Kelly Rutherford has 113k signatures on WH petition: ‘it’s about Constitutional rights’

Kelly Rutherford Skyped in to TMZ live yesterday to talk about her White House petition urging President Obama to step in and issue an executive order in her custody case. You can read the background on this case here, but the gist is that Kelly got her ex husband kicked out of the country and that a judge ruled in 2012 that their children, now aged 8 and 5, could live with him overseas. Kelly’s ex, Daniel Giersch, pays for her to fly back and forth to see their kids and they get to stay with Kelly all summer in New York.

After her case was dismissed on the federal level, with the court ruling that “the children have not been deported” and that “it would plainly be improper for the federal courts to assume jurisdiction over the case,” Kelly and her lawyer started the White House Petition. Kelly’s lawyer made multiple references to the fact that this was somehow a political problem for Obama and a “very embarrassing situation” for him. Kelly is the only one who should be embarrassed, and she’s clearly not. She got the required 100,000 signatures on her petition after Kim Kardashian, who is so well known for being a devoted mother, retweeted it. On TMZ live, Kelly and her lawyer explained why the Obama administration should send her kids to live with her in the US, and it’s about the fact that Monaco has now taken jurisdiction over her custody case.

What do you expect Obama to do in an individual custody fight?
The thing is, it’s not about… custody, it’s about my children’s Constitutional rights as US citizen and they’ve been violated. They were sent to a foreign country with an unenforceable order in that country so Monaco has taken jurisdiction. Now my husband has… filed to take all my rights away and that is set for June 20th or 22nd in Monaco and we are just shocked by this. He has no interest in co-parenting or in being a father who has his kids’ best interest at heart.

Ideally what would you like to see happen next?
I think it would be wonderful for somehow to show how much they appreciate US citizens. I think whoever brings my kids home is going to be pretty much a hero. I mean they’re going to be doing the right thing for children, for citizens of America. It’s a very pro-America thing to do. If something went wrong, we’re not saying it’s their fault, we’re saying we really need some help here.

Suppose Obama issues an executive order. You can’t send the Marshals over to France and pick the kids up and put them on a plane
Lawyer: I think we’re going to have the state department officials on our side and persuade Monaco officials to do the right thing. Prince Albert is a very influential guy over there… we’re really hopeful because we’ve reached out to him.

[From video on TMZ]

Harvey Levin cracked me up in that video because he was so obviously skeptical of Kelly’s whole argument. Now that I’ve heard her side of the story yet again, I sort-of understand why she’s getting this manic and vocal about it. I don’t think that the State Department or Prince Albert should get involved, and I doubt they will, but I understand why she’s doing this. Her ex has taken this to court in Monaco, and she’s facing the possibility that Monaco may strip of her parental rights. There may be something she can do about that through other legal channels. I can’t help but think that she could have avoided all this if she was more willing to work with her children’s dad. Kelly has been fighting her ex every step of the way and she’s shown that she’s the one who isn’t willing to coparent. Maybe Giersch is impossible to work with, it’s hard to tell, but she’s clearly difficult and she thought she could just get him kicked out of the country. How did she expect the kids would visit him in that scenario?

Here’s the interview with Kelly and her lawyer on TMZ.

The Children's Justice Campaign

The Children's Justice Campaign

The Children's Justice Campaign

These are photos of Kelly at a benefit for her Children’s Justice Campaign on 5-12-15. She got a lot of celebrities to come, including Kris Jenner, Melanie Griffith, Frances Fischer, Cheryl Tiegs, Selma Blair, Natasha Henstridge and Marcia Cross.

Related stories

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

194 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford has 113k signatures on WH petition: ‘it’s about Constitutional rights’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kath says:

    Oh FFS.

    • Krista says:

      Too bad, so sad. He didn’t kidnap them. And now she gets free vacations to Monaco.

      • Jesmari says:

        Unless he succeeds in terminating her parental rights. If he wins he can prevent her from seeing her kids until they are 18.

      • sars says:

        @Jesmari – she’s been fighting this fight for awhile now. i’m pretty sure it’s made things difficult for her husband and maybe he’s reached his rope’s end? i can see her refusing to send the children back at some point and perhaps he’s doing this to protect them?

        she’s unhinged and needs perspective. there are plenty of other custody agreements that are worse than this. #NotAFederalMatter

    • DEB says:

      Exactly my thought, FFS and a huge eye roll. The smug smirk on her lawyer’s face is beyond irritating!!

    • Brasileira says:

      Can you imagine what a hell she would havoc if he had taken the kids to, let’s say, Nepal or Sudan…? It’s Monaco, FFS!

  2. Shambles says:

    This is about winning and proving a point, not her kids. Take a seat, miss.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      The arrogance of this woman is stunning.

      • Esmom says:

        The ignorance, too. Holy crap.

      • holly hobby says:

        The amazement of how many gullible people are out there who would actually sign that petition!

        This is along the same line as some gullible fans who are crowd sourcing to pay for the Pat’s 1M fine. Robert Kraft can afford this believe me. Why don’t you put your money where it’s needed?

      • Kitten says:

        “This is along the same line as some gullible fans who are crowd sourcing to pay for the Pat’s 1M fine. Robert Kraft can afford this believe me. Why don’t you put your money where it’s needed?”

        LOL! Seriously though. I’m a fan but f*ck if I’m gonna give them a dime.

        I love how Rutherford is waving the American flag all of a sudden. That’s her new approach: ‘Murica!

    • Shambles says:

      I’ve said it before, I think she might be a little delusional. Like she lost some of the distinction between her real self and her gossip girl character, and she thinks she’s this powerful socialite who has the right to expect the president to help her with her petty issues.

    • ava7 says:

      So funny how they are pandering to Prince Albert, the “wonderful man” who “loves children”. Hahahaha! He doesn’t even love his own (illegitimate) children! This is a man who tried very hard to ignore the American woman who bore his biological daughter until she ambushed him at a public appearance in the US (and then asked his security detail if there was a way to make them “disappear”), and denied paternity of his son with an African flight attendant for years.

  3. Lucy2 says:

    This is all a mess of her own making, and it’s ridiculous that she thinks she is so important that the president should deal with this.
    However, I think the custody case should stay in the US courts, and her ex should not be trying to take away her rights. Both of these adults need to grow the hell up and do what’s best for the kids for a change.

    • LAK says:

      Her ex has never stood in her way as far as we know. she is constantly working to take *his* rights away, including this petition. She’s going as far as saying her kids have been kidnapped when the kids are free to come and go as schedules can accommodate. Her ex even pays for her to visit them in Monaco. THIS isn’t one of those shady cases where an ex disappears to a foreign country and no one sees the kids again until adulthood, if at all.

      After the stunt she pulled last summer where she refused to hand the kids back as well as going to court for full custody, i’m not surprised he has finally retaliated and gone to court to strip her rights.

      • lucy2 says:

        Oh I fully agree on all the crap she’s pulled, and up until now he’s been pretty accommodating, paying her travel expenses and all. But if he truly is trying to take away her parental rights now, I can’t get on board with that (even though she’s been dishing that out for years now) because it takes the kids away from one of their parents. I think they should be able to spend time with BOTH parents, and neither parent should try to prevent that. Hopefully he’s just doing this as a bargaining tool.

      • Tammy says:

        Monaco should not have jurisdiction over American born kids. Sorry, I just can’t agree with that, at all. I also cannot agree with him trying to strip her of her parental rights, regardless of her stunts, if she is not abusing her children. And there are no indications she is. I disagree with the judge’s decision to allow the kids to live in Monaco. That decision was flawed for many reasons and you just don’t remove custody from a parent because they are alienating the kids from the other parent. Yes, I know they have joint custody. Technically. Still a flawed decision.

      • Norman Bates' Mother says:

        @Tammy Those children are not 100% American. They have dual citizenships and European courts have the same rights to judge in this case (he is German but Monaco is in the Schengen Zone, so it’s all connected) as the US ones and he as a father has the same rights to make decisions about their residence. She lost some of her rights when she made him lose his visa though – if they stayed with her, he would not be able to visit and how it’s not stripping from parental rights? What is flawed is this way of thinking – that the USA is the most important and above all else.

      • bluhare says:

        NBM: Couldn’t agree more. The US is no more important than the father’s citizenship. And. frankly, due to all her shenanigans I don’t blame him one bit for trying to strip her of he her right to parent those children. She appears to view them as her personal property rather than individuals in their own right. The only thing I’d disagree with in NBM’s statement is that she lost some of her rights when she influenced his visa being revoked. I’d say she lost a lot of access, but not her rights. I do think he should reapply for the visa if he’s required to, though, although I can certainly see why he might not want to.

        And, FWIW, I think she’s got dead eyes.

      • Jesmari says:

        Actually as an attorney I disagree. I am not saying that our courts are more important than others. A court has already ruled on this matter. International courts also want their laws respected in the U.S. There are treaties that must be followed.

      • Norman Bates' Mother says:

        @bluhare – I used the wrong word here. I meant it in the way that she lost some de facto points from the 50/50 custody arrangement and her ability to decide about their residence (as a reference to the previous comments stating that their custody is not truly joint now, despite the court order), when she made his visa revoked, because how could he be an equal, when he can’t even enter the USA? If he still had his visa, the entire case would look differently, but right now she is the fully mobile one, who can freely fly from country to country and that’s in a big way why they stay with him in Monaco and she is ordered to visit, not the other way round. The model example of shooting oneself in the foot on her part. Actually – if he still had his visa, he would probably still live in the USA and there would be no case at all, other than the one deciding who has the primary physical custody and who has to visit from another neighborhood.

      • Tammy says:

        Actually he is now standing in her way. He filed for permanent residency for him and the kids, which was granted. Now he can stop them from visiting Kelly in this country and he’s moving to remove all her rights in Monaco.

        And most think this is karma, that she is getting what she deserves. The same people that argue that she tried to deprive the kids from the father are okay with father depriving the kids from their mother. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And it;s wrong for him to do these things, too. This is an absolute mess.

        I don’t think a judge in Monaco should be making a decision on a custodial matter that was previously decided in US. It’s not about US courts being more important over European courts, it’s about recognizing previous court orders. Just like the federal courts in this country decided this was a family court matter, so should Monaco.

        And I’m sorry a court in Monaco does not have any jurisdiction over whether Kelly Rutherford should have her parental rights stripped. Now she could be exaggerating on what this court hearing is in June. It could be to decide that Daniel has primary custody of the kids. The best decision for the court in Monaco is to decide not to hear this.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “After the stunt she pulled last summer where she refused to hand the kids back”

        I didn’t know about this! Is that true?
        If so, I think it makes it more understandable that he would want to terminate her rights, or have her visits monitored to be sure that she doesn’t try to flee with the children so that he never sees them again.

      • Timbuktu says:

        Tammy,
        I’m not following you at all. “He filed for permanent residency for him and the kids, which was granted. Now he can stop them from visiting Kelly in this country”. How does getting permanent residency for the kids stop them from visiting Kelly in the US?

        “I don’t think a judge in Monaco should be making a decision on a custodial matter that was previously decided in US. It’s not about US courts being more important over European courts, it’s about recognizing previous court orders.”
        Hmm, so how we’ll have a race to the courts, to see which court rules first, so their decision has precedence?

      • really? says:

        Tammy
        What makes you think a judge in Monaco would not have the kids best interests at heart? What makes you think a judge in the US cares more about the children then a judge in Monaco? The kids are not only US citizens. They are half US and half European. The judge in the US seemed to make a decision based on the childrens best interest. which was to give main custodial rights to the father. Now who says the judge in Monaco won’t make the best decision for the children? How can you assume that the judge will just strip all the mothers rights just because she/he is from Monaco? They also rule within the law…

    • Rocket says:

      I reiterate the US judge was a moron. I remember thinking (and typing) that he is going to try and invoke Monacos jurisdiction and that was atleast two years ago. Whatevers Kellys issues, he has never seemed particularly interested in respecting the initial court order where I believe he was required to make effort to regain entry to the US. And a Monaco judge would be well within reason to rule on this matter based on national sovereignty and the fact that the kids are both citizens and domiciled there. How does the US court intend to handle this if the Monaco court makes its own ruling? The sensible approach should have been to require the children to live with her and then visit him. That way, they wouldnt be both citizens aaaaand residents of a country where the US court jurisdiction does not extend. Both parents are douches but the judge gives stupidity new meaning.

      • LAK says:

        You say he should simply re-apply for a visa when the reality is that obtaining a visa in the best circumstances is hard enough and almost impossible where your previous visa was revoked. Plus he wasn’t accused of a garden variety crime to get it revoked.

        It’s almost a certainty that he would be turned down if he tried, so why bother?

      • Little Darling says:

        The US judge is a female, not male, and she made this decision after it was clear that Kelly was incapable of giving her ex equal parenting rights. It went back to court a number of times with Kelly continuously being chastised for her handling of this and inability to co-parent/follow what the judge ordered. The kids staying with dad was a last resort done specifically to thwart Kelly from getting in between the children and their father. The judge plainly saw that she couldn’t, and wouldn’t, play fair.

      • Rocket says:

        LAK
        “why bother?” Because theres a court directive, thats why.

        Little Darling
        Thanks for the recap, lol. Fact remains only a moronic judge would shift a case, ANY case, this far out of her jurisdiction. Once the Monaco court assumes jurisdiction, and I fully expect them to, the US court is done. She may as well start printing her orders on toilet paper, they’ll be completely unenforceable for as long as he choses to live in Monaco. Dumb move.

      • eva says:

        Is it officially confirmed that he hasn’t reapplied for a visa?

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Judges happily shift cases out of their jurisdiction frequently. The issue of future jurisdiction wasn’t before that judge. The issue of which parent could provide better physical custody at that time was

      • LAK says:

        Rocket: It shows a lack of understanding of the visa system to say he is court directed and therefore should re-apply even though he has been barred from re-entry on security grounds as if the the court order has any influence on the directives of border control.

        It was a very serious accusation. There are guidelines on when a person can re-apply for a visa once you have been turned down or revoked. Those guidelines include time frames. And in some scenerios, particularly where security issues are concerned, outcome is certainly negative.

      • Rocket says:

        Lilac
        Nope the issue was and always is what would be in the childrens best interest. And a court must assume that ensuring that the child remains within its authority is in its best interest. Lets assume for example that the US court were to find a reason to reverse custody how exactly does she suppose she would be able to enforce that without having to navigate the French authorities. In fact once the kids were settled there for a year was there really anybody who didnt think “lets do a countdown to how long before he gets a constitutional lawyer and a family lawyer and heads to a domestic court. Home freeee!”?

      • bluhare says:

        Rocket, I think most of us think she should have thought of all that before her lawyer whispered in the state department’s ear about his visa. And if she didn’t, her lawyer hopefully explained it to her. Getting her husband deported wasn’t necessarily in the children’s best interest. Therefore, as one party apparently wasn’t concerned about the children’s best interests in having access to both parents, why is it such a necessity it be continued here? She pretty much made that impossible. I do agree that he should reapply for the visa, even if it won’t be approved. That way he’s fulfilled all his obligations.

        However, I don’t agree that the US court is necessarily the best place to resolve it. Why? Because Kelly lives here and the divorce started here? The fact that it isn’t still in US courts is pretty much her fault, isn’t it? I think this is now a case of Kelly making the bed and now having to get in it.

        By the way, if you do decide to respond, please don’t LOL at my post. I’m not an attorney nor a judge and am just giving my opinion. Thank you.

      • Aurora says:

        THIS. Whatever the Giersch fangirls think of Kelly, surely they must admit trying to get sole custody via a different jurisdiction is at best underhanded. He is basically trying to bypass the current judge to get what he wants.

        Even if the French court denies him sole custody, the children will now technically straddle two judicial systems. Which is perfect for him because in practice since the American judge is now powerless and it is highly unlikely that a French Court would send the kids back.

        Both these people are terrible. The difference is that Kelly is emotional and lashes out in the moment. Giersch on the other hand is a chess player. He was clearly bidding his time, letting her self-destruct while quietly plotting away.

      • Rocket says:

        Bluhare

        Relax, we are ALL just giving opinion, lmao. And you are more than welcome to lolest at my posts, Its only the internet. If you read my posts you can see I have no dog in this fight. I couldnt care less about who is rumored to have tipped of which State official. My focus is a judge who clearly did not foresee the obvious, that once the kids were settled in Monaco, her authority would be dead and following from that the court would not be able to enforce any shared custody arrangement. Shared custody was afterall the supposed pretext for the arrangement was it not? It would have been easier to just outrightly strip Kelly of custody instead of playing out this predictable circus.

      • LAK says:

        …….but Rocket, you are ignoring the fact that long before visas came into play, SHE refused to co-operate with the court. At every step she made it impossible for a shared custody arrangement whilst the father was residing in the states.

        In an effort to ensure that a shared custody arrangement eventually worked in her favour such that father would not be able to see the children even if he wanted to do so, she had his visa revoked.

        Are you saying that in such an arrangement it would have been perfectly OK for the father to not see the kids? How could he when he’d been deported? She would have had the kids to herself and going by her long term behaviour, she would have ensured that he never saw the kids again.

        Too bad for her that her scheme backfired, and the kids were given to the father.

        And you know what, he has been decent about it because having the kids with him abroad, he has complied with the courts’ order that he pays for her visitation and allow her to take the kids back to America every summer for 2-3months.

        Her own behaviour throughout the custody case and beyond shows that she doesn’t want this man to be a father to his kids. And she will do anything to get her way.

        Aurora: just because someone disagrees with one side, it doesn’t make them fangirls of the other. If we took that stance, we’d assume that you are a Kelly fangirl, no?

      • Rocket says:

        LAK

        I said before, I simply dont care about the sides in this battle. I’m interested in the judge who should have foreseen todays mess and taken an approach that would ensure that her court can supervise custody share. Easily achieved by ensuring that the kids primary residence was the US and THEN have them visit him. Now that they are residents of France and German citizens this judge is unable to supervise her own custody order and its obviously just a matter of time before she loses all authority on the case. If your intention is to ensure joint custody why create a situation where any idiot can tell you that you will lose all control over in just afew years? This is the exact opposite of solomonic wisdom, it was a ridiculously short sighted ruling for any court in any part of the world to make.

        Let me say it another way, if this judge really believed that shared custody was the best outcome, why allow a situation where it is more than likely that a different jurisdiction will come into play where they may not take the same view and you will have no way to enforce the outcome you determined was best. Why not have the kids primary residency be where you atleast have authority. I mean if Kelly flouts your order, you have her locked up for afew weeks and send the kids over. What can the US judge do when Daniel eventually stops allowing the kids over and has a Monaco ruling to back him?!

      • LAK says:

        Rocket: As Bluhare pointed out, any decent lawyer, and i’m assuming she had decent advise, would have pointed out the consequences of any action going forward. And Kelly went forward. THIS is the consequence. You don’t set out to ruin a person and think there won’t be consequences.

        Further, the custody judgement came after Kelly repeatedly flouted the court at every turn, refusing to co-operate eg It took 3 additional court hearings for the father’s name to be added to one of the kids’ birth certificates even though the judge had ordered Kelly to do so.

        Faced with a recalcitrant person who for months had thwarted the court’s rulings at every turn, this decision was made as the best way for the father to remain in the kids’ lives because the other way around ie if Kelly had been granted physical custody, you bet she wouldn’t have allowed the father any visitation even if the court ruled that she should.

        Last summer, she refused to send the kids back. Then filed for sole custody with the federal court. It took a court case, again, to have the kids sent back to Monaco.

        I will say this, assuming they are decent parents, they should have shared custody, but Kelly has proven repeatedly that she can’t be trusted to honour any agreements even if they are court mandated. She will maliciously do whatever it takes to get her way, so in this case, I have no problem with sole custody being awarded to the father.

      • bluhare says:

        Rocket, IMO LOL’ing and LMAO’ing at people’s posts is very rude and dismissive.

        LAK, I agree totally!

      • Audrey says:

        I don’t see a problem with this transferring to Monaco.

        He can’t step foot in the US to be present at any custody hearings because of his visa situation.

        I also don’t blame him for filing after she tried to keep the kids last summer. I don’t think he should strip her rights, but i think she should only be allowed to visit in monaco.

        Yes, that’s rough on her. But too bad, she tried to keep them last summer so I’m sure he’s terrified of sending them to her soon. What will she do this year?

  4. Lilacflowers says:

    Constitutional rights from which country? Because the US Constitution does not address this in any way, shape or form.

    • Sixer says:

      Sitting here in the UK, her attitude – and pitch to potential supporters – looks like exceptionalism gone completely insane. If I were the father, I’d be looking for a court in my own jurisdiction too!

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Her attitude is coming across as pure jingoism to me. It offends me greatly that she believes that she has the right to use one cent of my tax dollars on this.

      • Sixer says:

        Yes. Her whole argument seems to be “But I’m the American one!”

        I cringe for you like I cringe when Little Englanders in the UK embarrass me on the European stage.

      • bluhare says:

        I totally agree with both of you. Thank you for giving me the words, you guys; couldn’t think of them!

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Thanks. That poor document is so misunderstood.

    • Grace says:

      Exactly! I don’t understand her legal argument. I get her emotional argument but I don’t see how this is a constitutional issue.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        There is no Constitutional argument Her whole position is based on “coz ‘Murica!” And the evil president won’t help her.

      • tschic says:

        I have to ask this: What does “coz `Murica!” mean?
        As a German myself I don`t understand all these commentors on this side (only a few) and on other sides who really think that American children have to live in America.

        I woult understand the argument, that they should be with the mother all the time, but America??? Do they really think Europe is a third-world continent, or living there is like living in Iran/syria or something similar?
        It´s so arrogant. What`s wrong with living in Europe? I assume they speak 3 languages fluently, they live in one of the richest place on earth with all the benefits…
        and if they would live in Germany it wouldn`t be bad either for them.

        Why do so many Americans thinak that nothing is better or equal to America?

      • ava7 says:

        @tschic: “coz” is a shortened, comical version of “because” and “murica” = America. It’s something we say when we’re making fun of ourselves, or blind patriotism.

      • Audrey says:

        Her argument is that they’re being denied their constitutional right to live in the U.S. by being ordered to live with their dad.

        It’s not going to work. They still have the legal right to live in America. Nobody took that away, they just have other citizenship which is being respected as well.

        It’s basically the same as last summer’s failed argument that they were deported.

  5. Crumpet says:

    I feel her pain man, but she is going about this in the worst way possible. It’s all about HER and not about the children at this point.

    Ugh.

  6. InvaderTak says:

    What exactly does she think the pres will or CAN do about this? And 113k people need their heads checked.

  7. Jegede says:

    Did she actually get those 113,000 people AFTER Kim Kardashian tweeted about it???
    Yikes for America.

    • teatimeiscoming says:

      YUUUUP

    • Lilacflowers says:

      It’s also circulating along some ultra-conservative channels. My cousin’s wife, who thinks Rush Limbaugh is a voice of calm and reason, posted it on her FB page and emailed it to the whole family.

    • meme says:

      That frightens me. The Kardashian have way too much influence. Notice all these celebs supporting her are B-list, No-list for hasbeens? Anything for attention.

    • MET says:

      BUT it’s only 113K people after all of her pleas and the “endorsement” from KK. I’m actually impressed and happy that it don’t go higher (unless they stopped it at 113K … nope I like my interpretation better )

  8. greenmonster says:

    “whoever brings my kids home…” – honey, your kids are home. Just because it’s not yours, it doesn’t mean it’s not home.

    Ed Westwick also posted the petition on his Facebook page and the majority of the people were willing to sign, saying things like kids should always be with their mothers, what a scumbag the father is and as soon as someone posted a link which was dealing with the whole story, people got mad at the one who posted the link. Mostly women were defending Rutherford without even knowing the backstory.

    • ava7 says:

      Yeah that’s so sad that people are supporting her without knowing the whole story, and that Rutherford and her people are trying to obscure the whole story.
      And her kids are living with their father and their grandparents. No one should feel sorry for them. They are better off (probably) than living with this crazy, bitter lady. People need to read the whole story before they sign any petitions!

  9. Luca76 says:

    Ugh this woman isn’t very self reflective. Maybe if she was for one minute of her life able to compromise and be an adult about this situation things wouldn’t have gone this far.

  10. Altariel says:

    It’s just horrible all around. Her kids are American citizens, not French, or from Monaco. I know she played nasty with her ex and gets little sympathy for that, but these are her babies and living like this must be hell on earth. People make mistakes. And they should have their mommy too, not just during summer, or whatever. she wasn’t stripped of parental rights…yet:( I hope somewhere, somehow, someday soon an amicable solution is reached that everyone can live with that doesn’t crush anyone anymore.

    • vauvert says:

      But the decision of the court was very clear…. They share custody. Her ex pays for the flights (hers and the children). He cannot come to the US due to her so the court decided the kids should live with their dad – and btw, he has not once gone to the media with trash stories as far as I know. Shades of Halle Berry here… I mean yes, as a mom, how horrible to be away from your kids for long periods of time, but if you start by refusing to put your ex- husband’s name on your kid’s birth certificate and he has to go to court for it, what do you expect? You get him deported, a US court rules the kids should live the majority of time with him…. Now you want the president to intervene? This is entirely of her own making.

    • Scarlet Vixen says:

      No, they are not just HER babies–they are HIS babies, too. And she has made repeated attempts to alienate the father from their childrens’ lives. She does NOT have her own childrens’ best interests in mind, and who knows what kind of damage her psychological and legal warfare has done to her own children? They are also not just American citizens–the father is German, so they have joint citizenship. Why in the hell should they not live in Europe part of the year with their own father and grandparents, who as far as anyone can tell, has been playing fair all this time?

      I’m sorry, but I just do NOT get the whole “children should be with their MOTHER–no matter how sh*tty of a mother she may be” mentality. And I’m a mother of three. Sometimes women are terrible parents and kids SHOULD be with their father. The fact remains that if she had been a decent himan being from the beginning and willing to co-parent she wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with.

      And, if the father is trying to custody jurisdiction moved to Monaco, I honestly can’t blame him. This woman has been abusing the U.S. court system for years, had him deported, threatened to refuse to send the children back to him, and appears to be downright unhinged.

      • greenmonster says:

        Totally agree. When I was reading comments on Facebook about this case, it made me furious. Rutherford’s supporters were mostly women who didn’t know anything about the case. Nonetheless they signed the petition and bashed Giersch. Supporting each other as woman is so important, but don’t support anyone (man or woman) blindly. Rutherford is not a better parent because she is the mother or a US citizen.

        BTW is it possible for non US citizens to sign the petition? If not, I want a recount, because countless people from Europe signed the thing.

      • WinterLady says:

        Agree with everything. You know, I’m all for mothers be treated as fairly as fathers in court, but I’m sorry, some mothers are NOT capable of taking care of their children in a healthy manner. Rutherford has played dirty with a seemingly innocent ex this entire time without thinking how her children suffer for it. How does that translate to her deserving to have her children over their father?

        And as much as I’m a proud American, I don’t see how her children suffer from living in Monaco which by all accounts a extremely nice country. Rutherford’s ex doesn’t seem to be hurting for money, so the children are being well taken care of.

      • Snowflake says:

        This!!!

      • Jasper says:

        @Greenmonster

        That’s what it was like at TMZ, everyone was so quick to jump on her side but literally had no idea what she did.

    • LAK says:

      Her kids are American citizens…….That’s your argument? What about their European citizenship?? I can’t believe you are arguing American exceptionalism in a case where kids have dual citizenship.

      • Altariel says:

        Nah, no American exceptionalism here. My argument is more along the lines of very hard lessons learned, forgiveness and sympathy…And hoping there’s an amicable end soon, for everyone’s sake, however unlikely at this point :(

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Didn’t work for Reese Witherspoon, won’t work for her.

    • CK says:

      Her kids are dual citizens period. Their American citizenship does not supercede their other citizenship. And their father has as much of a right to their company as she has. They had an amicable solution. She just didn’t like it and tried to change it in her favor. If I feel sorry for anyone in this situation, it’s the father, who due to the ignorance of the kardashian klan and ignorant celebrities, is having his name dragged through the mud by 113k “murikan” who don’t know sh*t about dual citizenship and the rulings that preceded her latest grab.

    • Priya says:

      I really feel for her. She must miss them so much every single day. They’re so little; the youngest is just 5.

      I don’t understand the hate for her. She’s a mom. I thought other moms and women would understand. She’s crazy desperate, this poor woman.

      • Audrey says:

        I’m a mother and she repulses me.

        She has done everything in her power to try to take those children away from a father who obviously loves them very much.

        She’s self centered and cares only about what she wants. Those kids are probably best off not living with her full time

  11. notleo says:

    I think it’s very telling that her ex-husband refuses to discuss the case with reporters. She’s a loon.

    • Birdix says:

      Both of these things have served him well in the court of public opinion (or at lease the court of CB opinion). His move to strip her of custody shifts that for me.

      • Lady D says:

        He’s probably terrified that he will never see them again. She is trying to turn the whole country against him, and non-stop threatening to not return ‘her’ children. Not to mention, her constant trips to court to try and strip him of custody. At this point, I can’t blame the guy.

      • Jesmari says:

        I can blame him for trying to terminate her rights. She is broke and he is wealthy. He is one step ahead of her in every court case. She doesn’t have the cash to really challenge him on custody. If he wins in court then he can keep her kids away from her until they are 18. This may backfire on him because his kids may resent losing their mom.

      • Lady D says:

        What do you think she is going to do if she wins custody? Do you also find fault with her wanting to keep them for herself?
        They had to go to court 3 times just to get his name on his daughter’s birth certificate. How is he always one step ahead, when he finds out in the media like everybody else?

      • Jesmari says:

        I think they should retain shared custody. Every study done on this matter shows that having both parents is the best for kids. He is one step ahead now because he has money and she is broke. When this first started she was wealthy. That is not the case anymore. Unfortunately money gets you more in court.

      • snowflake says:

        If I was her husband, I wouldn’t trust her not to take the kids. She’s already done some shady stunts, and now she’s trying to act like some poor mom who just wants her kids. so what she declared bankruptcy? how many times has trump declared bankruptcy? means nothing. there are different forms of bankruptcy, and it’s an easy way to get out of debt you don’t want to pay, such as lawyer bills for your frivolous b.s. I don’t buy she’s broke. Plus, he pays her way to see the kids. Why can’t she just be happy with that? A lot of dads have to pay their own way to see their kids. if i was her ex, I wouldn’t trust her either. I hate it when women play the poor mom card, when really, they are a psycho just trying to get their own way. and for the record, I’m a woman. But I am definitely on the dad’s side in this. she tried to take the kids away from him by getting his visa revoked, and now she’s boohooing because he’s doing it back to her. you made your bed, kelly, now lie in it. karma’s a b

    • holly hobby says:

      You discuss the case in the court of law, not in the press. The press can’t do anything about it. It’s laughable that she’s trying to turn this into a diplomatic crisis or federal case. I wish she would go live in Monaco permanently.

      I’m surprised she hasn’t pulled the Grace Kelly card with Prince Albert yet.

  12. Little Darling says:

    Her children’s rights have definitely been violated. By her. Their right to have an equal relationship with mother and father from the beginning.

  13. Norman Bates' Mother says:

    I can’t even express how angry her rhetoric makes me. Her children were not sent away to the foreign country. They were not taken or banished from their one and only home and parent. They have dual citizenships and their other, equally important country – Germany, is a part of the European Union. That means they can treat the entirety of the Schengen Zone, including Monaco, as their home. The USA is not the one and only, most important center of the world. If she argued that children are happiest when they have two loving parents close to them, that mother’s love is important to their development and asked for her children’s return to the USA together with their father, whose visa should be granted, I would feel sympathetic. But she decided to spread ignorance and harmful, nationalistic views instead and made it not about the children but about Constitution, so no – no sympathy.

    ETA: on a more shallow note after a long rant – PMK and Melanie look like Cinderella’s evil sisters in that 1st picture. Kris finally bought herself a face she deserves.

  14. NewWester says:

    Kelly posing with Kris Jenner makes me think that a reality show dealing with Kelly’s life is in the works. Stranger things have happened and reality shows do pay well

  15. Cynthia says:

    This whole thing is crazy. I’m not even American but I find disturbing that she’s trying to involve the White House and make a diplomatic case out of this situation. I can understand a mother doing everything in her power for her kids, but her kids were not kidnapped; they are living with their father after she got him deported. Plus they’re half German, her rhetoric of “US citizens who are not allowed to live in their country” doesn’t make sense. This whole mess could have been avoided in every way possible but she refuses to admit it.

  16. PamelaJudy says:

    One of the things I’m finding so frustrating about all of this is that she’s finally getting some mainstream media coverage. Consequently people who have no idea of the whole story are suddenly throwing their support behind her. I’m having to school people on my Social Media that aren’t so gossip savvy about why Kelly deserves everything that’s coming to her and that SHE was the one trying to keep the father away from their children. It backfired spectacularly and somehow that’s become Obama’s problem? Ugh. I just can’t with this trick.

    • greenmonster says:

      Same here :)

      This was the first time I commented something gossipy on my Social Media – letting everyone know I’m into gossip. But I couldn’t hold back reading all of the blind support Rutherford was getting from people.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Plus, why would she ask a guy who was born in Kenya to help her?

      Heh heh.

    • lucy2 says:

      People are so reactionary to headlines and little blurbs now, and rarely read the whole story. It’s sad.

  17. Blue says:

    How delusional is this woman, why should Prez Obama waste his time getting involved in some C list celebrities international custody dispute. Those children are not just Americans they are also German/French like their father. This is not about the children for her it’s about revenge against her ex-husband, she is entirely to blame for the fact that her kids live in Monaco with their father and she is loving all the attention and publicity she is getting from this situation she created.

    WTF happened to Melanie Griffin’s nose?

    • Esmom says:

      Yes and I also did a double take at Melanie’s nose. It must be brand new work because she didn’t look like that recently, like when she was with Dakota for Fifty Shades.

  18. PamelaJudy says:

    I’d love for someone in the media to turn this back on her. Next time she’s being interviewed ask her WHY their father had his Visa revoked, WHO was responsible for tipping off the State Dept, why she fought so hard to keep his name off their daughters birth certificate and how she thinks it felt for him to learn of the birth of his daughter via the official announcement. She needs to be called out for her role in this whole mess.

  19. CK says:

    I never really got on the kardashian hate train. I usually just ignored them, but their involvement in this is inexcusable. The kids are dual citizens and their Father has primary custody and has to live out of the country. However, now this has become some sort of cause thanks to idiot celebrities who want to believe that american citizens have been absconded and taken to a foreign country. My evolution is complete, I finally get and share the hatred for the Kardashians.

  20. Fifi says:

    Monaco is ruled with a Roman Catholic ethos (95% of the population and religion of the ruling family), they are heavily culturally influenced by France and Italy and family is seen as extremely important. Parents usually share their children 50/50 post relationship break up unless that is not feasible. No judge is going to sever maternal rights unless there is very good reason to do so!!!!! They are far more sensitive to the importance of biological blood ties than the US is so unless her ex can provide a court with proven evidence that she is a genuine danger to her children there’s no way in hell that her parental rights can be abolished.

    She does seem to have a personality disorder and comes across as extremely manipulative, deceitful and narcissistic so there may be very good reason for her ex to feel/believe/know that she is harming them in some way and possibly a physical danger (to abduct or worse, ‘if I can’t have them to myself, nobody can). Who knows how crazy she is behind closed doors. He’s not talking to the media, he is going to the courts. As he should if he has evidence he needs to provide a judge to protect his children.

    Obama is not the type of President to get involved in celebrity entitlements. He ignored half of Hollywood and the French president during the Polanski scandal when they were petitioning him. I can’t imagine him interfering to try prevent a father from protecting his children through the courts!!!!!! He just won’t. He is above that.

    Monaco is a beautiful little country btw, excellent health care, education, virtually no crime, human rights, freedom, she makes it sound like they’ve been sentenced to war torn Somalia, they haven’t!!!!!

    • eva says:

      She does seem to have a personality disorder and comes across as extremely manipulative, deceitful and narcissistic so there may be very good reason for her ex to feel/believe/know that she is harming them in some way and possibly a physical danger (to abduct or worse, ‘if I can’t have them to myself, nobody can). Who knows how crazy she is behind closed doors. He’s not talking to the media, he is going to the courts. As he should if he has evidence he needs to provide a judge to protect his children.

      Yep, this is the vibe I get from her aswell.

  21. hadlyB says:

    I have been reading this story as time goes on and I just feel there is so much more info we don’t know. On both of them. Every story on here is always about her being so terrible and I feel like he’s no better. They both seem horrid.

    What makes people think he’s such a great father ? I heard he wasn’t even raising those kids but his parents were.. and I don’t think thats fair to the kids at all. Is that true?

    I would do ANYTHING to get my kids away from a terrible father, and keep them with me. Even doing shady shit, illegal anything, lying, stealing, whatever. Maybe she’s not the best person I don’t know but they BOTH seem like they want to get back at each other and don’t have the best interests at heart for their kids.

    I don’t believe either of them should not be allowed to never have visitation, or rights to their kids. They both disgust me at this point.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Her craziness is documented and your imagination is filling in the rest about him because he is wisely remaining silent. Even Rutherford has never said he is a bad father, and he flies her out to see them, works reasonably within the bounds of the law, etc. Plenty of mothers have problems with their exes, but there’s no reason to generalize to this situation.

    • eva says:

      I heard he wasn’t even raising those kids but his parents were.. and I don’t think thats fair to the kids at all. Is that true?

      Heard from who?

    • LAK says:

      Wow!!! People love to fill a vacuum. Now he is a bad father? According to who?

    • Lady D says:

      Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see.
      (Benjamin Franklin)

    • bluhare says:

      Don’t you think that if he were a terrible father she’d have been trumpeting it from the rooftops?

    • Lilacflowers says:

      How does having his parents help with child care hurt them? Isn’t that the norm? Five of my cousins deliver their children to their grandmothers each morning on their way to work. When my niece was small, my dad would pick her up at daycare in the afternoon and they would spend the afternoon together. Courts usually consider grandparent involvement a plus

    • lunchcoma says:

      Giersch presumably has a job. Someone has to watch the children during the day, and grandparents can be an excellent choice.

  22. Size Does Matter says:

    What’s going to be her next trick when this one falls flat? If I were Daniel Giersch I would sleep with one eye open.

    • funcakes says:

      My thoughts exactly. I smell a Chris Hanson Dateline special. Or at least a new episode of Snapped.

  23. anniefannie says:

    Given President Obama was previously a constitutional professor …me thinks she’s barking up the wrong tree.

  24. Kate says:

    If she cared about her children at all, she’d be with them in Monaco right now, instead of enjoying the circus she’s created here. All the time and energy she’s putting into this idiocy could be spent gaining residency in the country her children live in. That she appears to have zero interest in actually being with her children pretty much makes her ex’s case for him. She only cares about ‘winning’ this stupid battle she created.

    • cheryl says:

      I agree. If you want to be with your kids, get on a plane right now. Life could be a lot worse.

    • Esmom says:

      That’s my take on all this, too. And as Cheryl says, she could have it a lot worse. I was just listening to a story about kids being kidnapped upon crossing the border into the US to join their parents and the kidnappers demanding huge ransoms to release them. So heartbreaking and such a mess, while Rutherford’s mess seems to be all her own doing.

  25. meme says:

    Oh please Obama and the State Department, please don’t get involved in this. Celebrities can be so stupid.

  26. QQ says:

    We could call This one: When Keeping it Assh*le Goes Wrong

    Or

    Just Desserts

    or Quit it with the White Cloths, you Insufferable Lady

  27. Jaded says:

    The only 2 people who should matter in this are the children. For Kelly to turn this situation into a media circus involving, of all people, PMK, shows how awful it would be for those kids if they did come back to the U.S. They’ve gone through enough in their brief lives, let them live in peace away from the circus of prime-time entertainment – the father appears to be doing all he can to treat Kelly fairly and give the kids a normal life despite their parents’ break-up.

  28. Lola says:

    What happens if the judge that originally had the custody case, after a staff member of the court tells him or her about this debacle decides to change the original order and give HIM sole custody? Can that happen?

    • Jesmari says:

      No that can’t happen. Someone would have to bring a matter before the court. Both sides would provide evidence and argument and then the judge would rule.

      • Lola says:

        Then what you wrote would be (I think) Obama’s response, no? I mean, go back to court, file a document and let the court decide.

  29. funcakes says:

    Kelly’s lawyers are now calling one of the most powerful people of the world to the carpet to try to publicly embarass and manipulate him to do something.

    Oh honey get use the flying back and forth to Monaco.

  30. Tara says:

    I don’t understand what’s so scandalous about a Monaco court ruling on this custody case. All along it had been US courts ruling (unilaterally?). The kids have dual citizenship, and Kelly isn’t barred from that country. Why should the Monaco legal system be excluded from ruling? She is just utterly repulsive, and I side eye anyone who attended her stupid event.

    • Scarlet Vixen says:

      I agree–why shouldn’t Monaco’s court system be involved? That is the childrens’ and one parent’s primary residence at this point…But, my question is: do we have any actual proof that he is suing her for sole custody in Monaco? Or do we just have Rutherford’s claims that he is? Because I wouldn’t put it past her to make that up to further vilify him in the court of public opinion.

    • Jesmari says:

      Jurisdiction and treaties comes to mind. I personally think that Monacco should stay out of it. Imagine if everytime a court ruled against a parent, they could go to another country and forum shop. The only reason he would go via Monacco is to terminate her rights. He knows very well he would not be able to terminate her rights in America so he is forum shopping to try for a favorable outcome.

      • Lady D says:

        Those children are citizens of that country as well. They have every right to go to court there.

      • Scarlet Vixen says:

        @Jesmari: I see your point and the political relations aspect. But would argue that this isn’t a typical “move where the wind will blow your way” situation. The father didn’t voluntarily move to a country that would conveniently be sympathetic to his having full custody. He was forced thru his ex-wife’s shady handling of the situation in the US to move to a different country. He was then awarded shared custody by the US court system, which he appeared to be completely content with and has followed. If she is the one repeatedly abusing the American court system (let’s remember that this has been going on for several years now), and the children and 1 parent are now residents of another country, why should the jurisdiction not be where the majority of the people involved live–especially if it’s the party who for all intents and purposes is the one who’s actually playing fair? People are allowed to file for divorce/custody in a different state that would be more favorable to their cause. Why not change jurisdiction to another country? It’s not like he moved to another country voluntarily to avoid paying taxes or something.

      • Renee28 says:

        How is he forum shopping? He and his children are residents of Monaco. He has every right to use their court system. He didn’t just arbitrarily pick a country to file for custody in.

      • Tammy says:

        How is she abusing the court system? Because she keeps trying to get a ruling favorable to her? It’s annoying but not abusing.

        No, you are not allowed to file for divorce or custody that is more favorable to you. You have to file for divorce in the state & county of state you were married in. Custody issues are determined by the state children are born in.

        Kelly has repeatedly stated she did not have anything to do with him being deported. I am not going to debate the veracity of her statement, I am just stating what she says. I think it’s irrelevant now, 6 years later, to keep arguing the same thing over and over. Regardless of what she did, he still has not reapplied for a visa.. no matter how frivolous it might be or that it will most likely be denied, he has made no attempt to and it’s in violation of a court order. She did everything she was supposed to do to help him obtain a visa.

        What does he do? He applies for permanent residency in Monaco and it’s granted for him and the kids. He can now legally deprive them of returning to the United States until they are 18. Most of you argue it’s karma. So if he attempts to alienate the kids from Kelly, it’s okay because she is hated on here? Why is it okay for him to do to her but it wasn’t okay when she did it? Isn’t he now doing the same thing a California judge accused Kelly of and made her decision based on it?

        He is a master chess player and has manipulated both Kelly and the media. I agree that she keeps reacting emotionally and it’s making this worse. She might have a personality disorder as some suggest. But unless she is abusive to her children or will harm them, she should not be deprived of her rights to her children or visits. If he is indeed trying to do that in Monaco, he is no better than she is.

      • Jesmari says:

        He is forum shopping with the TPR because he knows the U.S. would not do it. In my opinion Monacco is an improper forum because they have no jurisdiction over Rutherford. He lived in the U.S., got married here, and settled his divorce and custody here. He has availed himself to the U.S. court’s jurisdiction. Also as I mentioned, there are treaties in place that mandate countries defer to existing custody and child support orders. Sorry I can’t be more detailed I only practice family law if it leaks into my dependency cases.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Parents forum shop on custody issues in different states all the time. Not every state recognizes every other states custody and visitation rulings

      • Tammy says:

        @Lilacflowers, parents cannot forum shop on custody issues in different states. Look at Bode Miller’s case. He petitioned California court for custody and NY court initially agreed with that decision but it was overturned at the appellate level saying a NY court had to decide custody because the baby was born in NY.

        As I stated before custody was decided by California and it should not be reheard in Monaco. The permanency being granted to Daniel Giersch and the kids is troubling because now he can prevent her from taking the kids to America as they are now permanent residents of Monaco. Monaco does not have jurisdiction to decide on termination of parental rights. This has nothing to do with thinking America is better than Monaco, it has to do with the law. Too many of the posters on this site react with their emotions, just like Kelly does, and are not thinking about the legal ramifications of a court in Monaco making a decision about the parental rights of an American citizen. They do not have jurisdiction in this case, regardless of the kids citizenship or where they reside. They should not be hearing this at all.

    • lucy2 says:

      My initial thinking was that since the whole thing has been in the US court system so far, and the judge is familiar with all the evidence and arguments and such, it seemed odd to switch it to another country’s system.
      But the more I think about it, the kids are Monaco residents now, and presumably she comes to visit them there, so maybe they should be involved. Hopefully whoever ends up making the decision really does what’s best for the kids.

      • Scarlet Vixen says:

        @Tammy: Repeatedly taking your case to court after court after court because you don’t like what a judge rules IS abusing the system. That is what a judge is for–to use the law to determine the best solution. Refusing to do what a court has ordered you to do is also inappropriate. Rutherford has refused to do things she has been court ordered to do–things that are petty and vindictive at best, and parental alienation at worst.

        I honestly don’t see how Giersch is a ‘master chess player.’ Dude has simply & quietly gone about his business of trying to provide a home for his children and SHARE custody. He was willing to do this in the US until Rutherford’s attorney helped get him deported (the attorney has pretty much admitted to his part in this if I recall correctly). He doesn’t ‘manipulate’ the media–he doesn’t even DEAL with the media. And shame on him for applying for residency in the place where he & his parents live…? He has not in any way attempted to alienate Rutherford–he pays for her to visit the children several times a year, and pictures have been taken of he & the children greeting her with balloons, signs & smiles. There’s alienation for ya, eh?

        I mentioned this up thread, but do we even know for certain that Giersch is applying for sole custody in Monaco? All we have on this is Rutherford’s word, and we know how she plays fast and loose with silly things like ‘facts.’

      • Tammy says:

        I disagree, it is not abusing the system. Any one of us can appeal a decision we don’t like.

        Again this is what she is saying, so take it with a grain of salt: She recently stated she pays for her plane tickets back and forth to Monaco, he does not. She arranges for accommodations in Monaco when she is there, he does not. She is not allowed to set foot in his house. She has also stated that neither she or her attorney said anything to the State Department to get Giersch deported. A source told People her attorney did that. Regardless of who told what to the State Department, it happened 6 years ago. It’s irrelevant at this moment in time. A judge already decided that the kids should live in Monaco based on the fact he was deported and Kelly wasn’t willing to coparent. Judge already factored that it… so now we move on to present day. It’s what happening now that is relevant.

        If he is indeed filing legal action in Monaco to strip her of her parental rights, then he is indeed trying to alienate her. If he is doing this he is not willing to share custody with Kelly. Filing for permanency in Monaco seems like he is preparing to do so. I am not sure what other reason he might have to file for permanency. Can he not live in Monaco without it being that he is a German citizen? Must he file for it? I don’t know these things and I am not going to assume these things either.

        Yes, Kelly has a problem with the facts and we don’t know what is happening in Monaco because he won’t speak to the press. You can make the assumption either way regarding Daniel about him not publicly responding to Kelly. But if she is no longer allowed to travel to the US with the kids & she cannot see them anymore, she would be telling the truth.

        I

      • Paleokifaru says:

        Where is the idea that she’s not allowed to have the kids in the US coming from? It’s part of their agreement she can have them here in the summer. Her ex followed through with that and rewarded with her trying to keep them here where they cannot see their father and against the ruling of the court.

  31. Lucky Charm says:

    So she thinks Prince Albert is going to help her case? Why, because as such a fine, upstanding father he’s more than happy to let his children live with their mother’s halfway around the world, so he will support her attempt to do the same with her own kids?

    And her petition has 113,000 signatures, really? I wish I could say I’m surprised, but unfortunately there are a lot of dumb@$$ idiots in this country. And President Obama has MUCH more important things to worry about than some woman who’s angry she didn’t get her way in family court.

    • Ennie says:

      I saw some tweets and people believe that the children were “taken”. They are using misinformation to get those signatures.

  32. laura says:

    she tried to get the father out of the kids lifes100% that’s got this whole thing started. Good for him take her ass to court and restrict her visitation to France or who knows she so bat shit crazy should she be around the kids? This person has never read the constitution, fox news got the American citizenship started

  33. lunchcoma says:

    This is ridiculous. Yes, the children are American citizens. They’re also EU citizens. There’s nothing at all improper about courts in Monaco handling this case, nor is there any reason to think those courts will handle the case less fairly than US courts.

    • Jesmari says:

      Monacco is not the proper forum under Hague. They have no jurisdiction over Rutherford. He settled the divorce and custody in the U.S. He availed himself to the jurisdiction of America. Monacco should defer to the existing court orders.

  34. Hannah says:

    I read on another site a while back that the main reason she’s really freaking out about this and submitting all these petitions is because if her ex is granted full custody – she’ll have to pay a hefty sum in child support…which she doesn’t want to do…clearly.

    • Jesmari says:

      You can’t take blood from a rock. She is broke. Also Monacco has no jurisdiction over her to enforce a child support order.

    • lunchcoma says:

      He’s been ordered to pay for her plane tickets to visit the children. That suggests that he has more money than she does and that her child support probably wouldn’t be anything crushing.

  35. anne_000 says:

    From TMZ (8.30.12):

    “As for the details of the new custody plan — Daniel has to buy Kelly six round-trip airline tickets to France per school year (coach class) … and put her up in a house with a car while she’s in the country.”

    It also says that she refused to put his name on the daughter’s birth certificate even though she was told to several times by the court.

    And with what I’ve read in other places that she refused to send back the kids after a visitation and that her or someone from her party helped get the father’s visa revoked, which is why the children now have to travel overseas to see their father.

    Anyhoo, she keeps doing this to herself. She’s like one of those people who thinks she sees flaws on her face and body and keeps getting cosmetic surgeries to fix the imperfections only to end up making her appearance look worse and worse. She’s like the Bride of Wildenstein aka the Cat Lady. The more she does, the worse it’s gotten.

    She just needs to stop and accept the effects of what she’s done. I heard she’s going to declare bankruptcy or already has because of the legal fees. She could have just not gotten her ex- kicked out of the country and just share parental custody with him 100% in the US. But nope. It looks like she’s into self-sabotage.

  36. PoliteTeaSipper says:

    As someone who was stuck with an abusive mother “because all children need to stay with their mothers!!!!” and as a result was neglected and abused for decades by people wanting to give a nutcase custody of me “because she’s your mom,” I totally support her ex stripping her of her custody rights 150%. This woman has done everything possible to write their father out of her dual citizenship kids’ lives. No sympathy for her whatsoever. Some women simply are not cut out to be moms and it’s obvious this is all about control for her, not the well being of her kids.

    • snowflake says:

      so sorry to hear that. some people don’t deserve to have kids.

    • Dr.Funkenstein says:

      I know the feeling. Sorry to hear about that. You’re right — what’s best for the kids should always come first.

  37. The Original Mia says:

    Her whole argument is baseless. Those kids are both American and European. She isn’t being denied access to them, which would most definitely happen to her ex if she had primary custody of those kids. She’s about to get a smackdown from the White House. A polite one, but a smackdown all the same.

  38. Darkladi says:

    Murcia, y’all😣

  39. Amy says:

    We obviously don’t have all the details but Kelly obviously loves her kids and is clearly desperate to get them back if she is willing to appeal to Obama or Prince Albert (who I doubt can really help her). Some of this does seem to be self-inflicted since she allegedly didn’t even tell her husband she gave birth (or maybe that she was pregnant?) with her second kid and may have had a hand in him getting his visa revoked. But I don’t think she deserves to be punished for the rest of her life for it. Her ex certainly didn’t help things by taking the kids to Monaco and refusing to let them return to the US which is just as shady as what Kelly did.

    I’ve read about other international custody disputes before in which one parent from another country essentially kidnaps the child and takes them back to their home country, refusing the other parent the right to see their kids (Kelly can see her kids though, she just can’t bring them back to the US). It is always so heartbreaking and you never know all the facts. I just feel so bad for the kids involved.

    • anne_000 says:

      I’ve never heard that the father refused to send his kids to America. Never. It was Kelly who allegedly refused to return the kids to their father after their US visitation ended.
      ………….

      “Kelly can see her kids though, she just can’t bring them back to the US”

      Uh… the kids come to the US every summer to spend with Kelly.

      From the article above:

      ” Kelly’s ex, Daniel Giersch, pays for her to fly back and forth to see their kids and they get to stay with Kelly all summer in New York.”

      • LAK says:

        It’s amazing the misinformation being spread about this poor man and this custody case.

        Someone upthread thinks he is a bad father.

        Now he has refused to let her see the kids and is holding them hostage in Monaco….

        What next? He’s the child snatcher from chitty chitty bang bang?

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      “Her ex certainly didn’t help things by taking the kids to Monaco and refusing to let them return to the US which is just as shady as what Kelly did.”

      Custody of the kids was *given* to the father by the courts because the mother kept violating court orders.

      He did not “take” the kids to Monaco; he was given permission to bring them to Monaco since that’s where he lives — thanks to the mother having her lawyer lie to get the father deported.

      And he returns the kids to the US regularly, as directed by the court.

      Seriously, the father has done NOTHING shady or unfair or bad for the children. The mother has, repeatedly.

      Also, custody agreements are to ensure what is best for the children, NOT to “punish” one parent. You’re buying into Kelly’s argument that she’s a victim, when she’s really a jerk who is being made to face the consequences of her prolonged and intentionally jerkish behaviour.

      • Miss M says:

        Thank you! People are so misinformed about this case. Rutheford is acting as if her kids were kidnapped and they were NOT!!!!

        I guess this is the time of the year she geta her kids to visit her and she is trying to pull the same stunt she did last year.

  40. Lil Anne says:

    I don’t understand all this. Why would her lawyer think the petition to the POTUS a good idea? Why did she refuse to put her husband’s name on the birth certificate? Did her lawyer at the time advise, “Kelly, honey please . . . ” On the matter of her ex husband’s deportation did her legal counsel foresee repercussions, that it would come back and hit her? Is she someone w/ the worst taste in husbands and attorneys?

    • lunchcoma says:

      I don’t think the POTUS petition helps, but I don’t think it hurts either. At this point, she’s basically lost and is grasping at straws.

      She has what looks to be a very qualified legal team, but even a good lawyer can’t force a client to do things she doesn’t want to. I think it’s likely she chose not to listen to them at some points.

    • Dr.Funkenstein says:

      I think it’s a matter of it being the silly season. She figures she can generate loads more attention for her plight in a politically charged election climate. She’s deliberately stoking the fires of the anti-Obama folks by making this a matter of nationalism rather than civil law and international jurisdictions. I don’t honestly believe she has much motivation beyond attention seeking. I would not be at all surprised to see her attempting to come out of this with some kind of reality show, or trying to parlay it into a bigger new series. She strikes me as narcissistic and manipulative.

  41. DTX says:

    So let me get this straight, it was okay for HER to attempt to keep the children full time in a country that SHE GOT HIS VISA REVOKED FROM (ensuring he’d never see them) but it’s  NOT OKAY for him to be granted primary custody and live in his country (because he can’t live in the US obviously) and ATTEMP TO CO-PARENT & PAY for HER and the children’s travels to and from her home country so she can see them often and for long periods of time as well? Okayyyyy, b*tch, go home now.

    Also, I’m pretty sure that the last time he flew the kids into the US to visit her she defied US court orders and refused to send them back.

    The people signing this petition need to have their heads checked.

    • Ennie says:

      She filed an emergency petition to keep them here. CB reported it here about a year ago. This was refused by a NY judge.

  42. Jem says:

    I’ll sign a petition to make her STFU

  43. V. says:

    I think it would be ironic if it was an American celebutard that created in an international incident.

    P.S. Both Melanie Griffith and Cheryl Teigs look tired as hell. Please ladies have a seat! LOL

  44. Manjit says:

    Is he trying to strip her of her parental rights or is he just trying to have his custody rights recognised in the country he and his children reside in? I have no idea what type of parent he is but she comes across as a complete narcissist.

  45. Mmerain says:

    What I don’t understand about the reasonning of some people is why the kids should be with her and not with him? I mean, in any cases, there ARE going to live with only one parent, why doesn’t she try to work with him? It’s the best solution since he can’t enter the states. I’m not saying it’s easy, just that it looks like the best solution. Wht’s the alternative ?

    Wht drove me crazy was the stupid fans on Ed Westwick instagram. If you want to defend her, fine but at least don’t say non stop nonsense “oh la la, he took the child to France and doesn’t want to send them back” Really? Not one fact in your sentence is right. Dumb fan being dumb.

  46. BearcatLawyer says:

    No matter what Giersch seeks to do in the Monaco family court system, the judge there will undoubtedly be informed of the prior court proceedings and orders issued by the California family judge. I do not think it is unreasonable for him to seek to modify the custody arrangements by seeking court intervention in the country where he and his children legally reside – not when Kelly has been saying bat#$%^ crazy stuff like the California family court judge “deported” her kids and that this case involves Constitutional issues.

  47. morc says:

    Kelly Rutherford also sued Daniel Giersch over him potty training their son.
    That woman is a lot of sandwiches short.

  48. jwoolman says:

    She can always relocate to Monaco or France and see her kids any time she wants. Nobody is stopping her. But her attempt last summer to refuse to send the kids back to their dad was a very dangerous move. She risks losing joint custody in a US court over that, she was spitting in the face of clear court decisions and that is a long established pattern with her. All her flag-waving drama now sounds like an attempt to get public opinion behind her when she tries to do it again next summer. She is playing on common assumptions that the USA is the only country in the world that counts. She is lying about the whole thing to people who don’t know enough about the rest of the world to recognize the lies.

    She needs a complete psych evaluation before those kids are allowed to visit her here. Her words and behavior are very disturbing. Their dad has good reason to be worried and to establish jurisdiction in a place where he can actually travel to the court. Their mom made baseless accusations that are keeping him out of the U.S. And in these troubled times, he has virtually no chance of getting his visa back before those kids are in their twenties. That doesn’t mean he did anything, it’s just the way it works now in the USA, the Land of the Formerly Free.

    • (Original, not CDAN) Violet says:

      This.

      She’s become more and more irrational over the years, but I never thought I’d see the day she’d try to get the president involved!

      Considering she initially refused (until forced to by the courts) to return the kids after their last US visit, I think it’s in their best interest that they only have supervised visits with their mother in Monaco. In fact, Kelly is such a toxic individual that it’s probably best her kids not spend any time with her whatsoever until she stops her relentless campaign of parental alienation.

      Judging by her actions, I get the sense that Kelly is motivated more by entitlement, rage and vindictiveness than love.

      Her ex-husband seems like a decent guy and it’s pretty telling the one thing that Kelly has not accused him of is being a poor father. He’s not hurting for money and he’s not afraid of litigation, given he went up against Google for many years before finally settling out of court. Here’s an interview of his:

      http://www.theagencyre.com/2014/08/billy-rose-speaks-blipcard-founder-daniel-giersch/

  49. andy says:

    At this point who could blame her ex for taking all measures available to protect his kids from a mother who seems increasingly unstable?. If this was really about her children she would have taken the advice of lawyers after the initial ruling and spent time keeping a low profile, abiding by the terms of the ruling, not publicly bashing her ex, not using her children to wage a PR war when they’re with her and demonstrating a commitment to building a solid relationship with her ex. She’s absolutely failed to do any of this and appears to be loving this Joan of arc role she sees herself as playing. The anxiety this situation must be causing her kids and ex is unbelievable. The jingoism of her campaign is really off putting but also disrespects her children’s identity and experience as dual citizens.

  50. HK9 says:

    Nice try Kelly. Get on a plane and go to Monaco. Open a new chapter of your life, get some work in Europe, play fair with your ex and get on with it. Seems like your ex knows that speaking ill of the other parent deeply hurts the children-you should think about that.