarlet Vixen says:

        Can we please not forget that this woman also quickly left her first husband after he had a severe heart attack? Or that she left husband #2 while pregnant with his child, didn’t even tell him when their daughter was born (he learned from media coverage!), then repeatedly refused to put his name on the birth certificate–even after being court ordered to do so?? Having a ‘womb’ does not make this woman a saint, a good parent, or even a decent human being. She has decided that those children are hers and hers alone, and will do anything and everything to get what she wants. That makes her not just a bad parent, but a bad person. I am a mother of 3 young children, and I do not feel the need to take her side or even sympathize with such a vile woman simply because we both have vaginas.

      • starrywonder says:

        @Scarlet Vixen. Yeah I heard about her leaving her first husband after he got diagnosed with a heart disease and I just shook my head. She’s got issues.

      • Lady D says:

        Talie, this woman has bent over backwards to alienate the children from their father. She is doing everything to keep these children from their father. Do you really think that is best for them?.

      • astra says:

        I’m aghast at how some women defend the indefensible actions of other women simply because they are women.

      • Lunch Money says:

        She is the one “ripping away” the children from their father. Having a womb does not make you a saint. Many women use their children for financial and/or emotional gain. This woman is clearly not over her bad marriage and still acting in an irrational & manipulative manner. Family Court judges are good at smelling BS. She made a shady play in court, it backfired and she got called on it. The priority is the best interest of the children. Their father seems to be trying to comply with fostering joint parenting. She just keeps playing the poor mommy card in the media. Her money would have been better spent on a psychiatrist.

      • littlestar says:

        Just because she carried them in her womb (I really dislike when people use that argument, because there are plenty of crappy mothers out there, just because they carried them in their body doesn’t mean they should automatically have any rights to them) doesn’t mean she is excused from her basically kidnapping her children. Her behaviour during legal matters makes her seem very questionable and sketchy – I wouldn’t be surprised if that behaviour extended itself into how she raises/behaves around her children.

      • holly hobby says:

        Just because you have baby making parts doesn’t mean you’re a good mother. Also you can’t make babies without the almighty sperm. No one demonizes mothers and makes fathers saints. It is what it is.

      • K says:

        Not seen that much support for what Tom Cruise did over his eldest kids, nor Charlie Sheen’s shenanigans. Bad parents are bad parents.

    • insomniac says:

      “Any woman on this site?” Why should I side with her just because we’re both women?

      • Dani2 says:

        +1 Like another poster said, if it was the dad that had done what’s she’s doing, a lot of people would be calling it “kidnapping”.

    • original kay says:

      Equal rights are equal rights.

      What does her sex have anything to do with this situation?

      There is a comment about the children being”ripped from her womb”. Dramatic much?
      so fathers do get the same rights because they don’t carry the baby? bullshit.

      once the kid is born, it’s all fair game in love and war. she chose war, she is losing badly and has only herself to blame.

    • L says:

      They technically have 50% joint custody, but since because of her actions (she’s admitted in court and her lawyer said in court that they purposefully made the call to get his visa revoked)-he has primary custody. She’s able to visit him and the kids, and the kids come to visit her full time all summer.

      He paid for her last two trips to Europe. He’s been the one doing the work. Her being a celebrity has nothing to do with it. We’re critical because she’s clearly trying to game the system to not just ‘get her kids’, but to make sure that the ex-husband has no visitation and no contact with the kids. There’s a difference

      And frankly, since the kids are German citizens (because of dad), if he wanted to he could move them to Germany and then she wouldn’t be able to do a darn thing about it. But because he’s trying to have their children have a relationship with BOTH parents-he hasn’t even threatened it or used it against her.

      • minime says:

        I still don’t understand why people continue saying that “if he wanted to he could move them to Germany and then she wouldn’t be able to do a darn thing about it.” What does that really means?? Is she banned from Germany or what? Once they enter in Germany they can never go back? They are in Monaco (not that far away). Plus, how does anyone know that these kids are German citizens? German law for citizenship is pretty complex, they might or not be Germans but it’s not really a granted thing. People seem to be “filling the gaps” in this strange story just to please their sided opinion…

      • Valois says:

        I think they are German citizens, minime. But that doesn’t mean he’d come back to Germany with them and all her parental rights would be taken away from her, that’s not how our system works, definitely.

    • janeFR says:

      Being a mother and loving your kids means wanting to be with them But still doing what is the best for THEM.
      She definitively lacking on the second, and more important, part.

    • The Original Mia says:

      I find fault with any parent that tries to alienate their kids from a loving parent. Be it Tom Cruise or Halle Berry. Wrong is wrong regardless of sex.

      Kelly was ordered by the courts to attend parenting classes. She refused. She was told to work on a co-parenting plan with her ex-hubby. She wouldn’t. She was told to add him to the birth certificate. She didn’t. Then, when things weren’t going her way, she reported him for arms dealing, possible terrorism and his Visa was revoked. In post-9/11 USA, it doesn’t take much other than a whisper of terrorism to get your butt booted. So yeah, absolutely no sympathy for this mother who hasn’t given one freaking bit about the lasting effects of her mean-spirited, vindictive actions on her children.

    • Montrealise says:

      I can’t believe that you expect us to take her side just because she’s a woman! As a female attorney who practices family law, I have seen women like her all too often – women who do everything they can to cut their ex out of their kids’ lives. And they’re not motivated by love for their children, as you seem to believe – they’re motivated by their overwhelming hatred of their ex, which is greater than their love for their kids. Kelly played dirty, thinking that if she got her ex’s visa revoked, he’d never have any opportunity to see the kids again. It backfired on her, big-time. And she’s still playing dirty – note the comments by her ex and his lawyer that they were taken by surprise by her latest court maneuver because they didn’t get the paperwork in time?

    • lunchcoma says:

      I don’t think any parent deserves to have her children full time solely on the basis that she’s a woman and the children’s other parent is a man. In cases where the other parent is abusive or otherwise unfit, then the parent who is fit should have sole custody. In pretty much every other circumstance, I think it’s beneficial for children to be able to have regular contact with both their parents. If Rutherford had agreed, she wouldn’t be in this situation.

    • holly hobby says:

      She’s not suing the government to get her kids. She’s making a baseless claim in federal court. She put herself in this pickle. If she played nice and did everything the judges ordered her to do, we wouldn’t be discussing this today.

    • holly hobby says:

      Please stop making her sound like a poor put upon wife. This isn’t a Lifetime movie. She put herself in this pickle by siccing the INS on her ex. Like everyone says here, custody doesn’t end just because your ex is shipped outside the country.

      You know if this debacle really had legs, Congress would have taken a look at it or it would have gotten bigger press coverage. It’s nothing but fodder for the gossip shows because if you look at the whole history of the case, she was instrumental in getting herself in this pickle and she was unreasonable. No sympathy here. I’m saving it for those who need it.

  16. Size Does Matter says:

    I can’t see this maneuver, while creative in my opinion, turning out well for her. The federal judge will feel manipulated and won’t like being asked to go around the original court, which typically retains jurisdiction. Family courts have pretty high standards for changing custody (usually requiring a showing that there has been a material and substantial change against the child’s best interests in the previously-ordered situation) to discourage warring parents from continually going back to court and maintain stability for the child. So instead she went to federal court, which don’t have family law jurisdiction, even in international cases. Unless she can establish an exception to the rule in the treaty requiring that they go back (such as violence), I think she will lose.

    Such a strange, sad case.

  17. M.A.F. says:

    I have zero respect for women who use their children in these types of cases. I’m bias because my brother is going through a divorce & the his soon-to-be ex-wife is crazy & the fear is she might get custody of their daughter even though she is unfit. I’m not saying Rutherford is an unfit mother but to keep your children from their father is just wrong.

  18. Cinderella says:

    She is losing it over this battle. She needs to stop before she does something really bad.

  19. Jenny12 says:

    I thought I read he was deported for shady business dealings. It seems unfair that Kelly cannot have her kids because their dad can’t afford to visit them in the US. Something is weird here. The kids are losing all around. Here is a news article about it:

    • SunnySide says:

      He can afford to but he is not permitted to visit the US because of a revoked visa. He pays for her to visit the kids… Pretty darn generous I’d say.

      • Lady D says:

        I read part of the custody agreement was him paying for her to fly to France 6 times a year to see her children. I read this while the custody battle was on-going.

    • don't kill me i'm french says:

      He was deported because of an investigation for terrorism under Victory act ( a part of her allegations was fraud and weapon dealing in South Africa )The Department found no clue that it’s true but just the investigation made him to lose his visa. Their divorce judge thought it was a strategy to slip up the kids from their father

      I don’t say Giersh is perfect here but he did many efforts for that she sees their kids

    • bettyrose says:

      First, LOL @ “forced to live in France.” Second, wtf @ “neither parent is a French citizen.” The father is an EU citizen and France is in the EU. Is that just shoddy journalim or am I missing something?

      • starrywonder says:

        He is living in France in order for her to be able to visit them more regularly. She initially claimed him living where ever he was originally going to move too would be too much of a hardship for her to fly there and see her children. He is paying for her flights, stays, and cars. Honestly the woman is just being nasty as the day is long at this point.

      • Lady D says:

        should have read your comment before I left mine, starrywonder.

      • Ronia says:


        If he lives in Monaco, what does it have to do with France and the EU? Monaco is a sovereign microstate. It’s a constitutional monarchy, with Prince Albert II as head of state. Only its defense would be France’s responsibility under certain conditions. Monaco is NOT “in France”. Monaco is NOT formally part of the European Union.

      • bettyrose says:

        Ronia – That was a direct quote from the article posted by Jenny12. The article says he lives in France but is not a citizen, which seems like a glaring inaccuracy to me (especially if he lives in Monaco, as you point out). I was commenting on the quality of journalism, not the situation itself.

    • Greyson says:

      I heard she lied on him and his visa was revoked. Immigration later found out it was based on a lie, but it cannot be overturned.

    • Jenny12 says:

      I honestly don’t know much about it- just tried to go to a news source that seemed reputable and neutral.

      • anon33 says:

        IT SAYS IT RIGHT IN THE ADDRESS-IT’S A BLOG. A blog is not a reputable news source no matter who writes it.

      • bettyrose says:

        It was posted by a legit news source, though. The only reason I found the article questionable was because of the details (as in my post above) but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suspect a reputable news source to vet their bloggers.

  20. Jess says:

    Jesus, something about her really bothers me. She comes off as entitled and spoiled. I understand fighting this in the beginning but it’s time for her to grow up and accept reality, she’s the one who had his visa revoked and it completely screwed her. Sounds like he’s at least making an effort by paying for her to visit the kids, if they meant that much to her she would move to where they are and call it a day. Keeping them here is only going to make the situation worse.

  21. ML says:

    There’s a reason his visa was revoked, because of his shady business practices, she only reported him for it, what’s wrong with that?
    This man is not some doting father, the kids are being raised by his mother and nannies, not him, and they only get to see their mother a few times a year, how is this situation better then being raised by their mother? The kids are little and need their mother,and should be with her full time and go to visit him on holidays, that is the better situation and I can’t believe the judge didn’t go this way in the first place.

    • starrywonder says:

      It was revoked because her lawyer purposely reported the guy. There was an investigation that found nothing but due to the way that the Victory Act works once an investigation was dealt with his visa was revoked period. The family court judge ruled against Kelly R in the first place since it was found during the initial custody hearings that she had done this on purpose in order to bolster her own case. She thought (stupidly) him having his visa revoked would have the judge declare her the primary custodial parent. She was also at one time trying to have his parental rights terminated. She wouldn’t even put his name on their last child’s birth certificate because of this case. I have no sympathy for any parent that purposely goes about trying to destroy the others relationship with their kids. No matter what happens between the two adults someone needs to remember that their are kids involved. Unfortunately only the father seems to be thinking of them since he keeps paying for Kelly R to fly back and forth to see her kids as much as she wants.

    • Scarlet Vixen says:

      She didn’t ‘just report him for it’–she MADE IT UP in an effort to get him booted from the country so she could keep the children all to herself. No evidence was ever found, and nothing was ever proven. SHE is the deceitful and shady one, not the father. He was made every attempt to co-parent civilly and to assist her in seeing the children.

      And this idea that children ‘need’ their mother more than their father is such an archaic and gross way of thinking. Who needs a lying, deceitful, mother who will do whatever she can to alienate children from their father when they have a loving father who seems to treat them well, can easily afford to take care of them and has a supportive family unit?? Some women are sh*tty parents. Period.

      • Greyson says:

        Agreed! And before they split, Daniel was the primary caregiver in the home for their son!

      • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

        And my question is if Daniel was deported for arms dealing i.e. illegal business practices, how is it that HE ended up with custody of the kids, and didn’t get any sort of jail time? Yeah. Complete BS.

  22. InvaderTak says:

    Shes worse than Halle Berry. She needs to be slapped metaphorically speaking. There’s no excuse for what she’s doing.

  23. Greyson says:

    I found this on another site, but this is the possible reason visa was revoked:

    “In addition, someone reported to U.S. authorities that Giersch is involved in selling illegal arms in South Africa. If proven (and it never has been), that allegation would, under U.S. law, brand Giersch a terrorist. And, as a potential terrorist, the Victory Act mandates that, as a citizen of a foreign country, he not remain in the United Sates. So Giersch’s visa was revoked.”

    That’s pretty dirty if Kelly was responsible for this allegation. Note, following this Daniel Giersch has not been convicted or proven as an arms dealer!

    • starrywonder says:

      yeah this was why his visa was revoked and her lawyer admits in this article that he was the one who contacted the State Department. This came out during the initial custody case which is why the judge ruled against Kelly R once it was found out that she was the cause of the man not being able to remain in the U.S. anymore.

    • Lady Macbeth (Hiddles F.) says:

      In fact, if it was proven he would have to leave France too, because he is not a French national. In case of terrorism/weapon dealing convictions, people are relocated to their original countries.

  24. Green Is Good says:

    She’s doesn’t care about the kids well-being. She wants to punish her Ex. Sane co-parenting? Please! Abiding by the Family court decision? Pfft! That’s for peasants!

  25. skippy says:

    I wonder if she is mentally ok? Sounds like she needs help.

  26. gooner says:

    Her kids weren’t deported – their father was. The kids are US citizens: they were born on US soil, plus even if they weren’t they would likely be eligible as their mother is a US citizen and would meet the residency requirements of passing citizenship onto them. Citizens cannot be deported (unless their citizenship was revoked due to being fraudulently obtained).

    I also read that in a year or two, he can revisit the US visa situation, and at that time custody arrangements will be reviewed. Yeah the situation sucks, but it isn’t permanent.

    I can certainly appreciate her pain at being separated from her children, but these antics are not doing her any favours. She may be charged with kidnapping if she doesn’t put them on the plane to Europe and could lose custody full-stop. Not to mention the damage this is doing to those poor children. All because she isn’t getting her way. SMH.

  27. PS says:

    Monaco is not a french city, it’s a state. In order to establish residency there you have to be very rich or to be monegasque and only the King can grant you nationality. But french cities like Menton and Nice are not far at all, so you can live there and go to Monaco everyday, a lot of (non rich) people actually work in Monaco and live in France.

    It seems like KR has her real life confused with her tv roles, so sad for the children.

    • PS says:

      (edit : the Prince, not the King)
      and you can be born in Monaco and never be a monegasque

    • Ronia says:

      Thank you! I was feeling I had entered Wonderland where Monaco suddenly was France and geography was extracurricular activity.

  28. Jane says:

    At first I thought this was the actress from “Lost”. Glad it is not, (Lost forever!). I did see this actress discuss her problems on the View, maybe a year back. She seemed nice enough. Maybe not. What a crazy web!

  29. holly hobby says:

    I’m not commenting on the relationship because who really knows what goes on between two people but this law suit is a bunch of baloney! She also has lousy attorneys because the first thing you do when you file a lawsuit is that you must serve a copy of it to the other party. Since this is the first time the father heard about the case, she and her legal representatives clearly wanted to do this behind the father’s back. USDC is set up for e-filing now (yes, everything is served via email so that international mail reason no longer applies).

    I doubt a federal judge will look into the case. There probably won’t even be a hearing because the judge would just remand it to state court.

    She’s the one who’s hurting her children by pulling these stunts. I frankly find her “not all there.”

  30. Leaflet says:

    I don’t know what’s going on as far as her reasoning behind getting her ex banned from America, but that was poor decision making on her part. It’s sad that she is basically living in poverty and has sacrificed her career and finances for it, but it is worth it because it’s her kids. I can’t deny the rationale behind her thoughts. It would be difficult for any loving and involved parent to carry on with their life knowing that their kids aren’t even in the same country as they are in and won’t be able to see them in a regular basis, but she has bought this on herself in some way. She needs to realize that.

    • An says:

      Living in poverty? She’s still walking around in her Hermes gear, shopping at luxury stores. She’s rich people broke, not poor people broke (the real kind). I have no sympathy for her.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        Not to mention that she’s still able to afford the Hamptons! She was quoted as saying how much she enjoys time with the children, even if it’s just sitting in the car in traffic between South Hampton and East Hampton.

    • Skipper says:

      I agree – poor reasoning and decision-making here (and possibly poor legal advice), but I sort of get it: the love for your children goes beyond logic and rational, reasonable thinking at times. They are your heart and soul – what wouldn’t a parent do to have their child(ren) with them. She would probably be criticized for not fighting for them too. It’s easy from the outside to say what she “should be” doing, but it’s entirely different when you’re actually living it.

  31. lunchcoma says:

    I’ll join in the chorus of commenters who aren’t having much sympathy. She thought that if she had her ex deported, she wouldn’t have to deal with visitation issues or shared custody, and it came back to bite her.

    If she’s truly only making $1300 a month (I’m not sure how that works in New York City unless someone else is financially supporting her or she’s living off savings), she should see if she can find a way to relocate to France or Monaco, find some way of earning money there, and seek child support from her former husband.

    It doesn’t help that when I went to her Wikipedia page, I read about her first marriage, which she ended shortly after the wedding when her husband was diagnosed with heart problems. Illness can obviously disrupt even a healthy marriage between well-meaning people, but the overall picture I’m getting of her is of someone unkind and self-centered.

  32. Manjit says:

    Does she really just want the children or does she want the children and the child support they would entitle her to? Sounds to me like she has become accustomed to a certain way of life and the only way she can afford that is if the children live with her and her ex pays for that lifestyle to continue.
    If she doesn’t return the children to their father she should be charged with kidnapping, that’s what she’d expect if he did that to her?

    • Pumpkin Pie says:

      That would sound logical in a way, but then she didn’t want the father’s name on her daughter’s birth certificate?

  33. Dany says:

    My god Kelly move to Monaco or France! That´s the only way your kids have both parents around. Her ex is a rich man, i bet the spousal support will allow her a good life. She can still travel and work in the USA, but she would mainly live with her kids.

    You never hear her ex crying in talk shows, this guy pays everything for Kelly´s visits and willingly sends the kids in the USA to be with their mom. It´s so sad that this guy seems to be the only parent thinking about the kids.

    Here is her ex with their kids welcoming Kelly in France:

  34. may23 says:

    Unless their mother is a bad one children should be with their mother first. The fact that she banned her husband from the US is cruel and wrong, he should be fighting that.
    Yet, when it comes to choosing, I strongly believe children need their mother first.

    • holly hobby says:

      Why so they can grow up and become spoiled, entitled, cold blooded narcissists? That’s not the kind of influence I look for in a parent – that’s right Parent, not mom or dad!

    • Ronia says:

      I’m with you. The connection mother-child goes far beyond any everyday stuff. This naturally excludes abusive parents of both sexes who should be kept away from children at all times but this case is not such. I am sometimes truly grateful I don’t live in the USA. The equity mania could have taken my children away from me anytime and I would have not lived through that. Everything in moderation. Equity especially. My boys at this age (all the way to 9 or 10) hated being sent to their grandparents to the seaside for a month. They were so disturbed, even when my husband was there, they needed me on the phone half of the time, I read bedtime stories on the phone each night, they just didn’t want anyone else to do it. As simple as that. Little children still have a very strong connection to mom. Very strong. Instinctive connection. I can’t imagine how these children feel… meeting their mother with a flag at the airport… heartbreaking.

    • lisa says:

      how does having a vagina make you a better person?

    • Illyra says:

      “Tender years doctrine”… it’s mostly BS I think. In this case particularly so.

  35. debra says:

    Hamptons-Magazine just published an interview with Kelly Rutherford… in my opinion, a bunch of biased BS.. the questions fed to her and her answers make her appear delusional to me.. she claims to have no idea why her ex was exiled from the country.. ?really? her ex lawyer confessed to reporting him so he would lose his visa… yet she has no idea why?– She says her kids think the situation is unfair? she tells them that she is a US citizen and they are US citizens so that’s why they shouldn’t have to live in france? I know kids are smart, but does a 7 and 5 year old really understand all the complexities involved in this case? and realize that if they come to live with their mother, that they will very rarely be able to see their father? I shudder to think of the things she tells them when they are with her. She also says because he, as a foreigner is being treated better than a tax paying citizen— when she filed for bankruptcy, it is reported she owed the IRS 350,000 in taxes for 2012, so “tax paying citizen” is a joke. And what kind of idiot does it take to actually put in legal documents to the federal court that if you don’t get your way, you could be forced to break the law? that’s why she spent 1.5 million on legal fees, her lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.. the 1.5 million could have paid for a small apartment close to her kids, and instead of flying there so often she could have gone once a month and stayed for a week or so (since she is essentially jobless) and speaking of her being broke,, she’s spending the summer in the Hamptons– I want to be broke like that

  36. Pumpkin Pie says:

    She’s got this innocent look yet she seems to be so mean and vindictive. Yes, don’t judge a book by its cover

  37. Miss M says:

    I saw the video TMZ posted when they asked her questions. She seemed unprepared, always looking to the lawyers to answer “tougher” questions and her “innocent” look and “concern” for her kids did not convince me.

    If she continues trying to ALIENATE the father of her children, she should lose any legal rights she has over them.

  38. Ginger says:

    Thank God my ex and I can co parent peacefully. My now 12 year old has watched some of his friends and his cousin go through some hard times with their divorced parents. He’s even thanked us for getting along because of it. It’s brought tears to my eyes. Even though his father and I are no longer together we have both agreed that our son is the best thing in our lives and the best thing to come out of our relationship. ALWAYS put the needs of your kids first!!

  39. DanaG says:

    If she refuses to send them back she will be arrested and then the children will never see her. Just because you are a mother does not automatically make you the best parent. Your delusional if you think all mothers are cut from the same cloth. I think there is something more to it him having the majority of custody and she has proved to be a liar and is wanting to cut the father out of the kids lives she deserves all she gets. How is she paying these lawyers fees and holidaying in the Hamptons if she is broke? It costs a lot of money to plead a case in any court let alone the Surpreme Court she is getting it from somewhere. she just doesn’t want to lose it has nothing to do with being a mother. The children deserve to be in a stable environment where they aren’t being used I have no doubt money is on her mind and if she had custody she would be wanting major child support. The Family Court really frown upon threats like this she is going to find herself in even more trouble and it could work out that they cut down her visits or require them to be supervised etc if she can’t be trusted with the kids.

  40. Merritt says:

    Where do the kids want to live? At 5 and 7 I feel they are old enough to make a choice about who they live with full time. This shouldn’t be about who/where they are forced to live. It should be about who they want to live with.