Kelly Rutherford refuses to send kids to Monaco, says she doesn’t have to (update)

Kelly Rutherford Poses For Playful Pics With Her Children As Custody Battle Continues
Update: Rutherford has refused to send her children back on their scheduled flight to Monaco. She has issued a statement claiming that no country has jurisdiction over the children, that they’ve been in “exile” for three years, and that “no state in this country currently requires me to send the children away.” It’s absolutely galling that she has done this and is incredibly harmful to her children, who have friends, family and school in Monaco. She has created an international kidnapping situation, the same thing she’s falsely accused her ex of doing. You can read her statement on People Magazine. The arrogance and hubris she’s showing is just incredible and belies belief, despite the fact that she’s given us many, many clues that she might pull a stunt like this. She just kidnapped her own kids


Former Gossip Girl Kelly Rutherford had to send was supposed to send her two children back to Monaco Friday, where they live full time with their father and his extended family. Last night Kelly and the children, son Hermes, 8, and Helena, 6, just happened to be caught out by a paparazzo as they went to their final meal at a restaurant in NY City where she lives. (You can see the photos on The Daily Mail.) We’ve heard that Kelly’s ex husband, their father Daniel Giersch, is trying to shield them from the media. Kelly still brings the kids with her to red carpet events where they’re photographed but she’s not posting photos of their faces to her social media at least. I’m also pretty certain that she alerts a photographer to come along on her outings too. I’m not 100% on that, because you would think that Kelly would try to look more attentive and would have told her nanny to stay at home. Still, it’s unlikely that there’s a photographer camped outside her apartment. (It’s questionable that she can afford a nanny after filing for bankruptcy, but she is dating a Gucci exec so maybe he’s helping her out.)

We’ve heard that Kelly’s custody battle is firmly in her ex’s favor after both a California, then a New York court, ruled that they didn’t have jurisdiction over the case. It’s likely that a court in Monaco will take jurisdiction. I doubt that Giersch will try to revoke Kelly’s parental rights, although given the fact that she tried to do that to him it doesn’t seem that outlandish. His side has said multiple times that they want to ensure that Kelly has a relationship with her children. I do hope they slap some kind of media ban on her, although she’ll probably claim that she can’t help being a paparazzi target.

E! Online reports Kelly is really worried now because she thinks she might not see her kids again. A source tells them that she is “beside herself” and that “Kelly truly doesn’t know with certainty when she can ever see them [the children] again, as the Principality of Monaco will soon be considering her ex’s petition to obtain sole custody.” Here’s the thing, even if her ex gets sole custody she can still have visitation. Plus his lawyer has said that “Daniel will continue to promote Kelly’s relationship with the children. He believes that the children deserve to love both parents and has never nor does he intend to ever participate in any negative press directed at Kelly. As always, Daniel will continue to guard the privacy of the children, in their best interests and for their safety.”

So I doubt Daniel will cut Kelly out of their children’s lives, as she tried to do to him when she got him deported. She also threatened to keep the kids with her in NY several times.

Super Saturday NYC - Arrivals

Super Saturday NYC - Arrivals

photo credit: WENN, Getty and FameFlynet

Related stories

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

322 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford refuses to send kids to Monaco, says she doesn’t have to (update)”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Crumpet says:

    Oh Kelly, give it a rest.

    • Little Darling says:

      Like a good, hard, hang it in the closet rest. Put away in winter storage rest.

    • Audrey says:

      I’m pretty sure he didn’t file for sole custody. He just filed yo have her hand over their US passports while visiting.

      She just makes stuff up for sympathy.

      Despite her antics, dad seems to genuinely want her to stay involved. He just wants to keep them safe too after some of her threats

      • SnarkySnarkers says:

        Is there a legit reason she cannot go to Monaco to see them when they are there? I really don’t understand the theatrics with her?

      • bluhare says:

        He pays for her to go 6 times a year. She’s full of it.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ SnarkySnarkers

        He pays for her visits to Monaco to see the kids. He pays for her residence, air fare, car service six times a year.

        He also has the kids Skype her when they are in Monaco.

        He sends letters to Kelly to keep her up-to-date with what is going on with the kids.

        The court has found that he’s the only one between the two of them to make sure the other parent is involved in the kids’ lives.

      • Lady D says:

        He also, per court order, observes and celebrates all American holidays with his children while in his care.

      • gal says:

        The dad has been ordered for four years to apply for a visa. He refused.

        She was given primary custody but the arrangement in monaco was until his visa situation was resolved. He refuses to file even the first form in the process. Four years later.

        Now no court in the us says it can rule in disputes although she tried.

        Monaco has no jurisdiction over a divorce and custody case filed and started in the us. They can only rule on international law. If they rule to uphold the original custody then they would have to also enforce his requirement to file for a visa. They can’t do new custody.

      • gal says:

        As per court orders in 2013. He does not pay for visits.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        gal–are you reading the court orders selectively? There is no point in his reapplying for a visa until SHE writes a letter admitting the allegations were false. A letter the COURT ordered her to write, but that she has yet to do. So SHE could have caused the custody situation to be changed herself, but has refused to comply with the court’s direction.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        gal–are you reading the court orders selectively? There is no point in his reapplying for a visa until SHE writes a letter admitting the allegations were false. A letter the COURT ordered her to write, but that she has yet to do. So SHE could have caused the custody situation to be changed herself, but has refused to comply with the court’s direction.

      • Kay says:

        @anne_00 I al no Kelly fan, but as a mother- 6 visits and skyping is not nearly enough time with your chikdren. As a mother- or as a parent, you want to be there or within close proximity to experience their lives with them and you can’t get that through skype. That’s not a relationship. I think she manipulative and totally brought this situation on herself- but mom to mom, I feel for her.

        If my husband had custody of my kids in another country, Id probably be going crazy too.

      • qwerty says:

        @gal
        “She was given primary custody but the arrangement in monaco was until his visa situation was resolved. He refuses to file even the first form in the process. Four years later.”

        It’s hard to blame him. As long as things stay as they are now, he knows kids will have a relationship with both parents. She’s made it very clear she wants to cut him out of their lives completely. The moment the kids are allowed to live with her the US she’ll try to fcuk him over again to make sure he loses access to his children. Come to think of it, they’re not even allowed to do so now and that’s exactly what she’s done….

      • notasugarhere says:

        Kay, why should skyping and 6 visits with their father be enough? Every step of this process, he has co-parented and stated he welcomes Kelly in their childrens lives. He has agreed to 50/50. She is the one who tried to take 100 percent and the judge saw through it.

      • Samtha says:

        Kay, the ruling was that he had to pay for six visits, not that she was limited to six visits per year. She could have visited them any time she wanted. If it were my children, I’d find a way to be close to them, rather than keep trying to cut their father from their life.

        When you’re a parent, it’s not about what YOU want and what’s best for YOU anymore. You do what’s best for your children.

      • Mare says:

        He has paid for her flights and accommodations so that she can see her children in Monaco, so her saying she thinks she’ll never see them again is a bunch of BS N

    • LadyJ says:

      The kids are US citizens, he should have never gotten custody of them to begin with. I support her fight.

      • DrM says:

        Then you are completely clueless. She is an alienating parent who, if she had custody would ensure that those children NEVER saw their father again. It is good to see that the courts did what was right and awarded custody to the parent who truly seems to have the children’s best interests at heart.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They are dual citizens. US citizenship does not trump other citizenships.

        Parents were awarded joint physical custody, she played games, and the judge saw through them. The kids are better off in another country with their father. He doesn’t parade them around for photographers in defiance of a judge’s order.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        The kids are also German citizens and have a father who cannot travel to the U.S. thanks to her lies. I usually believe joint custody is the better way to go, but this case is one that begs for the father to be awarded sole custody.

      • GreenieWeenie says:

        I don’t understand this. The kids are clearly DUAL citizens of some kind. The US court can assert jurisdiction when the parent is a resident there but if the parent is not, it becomes quite murky. I’m a US passport holder but I don’t reside there; I don’t pay US taxes; I don’t have any retirement funds or other financial assets in the US, just like I don’t in my home country. I live 100% in a third-party country. Why would the US have more jurisdiction over me than my home country or the country where I am a permanent resident?

        So tell me how the US could assert jurisdiction over this German dude without a visa? Like that guy is going to keep assets in the US when he can’t even be certain of a visa? What ties does he even have to the US? Why should HE have to accept US jurisdiction, but Kelly doesn’t have to accept Monegasque jurisdiction?

      • gal says:

        This was supposed to be a temporary arrangement until he cleared his visa problems. After 4 years despite being ordered to he has not even filed the first form in the process.

        Daniel loves to get his lawyers and be a dick. Bear in mind he kept Google in court for years claiming he invented gmail.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Considering google’s track record, I wouldn’t think it unusual if they had stolen someone else’s idea for gmail.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Gal–so how much is the bankrupt Kelly paying you to post disinformation and lies? FACT: Daniel G registered the copyright on gmail in Germany FOUR YEARS before Google even released their beta service in the US. Google had similar issues in Russia, Poland, and even spent five years unable to use ‘gmail.com’ in the UK due to copyright disputes. None of these other companies (including Daniel) claimed they invented Google’s gmail.

        Back to the visa issue–there’s no point in him filing until Kelly performs her COURT- MANDATED duty of writing a letter admitting her allegations were false.
        But somehow I suspect you are quite aware of this.

      • Ennie says:

        didn’t he registered the domain gmail.com before gmail extended there? If so, he had all the rights to sell or sue a giant.

      • milla says:

        me too.

        that man is rich and powerful, of course she cannot beat him in legal terms, no wonder she is reaching to the media. kids should be with their mom. unless she is an abusive parent or some addict. which we all know is not the case.

        money talks.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Right. Now you’re accusing him of paying off multiple judges in multiple geographic locations? Kelly’s minions really are desperate for spin.

        I consider her alienating behavior to be abusive.

      • qwerty says:

        @milla

        Nope, kids should be raised by both parents. If that’s not an option, parents should have joint custody. If that’s not an option either (which she made sure of) they should go to the parent who’s more capable of giving them proper care. And she definitely isn’t that parent. They only way she would be was if he was abusive… or some addict.

      • K says:

        You need to read the actual court judgement that decided that, and explained why.

        She tried to alienate them from their father and she tried to block him from their lives using every possible means. That is an abuse of those children. She’s still doing it, right now, by not sending them home.

        They have dual nationality. Their home, by now, is certainly Monaco. She doesn’t give a crap about that, or them, or anyone but herself. As a mother myself she appals me.

    • REEEELY?? says:

      Why should she give it a rest? This is an unusual case that none of us as commenters are qualified to judge. These are US born citizens so IMO she has a leg to stand on. If she’s following the advice of council she is doing the right thing.

      • Patricia says:

        No, they have dual citizenship, US and European.
        Why should kids be with their mum??? They should be with both parents, which Daniel was willing to make possible, Kelly was not. This has nothing to do with money. Please read the court documents.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Where they were born does not trump their legal status as dual citizens of the US and Germany. They have equal citizenship in both countries.

      • Annie says:

        Exactly- I’m sure if it were the posters kids being taken away, they wouldn’t just ” give it a rest” . All these commenters think they know what’s going on according to info in a celebrity blog site. Heartless people

      • Samtha says:

        Annie, most of us are going by what the official court documents say and on Kelly’s own public behavior.

        Kelly’s children were NOT taken away from her. Plenty of people share custody of their children when they get divorced. She is not a special snowflake who should be allowed to cut the kids’ father from their lives just because she’s…a woman? An American?

      • K says:

        She’s actually going against numerous court judgements, the 1980 Hague Convention (which, incidentally, works both ways – so if he’d taken them away and she had primary custody in the States, she could get them back from Europe in exactly the same way he is going to get them from her – legally) and the best interests of those kids.

        The judgement is online. It explains what she did and why all the courts and court-appointed specialists have sided with him. It is clearcut. Counsel are paid, and while good counsel would strongly advise her against this, nobody forces anyone to 1) obtain good advice, or 2) take it.

  2. sassy says:

    i do not understand why she just doesn’t go live in Monaco????? Its not like she’s a in demand actress??? Suck it up stop the BS and parent your kids !!

    • Amy M. says:

      Easier said than done. A lot of people have been asking that. First of all Monaco real estate is exhorbitant. It’s a tax haven for the rich. And I’m not sure you are allowed to buy property in Monaco if you are not a citizen. She could rent but that’s probably super expensive too. And she would need to work, she’s an actress and there probably aren’t many English language productions being shot there. She would need a visa to live there full time and those are not easy to come by. I suppose she could live in neighboring France but French bureaucracy is awful.

      I have dual French-American citizenship so when I lived in Spain, I didn’t need a visa (yay EU regulations). However my fellow Americans did have to have a work sponsored visa and the horror stories and disorganization of the Spanish extranjeria are ridiculous.

      Not defending Kelly, not a fan of hers but it’s a lot harder to pick up and move to a foreign country than you’d think.

      • Lena says:

        I am sure her ex would agree to at least partially support her living in Monaco or neighboring France if she stopped all the bullshit. Of course it’s not easy moving to a foreign country but other people have done it as well and that’s what you do if you love your children, you make sacrifices. A good idea for her would probably be to try get some work in England, maybe playing an American on some tv series, so she could more easily visit her children. But she is not interested in sacrificing or compromise or what’s good for her children, she just wants sole custody.

      • Gru says:

        @Lena

        I dont think getting roles on European TV is as easy as you think it is. There are thousands more recognizable, talented and successful American actresses who would be just as grateful for a career revival.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        I’m pretty sure Daniel would buy her a house, if she asked.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If she wants to be with her kids more, she needs to figure out a new long-term career she can pursue in Europe.

      • GreenieWeenie says:

        I believe her ex husband is independently wealthy…?

      • jessiebes says:

        She could however live just over the border in France. It’s a pretty touristy area, English speakers could find jobs there. Just not very glamorous jobs.

      • qwerty says:

        She had lots of money. She could’ve bought luxury property and lived off the rent while she figures out the rest. And she doesn’t need to live in Monaco like others have said before me lol.
        The problem is not the lack of option but the fact tha she won’t even cosider them. She’s an American citizen on US soil and moving to some European country like Monaco that oh, just happens to be one of the richest countries in the world in beneath her. As an American citizen….

  3. Miran says:

    I’m amazed she actually sent them back. I figured she was going to keep them and the we would legitimately have an international kidnapping situation.

    • lovethesnark says:

      ha! exactly :)

    • funcakes says:

      I also thought this was going to go down a different way. I was kind of nervous for her and the kids. I thought for sure she was going to delay returning them.
      I’m sure he must have a private detective following her since her behavior prove to be erratic.
      I’m just glad she’s abiding law.

    • HK9 says:

      Me too~I’m happily surprised.

    • wrinkled says:

      Perhaps someone talked some legal sense into her and emphasized that it would be a bad idea.

    • vauvert says:

      She was never going to try that – if the paps are not there, it didn’t happen with this one. If you take the kid and run, how can you go on stage in matching white outfits and pose?

  4. Liz says:

    It’s disgusting how she flaunts her kids when she has them. If I wasn’t going to see my kids for a long time I would probably stay home and cook for them instead of doing a pap walk to a restaurant. Does she even get work anymore? I fail to see how she’s even relevant anymore.

  5. Sunnyside says:

    I’m glad she hasn’t been successful in all her underhanded court attempts and that at least one parent is keeping the kids’ best interests in mind

  6. byland says:

    I don’t think she cares much about the kids either way. It’s all a media strategy to her. Whatever gets her the most time in front of a camera. Shades of my mother are strong in this one.

    (The all about me game plan didn’t work out much in her favor either, as my grandparents adopted me once I turned eighteen and had legal control over my own life. If we ever stand a chance of finding out what really went on here it’s when those kids hit majority, too, but I doubt anyone will remember who Kelly Rutherford is/was by then.)

    I’ll just be over here on Team Kids Deserve a Childhood.

    • Suzy from Ontario says:

      I agree. If she cared that much about spending time with her kids she wouldn’t be constantly at events with them where she can show them off on the red carpet. Instead she’d be …ya know, actually spending time with them, doing things with them, enjoying THEM…not forcing them to go to events that are probably boring for them so she can show them off and pretend to be some spokeswoman for mothers dealing with spousal abduction or whatever! She’s a total narcissist in my opinion. She likes all the attention this is bringing to her and how it keeps her in the tabloids and in the news and paints her as a victim, but her kids? I’m glad they are with their father and seem to have a stable life in Monoco. She’s all about herself.

    • Neah23 says:

      This she child with a Toy ( her kids ) that doesn’t want to share and is being made to, so she growing a tantrum.

  7. Pinky says:

    As much as anyone dislikes her and her tactics or even thinks she’s nuts, this case is really f’ed up. California claiming it does not have jurisdiction now when it refused to allow her to change jurisdiction to New York years ago? New York claiming it has no jurisdiction? I do kind of believe that she is right in that her kids were essentially deported when every US legal body refused to take the case. Maybe the courts are right that they do not currently have jurisdiction, but they did once and essentially abdicated their responsibilities to another country of which the kids are not citizens. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    • mindydopple says:

      The kids have dual citizenship. She brought this fight to another country when she purposefully had her ex deported, and it turned out to be the worst mistake ever. Now she has to live with it.

      • Liberty says:

        this.

      • Pinky says:

        They are U.S. and German citizens, not Monaco citizens, right?

      • Sixer says:

        Pinky – because they are German citizens, they are also EU citizens. We have free movement in the EU, which includes civil, legal and constitutional rights. They are living in Monaco, where those kids have legal citizenship.

        You should look at it a bit like states within the US. It’s not exactly the same but it’s not that different either.

      • bluhare says:

        Agree.

        I think the kids hold EU passports and are citizens of Germany because their dad’s German. I think.

      • notasugarhere says:

        iirc Monaco is not a member state of the European Union. There are agreements in place for certain things, but they are not legally a member state.

      • Sixer says:

        It’s a weird relationship, NOTA. Technically, Monaco isn’t a member of the EU but in most de facto ways, it is. This is principally because the EU has no formal mechanism to admit it and the other European microstates like Andorra and San Marino. It’s part of the free movement Schengen area though, also uses the euro, and some of its functions – eg defence – are undertaken by France.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It is a weird relationship. In this case it might help, if they are seen as a third-party legal system outside of both US and (technically) EU systems.

    • Nicole says:

      I think ‘we don’t have jurisdiction’ is legalese for ‘we wash our hands of this crazy lady.’

    • Audrey says:

      The kids are legally residents of Monaco since they spend majority of their time there. I don’t see why it’s so bad for monaco to have jurisdiction, monaco will respect that this is an international case involving US/German citizens

    • notasugarhere says:

      (edit, Mindy said this much better and faster). What I understand:

      The children have dual citizenship, US and German. US citizenship does not trump the citizenship of another country, it is not more important. They were not deported, nor was he. She and her lawyers deliberately made some very serious accusations (all lies) and his US visa was revoked. He willingly left the US before the deadline, in order to comply with the law. They had been awarded joint physical custody. Because of her games, he was not legally allowed to enter the US. How was he supposed to have joint physical custody?

      The judge determined that the only logical way to allow joint physical custody was to have the kids live with their father during the school year outside of the US, and live with their mother 3 months during the summer. The judge required the father to pay all expenses for Kelly to visit them 6 times every year during the 9 month period they reside with their father. Their father now lives and works in Monaco, and his parents also live with them. She seems to currently be unemployed and lives in New York. Since none of them live in California anymore, the California courts said they cannot have jurisdiction.

      The US is over 2 times the geographical size of Europe. Think of European countries as being like states in the US. It is not unusual for a citizen of one European country to live and work in another European country. Sort of like being raised in Illinois but choosing to work in Virginia. The court that will probably take jurisdiction now is the one where he lives and works, Monaco. That makes more sense than a German court, even though he and their children are German citizens.

      • Sixer says:

        Sorry, NOTA. I didn’t see your comment before I typed mine above. And note that these kids are not only German citizens, they are also EU citizens, with equal rights under law in any EU country.

      • gal says:

        As of a 2013 court order, daniel does not pay her expenses to travel. At all. This is your fantasy.

        Also he was ordered 4 years ago to reapply for a visa or lose his kids. After 4 years he has not filed the first form in the process.

      • notasugarhere says:

        gal, if Rutherford had him on something as simple as failing to file paperwork, we would have used that against him years ago. She is required to do her part of the process too, required to uphold all of the pieces of the custody agreement including keeping her kids away from public engagements, and she hasn’t.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        gal, you need to be citing your contradictory statements with actual links to documents. Otherwise it sounds like YOUR FANTASY.

        This isn’t going to end well for Kelly. Not complying with court-ordered visitation rights will ultimately subject her to jail time and loss of what visitation rights she has. She can’t fight this battle in the media and win.

    • Lady D says:

      Doesn’t the original agreement stand in this case? With no court taking jurisdiction the custody order that was first developed is the one they must use, right?

      • Audrey says:

        Dad got a mirror order of that agreement in monaco so that arrangement will stand unless monaco makes changes

    • LAK says:

      She moved away from the state that had jurisdiction and failed to obtain a mirror order in her new state when the window was still available to her.

      To now call foul when she disobeyed court orders AND was sloppy in her legal filings is ridiculous.

      Father wasn’t sloppy AND obeyed court orders. Father wins.

      If she wasn’t so hellbent on removing him from the picture, she’d concentrate on a proper legal strategy that works with the courts and follow it through.

      She’s very lucky that the father appears to be fairly lenient in allowing her more access than is spelled out in the original custody agreement. If he was as vindictive as she is, she would never see those kids beyond the alloted times and or at all.

      • JaneFR says:

        I do wonder if he is very lenient (and a better person than me) or if it’s long term strategy. If the kids were to grow up without their mother, only knowing about her from the press they might be inclined to believe her claims and revolt against their father. This way, they will grow up seeing her for what she is, seeing how precious her time with them was or not to her.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Pinky

      What difference would jurisdiction in either CA or NY have on this case?

      None, imo.

      How would either state’s court make the order the reverse of what it is now?

      Kelly and her legal team made it nearly impossible for Daniel to get his US visa back, so he’s not able to travel at least six times a year to visit the kids in the US if Kelly ever got primary physical custody.

      The CA court decided it would be harder on the kids for them to travel back and forth to see each parent, and that it would be easier for Kelly to do so. So why would the CA or NY courts want to reverse this? Why should the onus be put upon the kids?

      Also, Daniel obeyed the CA court order to put in a mirror order in Monaco’s court.

      So is Kelly expecting a different ruling if the jurisdiction was in NY?

      The original ruling has been working well for the kids. They have a stable home life. Daniel makes sure that Kelly is involved in the kids’ life even having the kids Skype her when they are in Monaco and sending her letters to keep her up-to-date, and he pays for six of her visits per year. When it’s said that she’s visited over 70 times, that sounds like he’s been allowing more than the 6 visits per year.

    • claire says:

      You are wrong. It’s good to read up on this case. If you’re getting all your info from Kelly, you’re getting lies.

    • Pinky says:

      Thank, everyone, for your replies.

    • GreenieWeenie says:

      Ooh, this is the thread I was looking for because the citizenship details are clear. I live in a country that is not a sovereign state. I am a permanent resident, which is the equivalent of citizenship (I don’t need a visa to live/work here anymore) although nominally different. So I sense that is the situation with Monaco. Not quite a sovereign state but still autonomous from surrounding countries (and therefore falling under the EU umbrella). So if the father and the children have full legal status there, whether citizenship or equivalent, then given that they are also currently residing there–how does their custody NOT fall under the jurisdiction of their country of residence?
      Thanks, notsugarhere, this is exactly my reasoning even though I don’t know anything about Europe.

    • Pinky says:

      Up-update: So now she’s keeping them! Every U.S. body claimed it did not have jurisdiction, so now no U.S. body can compel her to send them back. Amazing. The courts got out-played. And, yeah, I recognize these are real children’s live at stake, but it has become a chess match.

      • grumpy bird says:

        No not at all. The US courts ruled they didn’t have jurisdiction to preside over a custody fight. They can still enforce the existing arrangement. This is an international kidnapping by a parent – see The Hague Abduction Convention.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_on_the_Civil_Aspects_of_International_Child_Abduction

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Pinky

        Just because the states don’t want jurisdiction for future court hearings, that doesn’t mean that all the rulings previously made were rescinded.

        She still has to comply.

        No court has ruled that all previous orders are null and void.

        And because Daniel complied with the CA court order to set up a mirror order in Monaco, the kids are still under the protection of the order over there too.

        And the US government still has to enforce the rulings.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ grumpy bird

        Thanks for the link.

      • Pinky says:

        I think her legal team is comprised of some genius minds because they are making some interesting arguments. Number 1, California should never have had jurisdiction in the first place because neither party had lived in that state for six months, prior to that ruling. Which means that the ruling could/should be tossed. That’s their take, anyway. Next, shouldn’t there be a mirror ruling in the States, of Monaco’s ruling that originated in California? But no U.S. Court is claiming jurisdiction, thus the courts do not technically recognize the ruling? I may be totally wrong on that, but reading the Hauge Convention details, the children are technically habitual residents of both countries and immediately preceding this “abduction,” they were residing in the U.S. So someone’s going to have to convince the courts that she is in violation of the spirit of the Convention, because she is not in violation of the letter of the Convention yet. It’s the courts’ own stupid fault this happened. And don’t get me started on how you can get two diametrically opposed rulings from two different judges (or eve the same judge), and the only cause one might have for appealing a ruling is if there were technical errors or gross misconduct. Judges make non legal rulings based on their own biases and temperaments all the time and that needs to be fixed. Beyond all that, the last California court ruling before it abdicated its responsibility awarded her sole custody. So she’s operating off of that. This is messed up but I blame the courts and judges even more than her, for being petulant and inconsistent such that loopholes could be exploited.

        Meanwhile, Giersch’s attorney has issued a statement to E! This country will not be popular if it chooses to jail a woman, who is not in hiding but publicly making her case, for trying to keep her kids in the country, when there has been no allegation of abuse, physical or psychological, or otherwise. Giersch is not a saint, has not filed for a new Visa but did file for sole custody inmonaco after promising not to do so. All bets are off from both sides, it seems to me. The U.S. had better step back in the game and figure out which court has jurisdiction so this can actually be resolved without jailing Rutherford. Nobody wants to make a martyr out of her, as much as she might believe she is one, so a spectacle that includes law enforcement is not ideal.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She fought to have it heard in California the first time. The California order has been in place since at least 2012, and she didn’t have a problem with California as the court then. It is pretty shaky ground that after three years, NOW she has a problem with California as the initial court.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Pinky

        I wrote a long answer to answer each of your topics, but then I figured that this shorter answer would be better:

        There is a difference between jurisdiction issues for future rulings versus the fact that past rulings are still in effect.

        So she still has to comply with the past rulings. She needs to return the kids or else she is doing something illegal.

      • Pinky says:

        @anne I’m not necessarily pro Rutherford, just to be clear. Nor am I ardently pro Giersch as most others seem to be, because his hands are not clean either (though he might arguably be the more mentally stable individual). I just listed the arguments her attorneys and she have made that might actually hold water. And, mind you, she is complying with one of the more recent past rulings that awarded her sole custody. That’s how it works, right? You’re supposed to comply with the most recent ruling. Granted the court then stated that ruling was an overreach because it no longer claimed to have jurisdiction, but she is exploiting loopholes to her advantage. That’s all I’m saying. Someone is going to have to rule on how she is breaking the law. Who will take this case in the U.S? The Feds? She will argue that they refused to do anything before, so why are they stepping in now? Not saying her arguments are right or that she will or should win, I’m just interested in the legal shenanigans everyone is pulling., Giersch included.

      • grumpy bird says:

        @Pinky

        1) Monaco never made a ruling – Daniel obtained a mirror order in Monaco for the ruling made in California. Kelly never got one in New York – that she failed to do so by the deadline is her fault, not the courts. (Even if the ruling had been made in Monaco the idea behind The Hague Abduction Convention is that a country can’t simply ignore a custody agreement because it was made in a foreign court.)

        2) The children are American citizens but they would not be considered habitual residents of the US ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitual_residence ). Yes, the last place they were located was the US but they were visiting, they were not there on a permanent basis. (Even if they were considered habitual residents Kelly is still violating a court order by not returning the children to their father. It’s not an “abduction” it is a very real abduction.)

        3) You started by saying California should never have had jurisdiction but then say it’s ok for Kelly to follow their most recent ruling – you can’t have it both ways. (That ruling was overturned, so it’s a moot point)

        4) Daniel never filed for sole custody in Monaco. (Unless this is a very recent development following this whole debacle, in which case I don’t blame him.)

        5) Why does any US court need to have jurisdiction over this case? Yes, Kelly is American and her children are American citizens. But their father is German and the children are also German citizens – this doesn’t somehow count for less than their American citizenship. The children and their father currently reside in Monaco – as such, Monaco retains jurisdiction. If Kelly is unhappy with the custody agreement she is free to challenge it – in Monaco. Until she receives a new custody agreement the previous one stands and Kelly is wrongfully withholding her children.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Pinky

        That May order from a CA judge was overturned by another CA judge. Note: This was before the CA jurisdiction ended.

        So why is she following an order that she knows was overturned?

        Is she allowed to override an overturned ruling all by her lonesome without going to court to appeal it like the rest of us are required to do?

        So that May order was not ‘the most recent order.’ Again, she knows this.

        There is no loophole. It was overturned.

        Kelly would have to show the federal courts that there is evidence that something was wrong with the CA ruling.

        Daniel hasn’t been pulling any shenanigans so far as we know.

        It’s interesting that none of Kelly’s attorneys, both the ones working for her in CA and NY, have as yet come out to state publicly that what she is doing is legal.

        You’d think that if they approved of what she is doing, they wouldn’t be so shy about saying so.

        Or could it be that they can’t figure out how any of it is legal…..?

      • Pinky says:

        @grumpy Can we just be clear that I am just restating her arguments? So debating these issues with me seems kind of frivolous. However, I do appreciate it when people add facts that might counter her arguments. Don’t you think it’s important to figure out why her arguments might be considered valid, in order to come up with a way to counter them in court? Because that’s what’s good lawyers do: they consider whether there is any possibility a judge might side with someone and devise a solid rebuttal. That said:

        1) I know! 2) The kids weren’t “visiting” Rutherford because the parents share joint custody. They were merely “with” her during her custody time. That’s how it is worded in joint custody cases. Thus, I continue to contend that immediately prior, they were in her care and Giersch’s attorney will have to find a way to prove otherwise and risk suggesting that Giersch did not really consider custody split.
        3) I am not making this argument. Rutherford is. And it makes sense if she is stating that Calofornia never legally had jurisdiction, then the initial ruling is invalid, and thus, there has never been a ruling on custody. To her it means there is not a legally binding agreement in place. Which means she is not breaking any laws, as there is no expectation as to when the kids must be returned. And let me be clear again: THIS iS HER ARGUMENT, NOT MINE!
        4) “However, Rutherford has now issued another statement, claiming that it was Giersch who initially violated their custody agreement, saying, ‘My ex-husband recently filed for sole custody in Monaco after causing my children to be declared ‘habitual residents’ there, even though he agreed with California in 2012 that the children’s time in France and Monaco would be temporary, and that the children would retain exclusive citizenship and residency in the United States. I trusted my ex-husband’s agreement, and cannot now send them away in light of the legal actions taken in Monaco in violation of that agreement by my ex-husband.’” It is from her statement that I made that assertion. Granted, she might have had word salad for breakfast and might have extrapolated from his actions that he was making a move for sole custody when in fact he hadn’t (and might not ever have done so). But if her claim is correct, that he promised the kids would remain permanent residents of the U.S. and not of any other country, then, yeah, he made a move that violated their agreement either outright or in spirit.
        5) I think it’s clear why she believes there should be US jurisdiction: the kids don’t live exclusively in Monaco. They live in both countries, yet even you are falsely assuming that they only live in one place and that that place ‘where they live,’ yet where they are not citizens, should retain jurisdiction. I have read everyone’s arguments about the dad being German, etc., and that Monaco kinda sorta is kinda sorta part of the EU but not really, but really promises to operate within the confines of the EU’s laws and agreements–really, it totally swears to. But bottom line is, they are not citizens of Monaco, thus Monaco should not really be making NEW determinations about custody or even upholding one that was not made legally and should be tossed because California never had jurisdiction to begin with. (Again, HER argument that might, just might, hold water.) Phew!

      • LAK says:

        Pinky: I understand what you are putting forward which is trying to posit her legal nee re-worded PR statements designed to make her look like a legal/ex-husband matyr whose children were removed.

        I won’t go into the detail of the various points you’ve raised, so i’ll sum up the counter legal rebuttal.

        1. She is claiming that the Californian agreement was temporary and not legally binding and yet she hasn’t forwarded that argument prior to this kidnapping. Taking apart every single sentence in her word salad amounts to the same thing. She’s reworded the original agreement that she signed upto such that it justifies her current actions.

        2. She agreed to the Monaco court the terms of the agreement during that early summer Monaco court hearing in which she is allowed to have the kids during the summers and dad has them during the school year. How come she didn’t put forward this argument to that court? She has gone as far as praising the Monaco court in one statement and then saying they have no right in another.

        3. The Monaco court is merely holding a mirror agreement that reflects the californian agreement. No more and no less. Both parents were instructed by the California court to set up mirror orders in their places of residence. Neither party has changed that original agreement. All she had to do is to create a mirror order in NYC and she has not done so, and is now crying foul because NYC has refused to listen to future applications on custody. I firmly suspect that she refuses to create a mirror order in NYC because the courts will reinforce the california agreement which is not what she wants.

        4. She has gone to court several times to overturn the california order so that she can have sole custody and she has been denied every single time. The one time she won her argument, the judge didn’t have any facts from Daniel’s side and decision was reversed as soon as the other side presented their side.

        All of which says one thing and one thing only, given that family courts tend to be biased to mother’s, something is seriously wrong here that they will not give an inch on Kelly’s arguments. No matter which court she files with, she loses. And I suspect she loses for one very simple thing, she refuses to work with the courts.

        You and her may be right, but apparently the courts don’t see it that way. She hasn’t demonstrated that she will abide by any rule that doesn’t mean sole custody with no contact at all with Daniel.

        BTW, as much as you want to come up with a rational legal explanation for her statements and actions nee play devil’s advocate here, isn’t it telling that her legal team, in California, in NYC, even that TV guy Dan Abrams haven’t said a peep since all this went down. They’ve been very vocal along the way.

      • Pinky says:

        @LAK Yes, it us telling. This very well may have been her acting of her own accord and against legal advice. I’m sure we’ll know shortly, as Giersch is probably going to emerge with all legal guns a-blazin’ and her representatives (if they don’t part ways with her) are going to have to respond.

    • jwoolman says:

      The kids weren’t deported. They are free to come and go. They are just going home to their father when they go to Monaco. They have extended family, school, and friends over there. He sends them to an English-language school so they stay fluent in their mother’s language. They have dual citizenship (US and German, which gives them EU citizenship also and freedom to live anywhere in the EU) and are residents of Monaco. Their mother has been acting more and more bizarre and has become a danger to her own children. She keeps refusing to follow court orders. Her ex can’t get a visa thanks to her lies, and she won’t recant even though the court ordered her to clear things up with the State Department. Those children will be full grown before his visa situation is sorted out, if ever, and that’s all because of her.

  8. Insomniac says:

    I’m honestly surprised that she actually gave them back. I really thought she was going to take them and go on the run.

  9. bella says:

    this entire saga is mind-boggling.
    why would she think she can’t ever see her kids again?
    get on a plane and go see them.

    how she doesn’t have full custody is beyond me, too.
    it’s pretty hard for a mom to lose custody, no?
    although i do remember reading that given their dad is a foreigner, different law applies.

    if i wasn’t able to have my children live with me under my roof and see them and parent them every single day, i’d go mad.
    i’d have to do everything i could to be close to them, even if that meant relocating and hopping planes to make a living.

    i just don’t get it…

    • Nicole says:

      It is no longer the case that women are given de facto full custody.

    • Erinn says:

      But isn’t the goal to have joint custody first and foremost? Unless something is really an issue, I think they try to split these things pretty well in the court system.

      That being said, I’m Canadian and I only know the law here… and only to a certain degree. I know that every child has the right to both parents, regardless of whether the mother tries to vindictively cut the father out. It’s the right of the child, not the parents.

      But, like you, I’d move in a heart beat if it meant I wouldn’t have access to my children otherwise. I’d at least try to get on the same continent if I were her. I know you can’t just move on a whim to another country, but I’d be doing everything possible to try.

      • Suzy from Ontario says:

        In a sense they already do have shared custody. She has them all summer and was able to see them as much as she wanted in Monoco, on his dime (including flight, accommodations and transportation while there), while they were in school. If she cooperated with her ex, instead of trying to have it all her way, it sounds like he would have been very reasonable about her being in their lives as much as possible. Instead she has been a drama queen, constantly fighting him and badmouthing him, none of which is good for those kids. They have a life there. His mother is there looking after them as well. They go to school and have friends and there’s no papparazzi taking pictures of them and he isn’t dragging them to events on the red carpet so they can be photographed. She’s put herself in the position she’s in and it feels like she’s a child having a tantrum because she can’t have it all her own way instead of a mature mom looking at what is best for her children.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Her move to get him deported made joint physical custody impossible. They can still share joint custody over other decisions. Although it sounds like she is contributing very little to their financial support

    • Little Darling says:

      She didn’t actually “lose” custody. Because Daniel was deported, largely in part due to her lawyers, in order to retain the 50/50 instated in California, the kids had to have primary physical custody with him, because he was unable to travel into the US anymore.

      In California it’s usually always 50/50, the law tries very hard to let both parents have equal amount time shared with the kids. They don’t give an eff about the drama behind everything. Are the kids loved? Are they reasonably being taken cared of in both residences? yes? 50/50. They don’t allow a lot of he said/she said drama to actually affect the rulings with custody. If parents have drug problems etc then the court will put restrictions in place, with most cases having supervised visitation at the very least.

    • Audrey says:

      They have 50/50 custody. But the kids reside with dad since he was the parent willing to facilitate a relationship between the kids and kelly and he can’t enter the U.S. to visit, attend school events, etc. Kelly is able to travel so it’s on her to fly but he pays for 6 visits per year, including a car and housing. Kelly also tried to cut dad out of their lives repeatedly so a judge didn’t trust her to keep dad informed and involved

      • Suzy from Ontario says:

        Exactly! She’s the one trying to alienate him from the kids’ lives! Plus with all this fighting, I heard a judge recently said that her ex no longer will be required to pay for her travel and hotel expenses for her to see them. So she’s making things worse for herself. She’s lucky he doesn’t sue her for parental alienation! Those kids love their Dad and he seems like he’s a good parent…they aren’t going to thank her for what she is doing to them and their Dad as they get older. She may think they will, but they are caught in the middle and she is not thinking about their feelings, just what she wants. Maybe they don’t want to leave Monaco and their Dad and their school to live with her! She strikes me as very manipulative and if I was their Dad, I would worry about all the sly little ways she’d be trying to turn the kids against me, because I could totally see her trying to do that.

    • Neah23 says:

      ( how she doesn’t have full custody is beyond me, too. it’s pretty hard for a mom to lose custody, no? )

      That’s an old school way of thinking things have changed. The doesn’t automatically get custody anymore custody got to the parent that’s most fit.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ bella

      I don’t think the issue was because Daniel is a foreigner.

      I think it’s because Kelly and her legal team made it nearly impossible for Daniel to live in the US or visit the kids in the US.

      Since she set up this predicament, the judge figured it wasn’t fair to put the onus on the kids and Daniel.

  10. vauvert says:

    She will continue to see them on Daniel’s dime, the same she has always been able to, despite all her miserable attempts to paint him as a shady character, bad father, etc. She did not go broke visiting the kids, she went broke trying to cut the kids’ dad out of their lives. If she had been willing to co-parent peacefully they would all still live in the US and she’d have half custody – all this is of her own doing. She is lucky that Daniel is acting like a gentleman and loving father in all this fiasco. She will continue to complain and crazy though because that is who she is. The whole kidnapping/deported kids antics will never stop and there are enough idiots online who actually believe her.

  11. M.A.F. says:

    She may not be able to control the paparazzi but she can control bringing them to events.

    • chaine says:

      I think she is controlling the paparazzi. She went bankrupt and her acting career seems to have ended. Payoffs from the paps for shots of her kids are probably the only money she makes now.

    • kaye says:

      “control the paparazzi”?? she goes out of her way to expose her kids to the cameras. instead of taking her kids to the park, the zoo or doing other low-key activities that are appropriate for children, all she seems to do is dress them up like dolls and take them to one red carpet event after another. I bet they love that (sarcasm) – especially her son. Soccer? I don’t want to play soccer I want to go pose and get my picture taken.

  12. meme says:

    FFS, just shut up already Kelly. There’s a reason the courts aren’t in your favor.

    • funcakes says:

      Its really like watching someone punch themselves in the face.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      Google MadTV’s stupidest man in the world. This skit has Key & Peele in it before they went out on their own. Kelly seems to be using it as an instructional video.

  13. mandygirl says:

    Just move to Monaco & stop fighting. I don’t understand why she can’t just live there. I’d do anything to be with my children.

  14. QQ says:

    A) im damned nearly to the point of indeed Hoping she doesnt!

    B) the dad has Slightly more common sense than you girl, so No it won’t happen, call your white tears Tits Down

    C) Quit with the White, you look like a freshly bleached Ghost and we can practically see the ALL CAPS THOUGHT BUBBLE YELLING: IM AN INNOCENT, MY EX ISNT, HE WEARS COLORS!!

  15. sills says:

    JFC, if anyone should be worried about not seeing the kids again it’s her ex. Isn’t she the one who made public statements like “Anyone who kidnaps my kids would be a national hero?” And what is with this endless shoving them in photogs’ faces, in those silly white outfits to boot? (I hope she’s going for the “three-member doomsday cult” look cuz that’s all I’m getting.) The ex’s lawyer’s statement was the slap upside the head this unbearable narcissist richly deserves.

  16. Olive says:

    wow i was expecting some big drama at the air port.

    Her kids are gorgeous. But there is one thing. I´ve seen the newest article in the DailyMail. In almost every “look i´m supermummy” picture Kelly carries her daughter like a monkey. Is this a PR trick like the white cloths? It´s super sweet, but isn´t this girl a little bit too to be carried around for hours? I mean she even drags this girl to fashion shows and fundraisers. Maybe her daughter is so tired and exhausted she has to be carried? Kelly recently postet pictures of her daughter and was calling her a future fashion designer…

  17. My Two Cents says:

    I still remember the absolute hell she put those kids through when she did the pap stroll to the car that was waiting to take them to their Father when she lost custody. She was wailing and so upset. She made it so hard on those poor children and I felt like it was all for show. While I’m sure it was hard for her, she made it so much worse for them than it had to be.

    • Daisy says:

      I read the original California judgment, and the judge put in some very VERY specific provisions about how handovers were to take place. Children had to be walking on their own two feet instead of carried, each had to be allowed some comfort object, no going back and forth to fetch stuff, parents NOT ALLOWED to cry. It’s pretty obvious she (the judge) was trying to forestall exactly the kind of paparazzi-friendly and emotionally difficult scenes Kelly loves to create.

  18. j.eyre says:

    Kelly Rutherford – the only person who actively hopes Donald Trump becomes president.

    • meow says:

      Unfortunately I don’t think Kelly is alone wishing DTrump will be Prez. I hope I’m wrong but he could really be our next Prez.

      • jwoolman says:

        But are we sure The Donald was born on this planet? Is there proof?

      • notasugarhere says:

        I suspect the hair is extraterrestrial and secretly controlling his every move. It learned everything it knows about politics and the USA from FauxNews.

      • Dana m says:

        I don’t watch TV so please help to clarify: Are there really (celebrity) people out there endorsing Donald Trump? He seems like a joke.

  19. Roller74 says:

    I felt sorry for her when this custody drama started. But, as I read more and more on the custody issues and her, I believe that Kelly is a bit of a nutter. She makes her ex sound like he’s the worlds biggest d.bag, but maybe the kids are actually better off with him.

  20. Jezza says:

    The kids went back to Monaco and this is all the drama she gave us?!?! Truly shocked!! I though she would do what she did last year!

    Kelly’s worried she’ll never see their kids again because that’s exactly what she would do if she was in Daniel’s position. All she’s done is try to keep him out of their kids lives.

    She created this situation where their kids live with Daniel, and now she’s shocked that CA and NY don’t claim jurisdiction when the kids spend most of the year in Monaco? Add to that her judge shopping and frivolous tying up of the courts (didn’t she once take Daniel to court because she didn’t like how he was potty training Hermes?!?!?!) and it’s easy to see judges wanting to pass jurisdiction.

    Good for her for sending back the kids without the drama she normally brings!

    • anne_000 says:

      I agree with you that that is what she would do if she were him.

      Also, she can’t stop calling him a kidnapper, even with using that allegation against him to try to get his visa revoked and then telling Congress that the CA judge ordered a ‘legal kidnapping.’

  21. Montrealise says:

    Why does she need a nanny? From what I can see, she’s unemployed so why doesn’t she take care of her own kids during the short time they are staying with her?

  22. Lucky Charm says:

    What a topsy-turvy week in the gossip world! First Jennifer Aniston unexpectedly gets married, now Kelly Rutherford unexpectedly sends the kids back home with out any drama. Who is going to surprise us next by doing something completely opposite of what we’d expect them to do?

  23. anne_000 says:

    I think the reason why she didn’t pull a legal maneuver this time around is because she and her lawyers couldn’t figure out who to serve the request to.

    She’s not in any state’s jurisdiction. She tried the State Department. She tried the federal courts last year. She tried the WH petition. She testified in front of Congress in July.

    Who else is she going to file the papers with? The Hague? Monaco? France? Germany? The EU? Nope, none of these.

    I think she and her lawyers ran out of courts and legal authorities to apply to.

  24. IfUSaySo says:

    I dont fully understand how anyone could give their children back if they actually felt they wouldnt see them again. Honestly, there would be nothing that could ever stop me ON EARTH from seeing my kids. I’m not rich and I dont have a job but if my husband took my kids to Monaco, you can bet I would be living there the next day. At first I thought this was unfair, and I’m sure it is. But at the same time, if these are the brakes, get your ass to Monaco..

    • anne_000 says:

      Let’s say that she has physical custody here in the US.

      How will Daniel get to see them?

      He can’t come here to the US because of what she and her legal team did to get his visa revoked and a US travel ban placed on him.

      In order for Daniel to see his kids, the kids would be forced to travel on a plane back and forth from the US to Europe.

      Meanwhile, Kelly gets to sit on her @ss, making everybody else inconvenienced because of what she and her legal team did.

      Is that fair?

    • bluhare says:

      I think this is all designed to get sympathy for Kelly. She has 50/50 custody. She could see them 50% of the time. The reason she doesn’t is because her ex lives in Monaco as he cannot enter the US. At all. His visa was revoked shortly after her attorney called the state department, and he was deported. He’s been ordered to reapply, and hasn’t. Not sure why other than I think Kelly is supposed to write a letter to the State Department about it and won’t because she doesn’t want to admit wrongdoing.

      Basically, this all reads to me as the tantrum of someone who has not got her way.

  25. meow says:

    Well it does appear that Monaco will get jurisdiction. I hope that’s the end as it has been going on for 6 years? Jeez.

    • Cynthia says:

      Are any of you commenting here mothers!?!!! It is obvious these two adults have attacked each other as is typical in a divorce, but the fact remains that two YOUNG children are missing time with the most important nurturer in their lives at this point in their development. For WHATEVER reason.

      • Jezza says:

        Failing to see where Daniel attaked her. Just a few points – Court documents state he was the main caregiver when they were together, he’s never spoke badly of kelly to/in front of the kids or the press (she has repeatedly), and of the parents the court saw that Daniel was the only one wanting to ensure the kids have a relationship with both parents. As well, the documents stated that Hermes becomes anxious when she speaks badly of daniel or when he is not around – if that is her being the most important nurturer in their kids life, they are better off in Monaco.

        Whether or not I’m a mother is irrelevant. She has no one to blame but herself for this situation. It’s all in the court documents. For all the stunts she has pulled, I have no sympathy. It’s all about winning for her, not their kids.

      • JaneS says:

        I’m a mother. And a mother always acts in the best interests of her children. Kelly stopped doing that when she tried to eradicate the childrens’ father from their lives and have him deported.

        As for the most important nurturer, give me a break. Men are just as capable of raising children. And, in these kids’ favour, their father doesn’t expose them to the papps like their mother does.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The best nurturer is clearly their father. They live a quiet life in Monaco, go to school, live with their father and grandparents. He facilitates them having a relationship with their mother, while she would clearly cut him out of their lives completely. When they are with their father, they aren’t dragged out in front of paps in defiance of the court orders not to use the children in the media.

        Unfortunately, JaneS, there are many women who do not act in the best interest of the children. Rutherford is a prime example.

      • Samtha says:

        The best nurturer in their life is the person who parents them better, regardless of gender. It’s pretty clear in this case that Kelly is not doing that.

        And yes, I’m a mother. And a stepmother with stepkids that live with me full-time. The reality is that if you truly love your children and want to do what’s best for them, you don’t try to cut their father out of their lives. A father figure is just as important to their emotional well-being.

  26. jwoolman says:

    Why are the kids going back to Monaco so early in August? This is a couple of weeks earlier than last year, when she threatened to hold on to them in mid-August, a week before takeoff. School schedule change? France practically closes down in August (really…) as the traditional time for family vacations, although the kids go to an English-language school in Monaco so maybe it’s different. Or did something else happen?

  27. Kendal says:

    People just reported that she didn’t send them back. Apparently she thinks that if no court has jurisdiction, then they can’t force them to go back. I thought that California just couldn’t change the order, but they’d be able to enforce the original one? Either way, I hope Monaco gets them back and this horrible woman gets done for kidnapping.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Kendal

      Thank you for the heads up!

      Oh my god. I read her statement on People online and she is NUTS.

      - She says that she thinks the Memorial Day ruling is in effect and that the ones that came after that are ‘confusing’ (including the one that reversed it). So basically, she says she doesn’t understand the later rulings, so she’s not going to obey them.

      Mind you, the Memorial Day judge is the same one that ruled that CA doesn’t have jurisdiction anymore.

      - She says that since no state claimed jurisdiction, it means no US court order can be followed (including the original one in 2012) and thus there is no requirement for her to send her kids to Monaco. She says it would be illegal for her to send her kids to a foreign country.

      - She says that because the Monaco court treated her respectfully earlier this year when she filed a formal objection to their jurisdiction (even though a mirror order was filed there by order of the CA court in 2012), that Monaco will ‘appreciate’ why the kids have to ‘reside in their own country.’

      - She says that her ex-husband can ‘presumably travel to the United States on his German passport’ (even though she’s been repeatedly saying previously that he’s never filed an appeal of his visa being revoked).

      • jwoolman says:

        Her son must be very anxious about this, wondering if he will ever see his father again. Court documents reported he was anxious when his dad wasn’t around a few years ago, and now we know why. Mom is nuts. Who knows what she’s been telling the kids. They really should remove custody and put her on supervised visitation, this is the second year in a row that she has made noises about not sending the kids back to their dad on schedule. She sounds really disturbed now. This is so unfair to those children.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        He cannot travel to the U.S. using the ESTA program. His eligibility to use ESTA ended once his O-1 work visa was revoked.

        I swear, I think we Celebitchers should all club together and send Mr. Giersch a huge care package of Cheez-Its and vodka. I may throw in some cupcakes too. He needs it trying to cope with this loony. Except he can afford to buy his own, I suppose.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        “- She says that because the Monaco court treated her respectfully earlier this year when she filed a formal objection to their jurisdiction (even though a mirror order was filed there by order of the CA court in 2012), that Monaco will ‘appreciate’ why the kids have to ‘reside in their own country.’

        Very doubtful that any judge in Monaco will appreciate her jingoistic hatred of Monaco and no, her kids to not have to reside in any country that she claims is “their country” if their paperwork says another country is also their country.

      • Samtha says:

        She should lose custody, full-stop. If she doesn’t go to jail for this, it’ll be a miscarriage of justice. If any regular person tried to pull this kind of thing, their butts would be arrested.

    • Liberty says:

      She’s nuts. I feel terrible for these kids. They may be confused and young, but kids are also very very observant. Her son at least is old enough to start putting two and two together in some way. At that would be a lot to process.

      If an investigation results from her withholding of the children, I wonder if any professional will be asked to assess their feelings or current state of emotional well-being after all this. This must be traumatic for them at some level.

  28. Tiffany says:

    They both should be in jail….for naming their son Hermes.

    • jwoolman says:

      It’s probably a family name. Deal with it.

    • kai says:

      I like the name, actually. Hermes was a God long before he was a handbag.

    • jwoolman says:

      It’s unkind to keep making fun of a child’s name. That’s schoolyard bully behavior. Okay, we may snark a little while they’re illiterate infants when unusual monikers are bestowed by trendy parents, but the kid is 8 years old and able to read. If he doesn’t like his name, he’ll change it. His decision, not ours.

      But Hermes is an actual name listed in the baby naming books. You might only think of designer bags when you hear it and that could well be where his mother first heard it also, but Hermes is actually a very old name (going back to Ancient Greece) and her son is certainly not the only Hermes in the world or in the United States. Its popularity comes and goes, as is the case with all names. Popularity of the name varies with the country, as well.

  29. toni says:

    People Magazine states: Kelly Rutherford refuses to return kids to Monaco.

    • jwoolman says:

      I wonder if that’s why the return was scheduled earlier- to make sure the kids don’t miss the start of school while mom does her usual shenanigans. I used to tell my brother that we had to be somewhere an hour earlier then the actual time, since he was always late…. Unfortunately, he figured it out too quickly.

    • MoxyLady007 says:

      People sucks. She’s refusing to return them to their father

      • StormsMama says:

        @Moxy
        Great point! Semantics matter in a case like this- she indeed is refusing to return them TO THEIR FATHER

  30. jwoolman says:

    Wait until her son decides he’s had enough and refuses to visit her in the U.S. Then watch her explode.

  31. debra says:

    So Kelly has just become a kidnapper by illegally retaining the children against court orders…. do they let you wear white in prison, I wonder?

  32. Johanna says:

    Wow, she is playing a very dangerous game here. I guess her only hope is that her ex doesn’t go to the police. But of course he will since his kids just got kidnapped. Since neither US courts nor Homeland security says she has got the right to keep her kids in the US, the FBI will most likely follow the possible french police request and bring back the kids to their dad. Doesn’t she understand that she might loose custody of her kids doing what she does? It’s just crazy. I wonder what she tells her kids about all this.

    • anne_000 says:

      I think that since she upped her crazy in July by testifying before Congress that the children were ‘legally kidnapped’ by order of a CA judge, she thought she should keep riding the crazy train.

    • jwoolman says:

      I hope he sends a family member to retrieve the kids (or is one already there to accompany them home?) and just tells her that the next step is the police, so it would be best if she just packed their clothes and waved goodbye as they went off to the airport. She is just awful to put her kids through all this drama.

  33. TotallyBiased says:

    Strongest language yet from Daniel’s lawyer–
    UPDATE: Giersch’s attorney, Fahi Takesh Hallin, says in a statement to E! News–
    “Daniel will continue to protect the children from any harm and any media exposure. Unfortunately Kelly has now added child abduction to extortion and false statements on her list of actions. Daniel will make sure that the children’s safety and well being will be restored as soon as possible. He is very concerned about the traumatic impact that Kelly’s behavior will have on the children. Kelly was to have delivered the children in France to their father on August 7, 2015. Child abduction is a crime, and everyone involved in kidnapping or abducting the children will face the appropriate legal consequences. Anyone associating themselves with Kelly and her abduction is violating the law.”

    Considering that all the media outlets apparently just print her press releases whole without fact-checking (or at least, you know, comparing her statements of supposed fact with, oh, perhaps the actual court documents???? Hmmm???)
    Anyway, considering that, I was pleased to see the People comment section not so filled up with Kelly apologists. Perhaps her behaviour and words have gotten SO out of hand that the wool is falling away from thousands of eyes.

    • Norman Bates' Mother says:

      I was surprised to see how many of Kelly apologists have recently switched sides. At the beginning of this case, most comment sections were full of supporters, but recently, most people seem to support the dad, even on the most troll-attracting blogs. JustJared is incredibly pro-Kelly in their posts, but I’ve recently seen an entire comment section calling Kelly out on her craziness, which says something.

      And she still continues to make her situation worse.

      Kidnapping? Really? How does she want to go back from that? It’s the closest she’s ever been to actually losing her children. She tries to portray her husband as a monster, but he has been a better person in all this than most people would be. Now it’ll probably end though as she put the children in an emotional distress and contrary to what she believes, broke the law. I don’t see him ever willingly send the children back to her again, knowing that she’s done that. Twice.

      • anne_000 says:

        It’s just crazy that she says that because there’s no state court taking jurisdiction that no court order applies anymore – except the one ruling she liked.

        Did she think that it would now be harder on Daniel to find the appropriate authority to take back the kids or that the process will now take longer?

    • anne_000 says:

      @ TotallyBiased

      Thanks for the posting the quote. I’m glad that his lawyers don’t seem like they’re going to pussyfoot this around.

      I think the longer she keeps the kids, the more dangerous the situation will get. Someone like her brother or boyfriend needs to talk her down and talk some sense into her.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Her supporters have moved to the Daily Mail. They’re all over the article screaming about 1) mothers biologically having more rights to children than fathers and 2) America.

  34. LAK says:

    It seems we spoke too soon. Those poor kids.

  35. Jezza says:

    Oh, now she brings the drama!!! So now she is kidnapping the kids. She could right now (potentially) be freaking out their kids who are expecting to see Daniel, as well as (potentially) setting herself up to be arrested in front of them, which really gives me the sads. Mother of the fking year!!

    I really hope someone explains that this is no bueno. I’ve no knowledge of the legal aspects of what she’s doing, but she could potentially not see them again, right?

    • Norman Bates' Mother says:

      As incompetent as her lawyers usually sound, they probably explained the risks to her and failed. Knowing her – she probably threw a fit, if not outright fired them and did her own thing. This woman is crazy and thinks the law will be on her side if she screams “America” enough times.

      She keeps denying her children’s German citizenship and roots, which is a bad thing in itself as well. They are big enough, especially Hermes, to understand and want to know their roots, which are in both of these countries. Thanks to their father’s effort, they are most likely bi-or even tri-lingual, which normally should be treated as a good thing by all people concerned, but imagine how angry it must make Kelly. What if they have an accent too? They probably speak German with their father and the rest of his family, then they speak English at school (but it’s an international school in Europe, so I doubt everyone speaks with American accents there) and with their mother and since they live in the French speaking country, they possibly picked it up too. In her mind – they are 100% American though and after all her crazy rants and what was written in the legal documents, it’s safe to assume she’d like them to sound and behave all-American too. I can’t shake the image of Kelly planning to (now that she has them) change their accents, teach them to identify themselves as just American, bad-mouth their father and brainwash them to think of Europe as a degenerated shit-hole they would never like to visit. Daniel probably worries about that too, which can make him only fight harder with her.

      • Jezza says:

        Totally agree!! She wants to deny them their paternal heritage because it suits her narrative. They are as much German citizens as they are American citizens and one does not preclude the other, or is more important than the other.

      • Liberty says:

        Completely agree. Her maligning half of their heritage is disgusting and the kids will grow up and resent the hell out of her at some point for all the bad-mouthing. She comes off as the classic white bread Ugly American, or some sort of fancy backwoods insular hillbilly raving against “them thar strangers.”

    • notasugarhere says:

      Giersch was wise in his choice of lawyer. Unfortunately, he probably knew this was coming all along.

      “Ms. Takesh Hallin also handles Hague international child abduction cases and is on the list of the U.S. State Department for attorney referrals for such matters. Ms. Takesh Hallin’s practice areas include litigation, as well as mediation and collaborative practice.”

      • anne_000 says:

        Thanks notasugarhere.

        Sounds like he found the appropriate lawyer for this case.

      • Sixer says:

        NOTA – I think she has opened herself up to an application under Hague here, hasn’t she? Ironic, considering she’s been shrieking fantasy international abduction herself. I think you are right: he’s chosen the lawyer carefully.

        Going to google the exact conditions for a Hague Convention application to return…

      • jessiebes says:

        How long does it take for that to be put in effect?

      • Liberty says:

        Wise choice. Thanks for sharing that info.

  36. Cherry says:

    Many of us were saying she would do this before the kids came over, I really hope the police get in there and pull those kids out before she thinks that the only way to keep them from her ex is to flee with them or far far worse…… She is exactly the type, this woman is an extreme narcissist with a personality disorder and her behaviour has been increasingly erratic over the last few months. She is a danger to those children. Their poor father must be terrified for their safety, she won’t stop at anything to get her own way and her only concern is depriving him of ‘her’ children.

    Please God let’s hope that those children are safely removed from her and she’s restricted to supervised access (if any) from now on.

    • anne_000 says:

      Some people here yesterday said that they hoped Daniel had a private detective following them just in case. I hope this is true too, because as you said, she might do something even crazier.

      • claire says:

        I just peeked at her Instagram. She’s got moms in the comments applauding her and advising her now is the time to go underground to make sure the kids never see him. I hope this is not what she is planning.

    • kai says:

      Has she never been ordered to undergo a psych evaluation in all this mess? Serious question, because from where I sit, it looks like she’s clearly unhinged.

  37. Betti says:

    This is all a big publicity stunt from her as she knows that she will have to send them back to the father. Its child abduction pure and simple and there will be consequences for her – she’ll never likely be able to have the children in the US with her again. If visitation is continued she will HAVE to go to Monaco for supervised access.

    The fact that she released a press statement says all we need to know about her game plan – which is to use the kids to stay in the limelight.

  38. Renae Says says:

    Wow this woman is too much! Parental alienation on full display here. One can only imagine the garbage she fills those children’s heads with. He needs to get those kids away from her ASAP. How does she even plan on supporting them? She should be thankful they get to live in a country as beautiful as Monaco and be surrounded by family that loves them. She needs mental help is why she didn’t get full custody . As Dr. Phil says, never leave it up to the courts to make custody decisions. Work it out between you…cause you may not like what the court rules.

  39. funmi says:

    This is just amazing. What on earth does she think she is doing? She complains of not seeing her kids enough and now does the one thing that will even make it worse. Smh

  40. Becks says:

    Game, set, match. TKO.

    It’s over, Kelly, you just checkmated yourself.

    There should be heavy, meaningful sanctions imposed on Kelly for her direct violation of the custody arrangement. She just provided a whole boatload of ammunition to Daniel’s lawyers to get Daniel full custody.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      Amen.

      But you and I both know that once she loses custody and has her visitation restricted and/or supervised, she will start a new crusade. Maybe something like she needs asylum in another country because the U.S. and Monaco are persecuting her.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That’s why Giersch should have made sure their passports aren’t in her possession.

      • Sixer says:

        BearcatLawyer – Kelly signed an undertaking to send the kids back when she went to the Monaco court, right? Jebus, this one is going straight to the Hague Convention, isn’t it? The woman is stark raving mad.

    • bluhare says:

      Certainly lends credence to his argument about the passports now, doesn’t it.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ bluhare

        Yes it does.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, but he wasn’t successful in getting their passports held by a neutral third party. iirc, Rutherford has them.

      • Liberty says:

        @bluhare — exactly. I have been thinking that since I read this news.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Daniel may still have their German passports. The children only needed their U.S. passports to return to NY to visit Kelly. I doubt Daniel’s lawyer would have allowed Kelly to have both sets of passports.

      • Becks says:

        With her holding their US passports, the Giersch family must be beside themselves with worry, not knowing what exactly she is going to do next.

  41. Andrea S. says:

    I hope for her children’s sake, her husband & his lawyers go after her with the full extent of the law! I totally believe she just forfeited her right to any custody outside of supervised custody with this latest stunt. Monaco needs to contact the authorities over here to take possession of the children immediately!!

  42. Ana A. says:

    I feel like now the father of the children has to file for sole custody. Until now he tried his best to make the shared custody work. Even with all the crap that Kelly pulled. That only harms the children though. She is a danger to her children. I can’t imagine how they must feel. Their father tries to keep the mother involved, sents her letter, makes them phone her and apparently never badmouthes her, but the moment they see her she is this monster that talks bad about their beloved father. Now she even kidnapped them. Did she only take one moment to think how her children feel about that? I really hope her ex-husband files for sole custody now. She has to be kept away from them and should only see them supervised.

    • Illyra says:

      They would obviously be MUCH better off under his sold custody, but “tender years doctrine” type thinking means that even crappy mothers are seen as necessary, and excellent fathers as optional. She’s unstable and it wouldn’t surprise me if she ended up doing something really crazy before long. The children should be removed from her and returned to their father ASAP.

  43. GreenieWeenie says:

    So strange. It’s like she thinks she’s only ever subject to a US court of law. But that’s not entirely true. If you’re in another country, you’re subject to their laws–there’s no diplomatic immunity for you. So as citizens AND residents, her children are subject to the laws of their country (Monaco or Germany or whatever) and their custody has been assigned to a parent–and no US court has been willing to challenge that. I don’t get why she thinks their US citizenship somehow trumps their other citizenship.

    Strikes me as someone who’s never really been told ‘no’ before.

  44. Lynnie says:

    How long does it take for the authorities to comply with the father’s request to save the kids? Time is of the essence here, and I hate for to fly off the grid somewhere. That Gucci exec should get out while he still can

  45. GreenieWeenie says:

    So let me get this straight. I’m a dual US/Canadian citizen; my husband is US; my child is dual. If I lived in the US, divorced my husband and moved to Canada with my child (exactly what my grandmother did in the 1950s), my husband (playing the role of Kelly) could say a Canadian court has no custodial jurisdiction over the child?
    How does that even make sense? Why wouldn’t it? What is the legal status of the kids in Monaco? Her husband is German, right? But one presumes he has some sort of legal status in Monaco which is then conferred on the kids.
    So many questions.

    • anne_000 says:

      The CA court ordered that he put in a mirror order in Monaco, so that the kids would be under the same ruling here and there. He complied.

    • Norman Bates' Mother says:

      What Kelly says and what is true are two completely different things. I presume that in your hypothetical case, your husband, as any normal person, would acknowledge the fact that your children have a dual citizenship. Kelly cannot seem to comprehend it. She always says that they are American citizens in exile and fails to understand that American citizenship is no more important the a German one – that’s why she thinks that only the American courts should have a jurisdiction. But it doesn’t have any legal basis.

      The truth is, that she messed up her case when she tried to alienate Daniel by lying and making him lose his visa. He can’t enter the US, so he established a residence in Monaco, where his parents also live – he didn’t do it out of malice or as she says, to alienate her – he was forced to do it by her and her lawyers.

      As for his legal status – he didn’t have to move to Germany, because having a German passport equals having a EU passport. Monaco is not a part of the European Union, but it’s a part of the Schengen Zone – which comes with a right to free migration for every EU citizen. He and the children had every right to legally establish residency there and the Monaco court had every right to try to establish jurisdiction. As anne mentioned – there was a mirror ruling in place, and then both CA and NY courts dropped the case, which made Kelly think she is now free to do whatever she wants, because in her mind, if America – the center of the world, cannot force her to send the children back, no one can. But she’s wrong and she will learn it a hard way pretty soon.

      • Bridget says:

        In this scenario since both CA and NY have said they have no jurisdiction, who is supposed to enforce the custody order? How exactly does this work now?

      • Norman Bates' Mother says:

        I don’t know all the details, but I read about kidnappings and as far as I know – if she won’t return the children willingly, the case will be treated as an international parental child abduction. The appropriate Hague Convention requires every country to have a Central Authority dealing with such cases and handling two-way communication between domestic and foreign courts. The Central Authority in Monaco might help Giersch and his lawyer to file out a Hague application for return and collect any required documents proving that she in fact broke the law and kidnapped the children, or they can contact the CA in the US by themselves. Then this application will be forwarded to the US State Department – the SD can’t physically pick-up the children but it will help in mediating with Kelly and trying to achieve a voluntary return.

        It usually also helps with finding local attorneys, but as was mentioned above – Giersch’s lawyer is actually a world-class specialist on children abduction cases and he can travel to the US and represent his client there without his presence. He can file the motion in a US court – the court doesn’t have to deal with jurisdictional issues to handle the child abduction cases. The longer it takes, the more money it costs (and Kelly might actually be required to pay the fees) and the consequences will be more severe for her – she might lose custody and visitation rights permanently. It’s in her best interest to return the children ASAP.

        The additional steps might be: contacting an embassy and Interpol and ask for their assistance. Once Interpol puts the children in their missing kids database, the US police can actually detain Kelly for a short period of time. But I have no idea if she is at risk of going to jail.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Quick correction. Giersch’s lawyer is female, Ms. Fahi Takesh Hallin. I think she’s based in California.

  46. Lilacflowers says:

    Amber Alert issued in 10-9-8-7 …

    • Getreal says:

      Yeah right. I’m not even a Kelly apologist but um… Don’t you think she’s been legally advised here? She states that she’s not breaking a law.. Amber alerts are not issued for cases like this.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Just because she states she’s not breaking the law, doesn’t mean she isn’t breaking the law. Someone better put a hold on their passports to ensure she cannot get the children out of the US and to a non-extradition country.

      • Tara says:

        You’re right. She does have legal advisors: bugs bunny and Elmer Fudd. And even they have stepped back from the crazy this time. And that’s all folks!

      • kai says:

        Have her lawyers said anything? That kind of speaks for itself.

      • K says:

        She’s breaking the law.

        Hague Treaty on International Child Abduction means there are reciprocal rights and obligations between signatory nations. The US is one. So is Monaco. They have to return kids taken in contravention of courts in either nation held to have jurisdiction to the other. It’s not complicated – the US courts said they had no right to rule on this, because they have to respect Monaco’s standing as the country of habitual residence of these kids. That doesn’t mean the US courts won’t enforce a Monaco ruling and return the kids, just as a Monaco court would return a kid to New York or California if a NY or CA court had jurisdiction.

        She’s breaking the law.

        http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.statusprint&cid=24

        Agree that an Amber Alert isn’t happening. But legal action is. And she is a complete idiot, because no court will extend her access rights because she’s pulled a stunt like this – all she’s done is support his worries about her having access to their passports at all.

      • Michelle says:

        She says a lot that isn’t true. Why isn’t there a gag order on this case?

  47. anne_000 says:

    Now that she’s ‘kidnapped’ the kids after a summer vacation of pap strolls and taking them to media events, is she going to keep the kids indoors with curtains shut, or whisk them from one ‘shelter’ to another to keep one step ahead of the authorities who might take the children and her into custody?

    Has she put the kids in front of the paps yet today? It’s Saturday. Surely there’s another ‘charity’ event that she could parade the kids around at.

    • kai says:

      If she has the nerves to do that, that would be… wow.

    • wrinkled says:

      Exactly. No way is she going into hiding with those kids. The lure of publicity is too much.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Let’s hope she keeps them in public. She pulled this stunt on a Friday, so the courts may be closed and not helping Daniel until Monday. That gives her 48 hours to disappear, unless he was wise-enough to have PI’s on the case.

    • anne_000 says:

      She might be setting up interviews in an undisclosed location while rehearsing the kids to say exactly what she wants them to say.

      She might be looking for the highest bidder.

  48. Talie says:

    I’d do the same thing. Any mother with a heart would.

    • Samtha says:

      If you think alienating children from their father is good parenting, God help your own kids.

    • KellyBee says:

      Do what? If your talking about what she doing then your just as crazy as she is. You clearly do know what your talking about or don’t know the the facts.

      • Talie says:

        The jurisdiction on this case is shaky and her kids were born stateside. She isn’t a crackhead, she’s stable mother.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Talie

        It’s not shaky. The courts already decided on the custody case. This is the one that they were all using until she decided that no US law exists any more when it concerns what she wants.

      • K says:

        Talie, did you read the court judgement?

        She had primary custody to all intents and purposes, but she blew it with her determination to exclude their father from their lives completely. She has never, not once, put their needs first. She still isn’t. And that’s a mother’s first and most important job.

    • notasugarhere says:

      A mother with a heart, and the childrens best interest in mind, would have successfully co-parented from day one.

    • bluhare says:

      Most mothers with hearts want what’s best for their children. And when they have a father who clearly wants to be part of their lives, they accomodate that. Because it’s not about what the mom would rather; it’s about what’s best for her children.

    • jessiebes says:

      Have you actually read the case?

    • Sparkly says:

      Ew. As a mother, just NO. Any mother with a heart would have her children’s father deported and then break the custody agreement in order to pull an international kidnapping so that he can’t possibly EVER see them? Do you not realize what all this is doing to her children?

      No good mother would ever consider such a thing.

    • Melly M says:

      Don’t you think the kids are very confused and scared now, will ask for their father, their school, their friends? Kelly obviously doesn’t care.
      And that’s what you believe “mothers with a heart” do?

    • Liberty says:

      …any mother with a narcissistic heart, perhaps, and a total disregard for the emotional well-being of her kids.

  49. Hannah says:

    She is a deplorable human. She has made this all about HER from the very beginning.

    She has the money to make this situation work. But no, it’s her her her.

  50. toni says:

    Did she send the kids to go back to their father? I was worried that she was going to do a murder suicide. She doesn’t look mentally stable.

    • anne_000 says:

      So far as is reported, she hasn’t sent the kids back. They were supposed to leave yesterday but instead, she put out a statement that basically was “Who gonna check me boo?”

      It’s ironic that in July she testified in front of Congress that her kids were ‘legally kidnapped’ by order of a CA judge, but then here she is, apparently kidnapping them and in an illegal manner too. She seems to have no sense of irony or self-awareness.

  51. Becks says:

    Kelly really is her own worst advocate.

    If Daniel was the kind of man who wanted to shut his troublesome ex out of the kids’ lives, he could not wished for a better scenario- this blatant violation defying the court order, she might as well be handing sole custody to him on a silver platter. She thinks she’s some kind of crusader, rallying all of us around her, Norma Rae-style.

    However, from all we have heard about Daniel, I don’t believe he wants to cut the kids off from their mother. He is like 99% of us; we knows that having 2 parents peacefully co-parenting is best for children. If Kelly would just be a reasonable, unselfish mother, all their lives would be SO. MUCH. BETTER.

  52. Sparkly says:

    What a horrible, horrible person.

  53. Illyra says:

    Now she is really screwed, and it’s nobody’s fault but hers.

  54. Ennie says:

    Does anyone have the link to the pdf court documents please!!

  55. NewWester says:

    I hate to imagine how Kelly explains all this to her children. They must be so confused.

    • Ally8 says:

      “Mommy is doing this because she loves you much” or something along those lines. Doubling down on the self-indulgent craziness by making them feel responsible for it.

  56. Belle Epoch says:

    I could not care less about this horrid woman but this makes me FURIOUS! Nothing is good enough for her. The father must be beside himself – and he can’t enter the country, because of her. JAIL. NOW. PLEASE!

  57. Kristen says:

    I wonder how often she thinks she’ll see her kids from jail.

    • sills says:

      This is what makes me think she’s having some kind of legit mental breakdown. She’s narcissistic but not stupid; she has to know the endgame of all this is at the very least loss of her joint custody. God, those poor kids.

  58. Ruyana says:

    She should be stripped of custody, all visitation rights and arrested. The children should be returned to the sole custody of their father. She broke it, she bought it.

    • Sarah says:

      A friend of mine married a man who had two kids from previous marriage. His ex was “crazy” in so many ways – moved across the country with the kids while still married to dad, was found in contempt of court orders for his access and finally during dad’s Christmas access, she told him to keep the kids because she had cancer (that was a lie). Now dad has full custody and ex is barred from having contact with the kids. The oldest child still has a therapist on speed dial. All of this took place over a few years. What a mess – Kelly Rutherford does not seem to be able to separate her children’s emotional needs from her own. This needless drama hurts them and she is unable-unwilling to see this.

  59. LAK says:

    I’m still agog at this woman’s idiocy and selfishness.

    Not to mention vindictiveness.

  60. Dorotea says:

    Could she get arrested for “kidnapping” her kids?

    • Liv says:

      I guess her attempt to get the media involved to push her interests will bite her in the ass. This case is publicly known and I can’t imagine that she gets her way when two courts are ruling in favour of the father…

    • claire says:

      Possibly. This is most certainly international kidnapping, isn’t it?

      • Ennie says:

        Look at how Interpol gets the children just look at the Alondra Luna case, which was also an international parental abduction. At the end, they reached an agreement, I think the father did not go to jail, but the mother suffered and the child was deprived of her mother, but well cared for, and the father did not speak ill of the mother, at least. .

    • jwoolman says:

      The overwhelming majority of children on milk cartons have been abducted by a parent. Stranger abduction is actually relatively rare. Parents do it when they don’t like the custody orders set in court, and it does a lot of harm.

      I wonder if the reason she balks at just going to Monaco to see her kids as often as she likes is because she can’t use them as pap bait there. She doesn’t seem to have much else going on except this weird crusade. Her actions and statements are so disturbing – she may be very limited in her ability to truly love her children and care about their wellbeing. The court really should order another psych evaluation at the very least before allowing her unsupervised contact with those children. She seems to be deteriorating over the past year or so. She even used the U.S. Congress to spout her twisted views of her children’s situation, and practically invited any kook in the country to be a patriot and kidnap her children, while making sure pictures of the kids were readily available to the public.

    • Brasileira says:

      Well, it’s not a “”kidnapping”". It is outright a KIDNAP, no doubts there!

  61. Miss M says:

    She’s been keepingg this drama for 4 years… I can’t take this cray and her drama anymore!

    I hope she gets convicted for child abduction!

  62. Whitney says:

    Wow, she is the worst. And she clearly doesn’t care about anything but herself.

  63. Sam H x says:

    I think the gloves are off as far as Daniel’s lawyers are concerned. I don’t blame them at all, it was a very strong worded statement. He obviously did his research thoroughly when picking his lawyer.

    I think Daniel’s lawyers saw from the start how Kelly behaved & knew no sane court would find her behaviour acceptable nor tolerable. She has paved the way for sole custody to be given to Daniel.

    I have read both court documents posted on here. She is very lucky they haven’t taken custody away from her sooner. Because she has quite literally taken the p*ss out of the judicial system & has circus monkeys for lawyers.

    Daniel has done the right thing by the kids and only is concerned about them. I can’t imagine what him and his family are going through right now. Now all parties involved in this kidnapping will feel the full force of the law.

    Here’s the links for the court documents:

    http://images.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/RutherfordRuling.pdf

    http://harris-ginsberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Statement-of-Decision.pdf

    • Jen says:

      Thanks for the links!!!

      Wow, those were some seriously detailed rulings. Which language to speak during custodial transfer, dictating that a response would then be returned, how many items a child should carry during transfer, how many minutes late the parties can be before specified punishments come into effect, etc. (I suspect Kelly just violated that last one BIG TIME.)

      The court chastised Kelly several times for lack of cooperation and lying during various proceedings. It also established that the father has been consistent in promoting the kids’ relationship with the mom, and that she has not done the same for him.

      I hope he gets full custody ASAP. That woman is a detriment to her children.

  64. Melly M says:

    Maybe she wants Daniel to obtain sole custody in order to get rid of the kids?
    No, of course not, but I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that anyone can be THAT stupid.
    What’s more, she clearly doesn’t care how confusing all this has to be for the kids.

    • Ennie says:

      I bet she wants to live off his dime in the US, while he cannot obtain a visa until 10 years pass (At least). If that happens, she will not allow the children to travel outside to see his father.

    • Wonderbunny says:

      I’ll admit that the thought occurred to me as well. She strikes me as someone who’s intoxicated by fame and being at the centre of attention. Those kind of people don’t do well in a situation where they would have to put someone else before them. Why stay at home with children when you could be at the centre of an international drama?

      That said, I don’t think she’s really thinking what she’s doing. There’s no plan, just chaos. Trying to stay relevant in any way possible. Consequences are for boring people. I also think that she probably thinks that she’s a great mother; “I would do anything for my children…except put my ego aside and think about other people’s feelings.” The world is her stage and her role is to play the loving, grieving, hurting mother.

  65. Blue says:

    I was surprised when I read that she would be returning the kids to Monaco but I’m not surprised to now learn she has no intention of sending the kids back to their father. Those poor poor kids, the emotional trauma she is putting them through by keeping them in the usa I can just imagine what she has been saying to them about their father.

  66. JRenee says:

    I feel sad for the kids.

  67. Mirage says:

    OK Kelly tried (and managed), some time ago, to push her ex out of the US.
    Does it mean she should be punished all her life for it?
    There’s something indeed very cruel about depriving a mother from a life with her children.
    Her ex may be paying for many visits to Monaco, this will never equate to seeing her children grow every day.

    Remember that Daniel Giersch is the opportunist that battled with Google for many years to retain the gmail domain in Germany. Seemingly a nonsensical fight, but one that earned him a lot of money.
    http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/14/google-finally-gets-right-to-gmail-trademark-in-germany/

    He then went on and made money on similar opportunistic and nonsensical litigations. Some of them I am sure made a solid and valid case to get him kicked out of the US.

    This guys is a scumbag but unfortunately very good when it comes to understanding laws and loopholes. It is his job. That is why Kelly has such a hard time fighting against him.

    I wish her all the best.

    • Don't kill me I'm French says:

      Giersch is not perfect but he is the most reasonable since the beginning.He has as many rights to see/raise his kids as her .He always followed The judge’s decisions

    • Samtha says:

      Please. Let’s say your real name is mirage and you own mirage.com. Google wants it. Do you go, “Okay, Google! Take my property and have fun with it”? Or do you go, “Okay, but you’re going to have to pay me what it’s worth”?

      This whole idea that he did something wrong by wanting to be paid for something he owned is ridiculous. The idea that litigation with Google is anywhere near the same as keeping a parent’s name off a birth certificate, having someone’s visa revoked, and continuing a campaign of parental alienation for years…ridiculous.

      There’s indeed something very cruel about depriving a father of a life with his children…and that’s exactly what KELLY has tried to do.

    • Kendal says:

      There’s also something very cruel about depriving a father from a life without his children. He has the kids because he supports their relationship with Kelly and encourages visitation. She on the other hand doesn’t give a toss about him or the kids’ relationship with him. She has caused so many unnecessary problems that have resulted with this.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Mirage–I imagine, then, that the companies in the UK (where Google was unable to use ‘gmail’ for five years due to litigation and the fact that another company had the copyright for years before them) , Russia and Poland were all opportunists as well in your eyes.
      Not to mention, she could have atoned for the bad behaviour in regards to the visa issue simply by writing a letter admitting the allegations were false–AS THE COURT directed her to do.
      In fact, DG is SUCH an opportunist that he registered gmail for his own business FOUR YEARS before Google even released the beta in the US. Yeah, really riding on their coattails.
      So, do you and gal coordinate your wardrobes as well as your inaccurate mudslinging?

    • jessiebes says:

      Yeah, poor google.

    • Melly M says:

      Do you know what these “That awful guy sued Google” comments really mean? That nobody has any real dirt in Daniel.

      • Crumpet says:

        Too true. The more I see of Kelly Rutheford the better Daniel looks by default. Also, anyone still sticking up for her needs to read the court transcripts.

    • morc says:

      Dd you read your own article? Giersch had the domain 5 years before Google even started its’ e-mail service.

    • K says:

      Google didn’t have a mail service and nobody could predict what they would name one, if they invented it, at the time he set his domain up. The argument is weird.

      You say yourself she pushed him out of the USA on a permanent basis. She did it to exclude him utterly from their lives. That’s abusive of those kids. Why do her feelings matter more than theirs?

      She gets to see them as often as she likes – he pays all expenses for 6 annual visits and one long summer trip. She could visit on her own dime more often, instead of paying for crazy legal battles she hasn’t a hope in hell of winning.

      You seem to think kids should lose their father and a father should lose their kids, just so she has them to live with her. Why? On what basis has she shown she is capable of fostering their ties with their father, do you imagine? Ever?

  68. jojo says:

    If this was reversed, and the father wasnt returning the kids to their mom in monaco, he would be skewed alive, arrested for kidnapping and probably given the death sentence. Amazing how there is such a double standard in the states when it comes to a mother and father.

  69. H says:

    I’m not on either one of these idiots sides, except the children.

    This case could end up in legal limbo for years. Happened to a friend with her child custody case. She was British, ex-husband was American and on a summer visit to Indiana, he refused to return the children to their legal guardian, their mom in the UK. Two fought for years in court systems, as kids stayed in US during it. Then, when my friend ran out of money to fight the international battle, the kids were old enough to decide where they wanted to live and they chose dad and the US. He had turned them against their mother during the years of the custody battle and now she has no contact with them. Sad all around.

    These types of battles benefit no one.

    • kai says:

      Jesus, that’s heartbreaking.

    • Crumpet says:

      Gee, that is almost exactly what happened to me, only we all lived in the same state, me bringing my daughter back to California so she could have a relationship with her dad. Stupid me.

    • K says:

      That’s awful. Your poor friend – and what a horrible man to do that to his own children.

      I will never understand people like that. Hating your ex more than you love your own kids is just unfathomable to me.

  70. Holly hobby says:

    I think a lot of us here saw this coming. I hope the U.S. Marshals storm into her house and take those kids back into custody. Very much like what they did with Elia Gonzalez. Yeah it sucks for the kids but she brought this boondoggle on.

  71. Lucky Charm says:

    I wasn’t expecting her to quietly return the children, and sadly now I see that my surprise was warranted. She’s just screwed her case significantly. With the level of crazy she’s displaying now, I hope the children aren’t in any physical danger, in addition to the mental and emotional damage she’s now inflicting on them. I hope that they are returned to their father ASAP.

    • Betti says:

      Yes i hope so too. She’s text book Narcissistic Personality Disorder – its all about her. I fear for the kids as people with that personality disorder are prone to extreme behaviour in order to get what they want – which is their own and to be the centre of attention. They are always the victim and will lie and do whatever to support their fantasy.

      She’s run out of legal options in the US – this could be part of her ‘plan’ to take her perceived grievance to the next level, the international stage. She’s not going to give up the media attention she’s getting so readily and those kids are her ticket to that attention. The US authorities need to remove them from her care – she is a danger to their well being.

  72. buzz says:

    oh I didn’t realize you were lawyers. Is this your legal opinion?

    • Miss M says:

      I am asuming you can read, right?! My suggestion for you is to read the court orders that many people have published here.
      Last I checked, common sense didn’t require a law degree..

    • bluhare says:

      There’s links to the actual legal judgment if you’d care to read them, buzz. I’ll wait while you do, and then we can talk about it.

      • buzz says:

        if one want to accuse someone of a crime and risk a defamation action – I guess that’s their business.

  73. kai says:

    For the German readers here who care, I just found an episode of SpiegelTV with Daniel and Kelly from 2008. Has anyone seen this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOTSXltw85Y

    • Becks says:

      I watched the video. It’s very interesting. Obviously showing the house they were building together as a family home. About halfway through, they show a picture of a toddler Daniel on a bike, and then show him as an adult riding a bike, I would like to know what is being said there.

      Kelly and Daniel appears to get on very well, and Kelly even seems to be answering questions about how they met. You watch how it was and wonder how it got so very bad.

  74. Crumpet says:

    That crazy b*tch! Now the children are probably frightened out of their minds, and because of her antics, strangers will have to come and take them from her in order to get them back to Daniel. I have no doubt she will be screaming and carrying on, frightening them further.

    She just lost her 50/50 custody, guaranteed. Shades of Brittany Spears here. :(

    Wow, I cannot believe the sympathetic treatment she is being given by People and US. This is a terrible mess.

  75. Nikki L. says:

    This woman is unbalanced. She tried to stick it to her ex by taking his kids away, banking on the traditional leniency towards mothers in custody cases, and it backfired. Now she can’t handle it, or sharing custody, and is ruining her kids’ lives because of some sort of vendetta. Give it up, no one sympathizes with you, Kelly.

  76. Bonnie says:

    Why doesnt she just hire Reese Witherspoon as her lawyer? Her children are AMERICAN CITIZENS!

  77. Becks says:

    Is Kelly allowing Daniel to maintain his contact with the children?

    Their custody arrangement allows for the non-custodial parent to do a private FaceTime with the kids once a day, without the other parent hovering. Is she violating that part of the arrangement as well?

    Since August 7th, which was the date the kids should have returned to Monaco, what is she allowing or not allowing the children to do in regards to contact with their father and grandmother?

    Most of us are shaking our heads because it’s hard to believe anyone would willfully jeopardize an arrangement that allows for 50 %custody. Barring abuse or neglectful endangerment, most women would be happy to have a loving, involved, intelligent, ambitious father who is motivated to parent his children, but not Ms. Rutherford.

    I guess Kelly would have preferred a man like Scott Disick to father her children.

    • debra says:

      I was wondering that, too. You know that up until that time when talking to Daniel, that he would be telling them he would see them soon (on a certain day) etc. The children would have known that they were going home on thursday, but to all of a sudden be cut off from contact and not returned home? I can’t imagine the stress and anxiety the children (especially the older one) is feeling. What in the world could she be telling them?

  78. Puffy B. says:

    I’m on her side, and I hope this strategy works. The children should have never been ordered to leave the United States. They are US citizens.

    • Jen says:

      You might want to do some fact-checking. The children are not just US citizens. They have dual citizenship. If you read the court documents, it is very clear why the courts decided they should live with their father during the school year and with their mother the rest of the time.

    • Julaine says:

      The are also German citizens. Why do you think their U.S. Citizenship should be given more weight? The most recent rulings state that neither California, New York or the Federal government have jurisdiction over this custody dispute any longer. Rather, the Court in Monaco where DG filed the appropriate mirror order of the original custody arrangement has legal jurisdiction. If you read the court order you will see the the Court and several impartial inspectors/advocates weighed several different custody options but were forced into this particular choose due to Kelly Rutherford’s own lies and machinations. Her attorney tried to blackmail him into signing away his parental rights by threat of deportation in her presence. The judge ruled that it is likely that that led to him having his Visa extension denied. She has consistently defied court rulings and orders and she has now violated international law. For the safety and well being of those children they need to be returned to their father and their normal routines ASAP.

      Her children’s rights as U.S. Citizens are NOT be violated. They are merely living with their father during the school year in Europe under a shared custody agreement. Read the ruling linked earlier in the comments. It sounds like Kelly Rutherford’s former husband has been struggling to protect his children since before his daughter was even born.

    • bluhare says:

      The children haven’t been ordered out.. If they had they wouldn’t be here now. Their father has. The fact that they can’t see him unless they are overseas is the issue. And their mother is to thank for that.

    • K says:

      You need to read the court judgements, so you understand how they ended up in the care of their father, and why. Then see how you feel.

  79. meow says:

    I am thinking tomorrow is Monday and there should be more news about this.
    I hope Kelly hasn’t done a runner and vanished with the children.

  80. Rebecca says:

    I am not understanding why people are being so hard on Kelly Rutherford. How is it that everyone seems to know for sure that her kids want to stay with their father and do not want to be in the United States with their mother? It’s my understanding that the only reason he got custody of his kids was because he did not have a valid visa. It was an unfair ruling by a bad and frankly lazy judge.

    I spent time as a paralegal who worked in family law. Usually children that are born in the United States are considered U.S. citizens and are not sent away to live with a parent in another country unless the parent in the United States is proved unfit. That is not the case here. What Kelly is doing right now by keeping her children in the United States is attempting to force a court to determine it has jurisdiction. They have all refused to hear her case on the grounds that they do not have jurisdiction; therefore, the child custody case has never been properly resolved under the law.

    What would you do if your life and career was in the United States and your kids, who are United States citizens, were taken away from you to live in another country?

    I think the moral of this story is do not have children with a someone from a different country.

    • Kendal says:

      Daniel’s visa was revoked due to the actions of Kelly and her lawyer. Over three years the judge witnessed many attempts by Kelly to cut Daniel out of the kids’ lives. He was actually willing to co-parent. The children are also German citizens, and have a right to be with their father. They get visitation with Kelly and she can travel to see them in Monaco. He can’t travel to the US, and Kelly’s actions in the initial custody battle showed she probably wouldn’t have allowed the kids to visit Daniel either.

    • Samtha says:

      Read the court ruling. It obviously wasn’t “lazy.”

    • Sam H x says:

      Rebecca, here are the links to the court documents that have been posted on here & other posts on CB previously:

      http://images.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/RutherfordRuling.pdf

      http://harris-ginsberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Statement-of-Decision.pdf

      I think most of the posters on here have read both documents and understand why the court came to such decision. The court was very thorough and went over every detail with a fine toothed comb before reaching their decision. It was the right decision, it wasn’t lazy at all and I hope the appropriate authorities are contacted in returning the children to their father.

    • HK9 says:

      No Rebecca, I do believe the moral of this story is not to lie about your ex to the authorities to try and gain the upper hand because it just might backfire.

  81. DrM says:

    Jail her. Simple.

  82. JW says:

    I can’t believe how much Kelly Rutherford gets attacked every time an article re custody appears. I was really surprised the first time I read comments on another site how little support she has.

    As a Mum, I would be utterly devastated if I were in her position. The very thought of it makes me ache. And I would probably do what she is doing right now. Her children are U.S. Citizens and should not have been sent out of the country. I don’t care what the father did or didn’t do, what visa he does or doesn’t have. It isn’t right.

    These children being separated from their Mummy is not good for them. For anyone. The father is heartless to not give custody to her and he can have visitation instead. But there is no trust so that is unlikely now.

    • jessiebes says:

      As previous posters have pointed out.
      - Kids aren’t just US citizens they are also German citizens.
      - She is not separated from her kids she has 50/50 custody with the father.

      I assume you haven’t read the court documents.

    • Sixer says:

      JW – honestly, you’re just sealioning now and making people waste their time replying to you (note to self: don’t do it again).

      They have joint custody. Kelly lost primary residency BECAUSE she attempted parental alienation. Daniel got primary residency BECAUSE he promoted a relationship with the other parent.

    • Nikki L. says:

      Well, if you used your kids to to and stick it to your ex after trying to get him deported, and it backfired on you, then no one would feel badly for you, either. Just because she’s a mother doesn’t make her a saint.

  83. HK9 says:

    I knew it! The shenanigans have begun…..