Kelly Rutherford shows up in NY court, doesn’t bring kids as ordered (update)

18th Annual Super Saturday NY

Update 4 by Kaiser: Shocking absolutely no one, the judge has just ordered Kelly to shut this whole mess down. The kids are on their way to the airport, where they will take a flight to their father in Monaco. TMZ says Daniel’s mom took custody of the kids and she’ll be bringing them to Monaco, I’m assuming. There will be a custody hearing in Monaco on September 3. Gee, I wonder how that will go?


Update 3 by Kaiser: The judge sat there and waited until the children were brought into court, according to People Magazine. After Kelly complained of the “media circus” (which she created, right?), the kids were “brought in through a side entrance just before noon.”


Update 2: People has details from inside the courtroom, where the judge admonished Kelly for not bringing her kids with her. The judge told Kelly she did not “look kindly upon” the fact that she didn’t bring the children, and when Kelly tried to address the judge directly, the judge wasn’t having it. Kelly’s lawyer claimed that the children are “close by, maybe 10 minutes away” due to “the media circus” at the courtroom. Giersch’s side, represented by his lawyer and mom, requested that the press be barred from the courtroom and the judge agreed, so that’s all we know for now. We will update as more details become available.


Update 1: TMZ reports that Kelly Rutherford has shown up to court in NY as scheduled, but that she did not bring the children with her. This is in direct violation of the court order. Giersch’s mother is there, presumably to help bring her grandchildren back to Monaco. Is the state department going to have to get involved? This is ridiculous, Kelly should be held in contempt of court and hauled off to jail.


Original story: After abducting her kids from their father by refusing to send them back to their home with him in Monaco and after issuing a clueless self-centered statement about how she was somehow entitled to do this, Kelly Rutherford appeared on Good Morning America. Kelly was interviewed at home and then her buddy, legal commentator Dan Abrams, gave his opinion on the air. The video is below but you don’t have to watch it as I include the relevant quotes below. ABC News made it clear in their voiceover commentary that Rutherford is defying a court order, which she never acknowledged, insisting that she was concerned about her children’s safety and claiming (off camera of course) that they told her “really alarming things” right before she was about to send her kids back. She’s insinuating that there is some kind of abuse going on and this is despicable of her. If she learned anything “really alarming” she would have already told the press.

Kelly Rutherford: “My first priority is to protect my children… I’m a mother first and from the beginning I said I would fight for my children. Children need the love of both parents but they also need the love of a present parent, someone that’s there. I think they need both of us…

“It’s very hard for the kids and I, it’s been kind of cruel in a way because we just want to see each other and be together and they’re very young.

“It put me as a parent in an odd place, because if nobody is taking jurisdiction, how do you put your children on a plane to a foreign country not knowing what’s going to happen?”

Kelly Rutherford’s lawyer “temporary means they go back to their own country so what Kelly’s doing is just respecting what the courts said in 2012. They’re American citizens, they have a right to live in their own country.”

ABC commentator: “Rutherford says right before they were supposed to go back to Monaco, her son and daughter told her some really alarming things that made her worry about their safety if she were to send them back. She would not say just what those were.”

Dan Abrams: “This is a risky move by Kelly Rutherford… First of all you can understand her position… her position is ‘who is supposed to be telling me that the kids are supposed to be in Europe anyway.’ The risk is that the Monaco court will step in and say ‘We want our order enforced.’ It all ends up in the hands of The State Department.”

[From ABCNews.go.com]

This is the same argument Kelly has been using for years, “I’m sending my kids to a foreign country, they’re US Citizens!” Her kids have dual US and German/EU citizenship and they live in Monaco. That’s where a court ordered them to live. Multiple courts have upheld this decision. Yes it was supposed to be temporary in the original court order, but the original court order also said it wasn’t concerned if France would take jurisdiction over the case. (See yesterday’s coverage.)

So Kelly didn’t get the outcome she wanted in the courts and she decided to abduct her kids. Daniel’s lawyer has sent Kelly a letter informing her of this, and she’s also been ordered to appear at an emergency hearing in NY today with her two children. We’ll see if she shows up.

Meanwhile Kelly’s lawyer, Wendy Murphy, has issued a really haughty response to the demand from Daniel’s lawyer that Kelly return their kids. It’s really obnoxious and hypocritical, just be forewarned:

“It’s curious that the children’s father would make cruel threats and derogatory remarks rather than refusing to respond to the very simple statement we recently released last week explaining why the children are entitled to reside in their own country. Mr. Giersch made an agreement with Kelly and the American courts in 2012 that the children would live abroad with him only temporarily while he resolved his U.S. work visa issues. He did nothing to address his visa problems, and three years is exceedingly not temporary. Instead of complying with his 2012 agreement, Giersch filed for sole custody in Monaco at the end of 2014 (no decision yet.) He also refused to let Kelly see the children when she flew to Monaco for a visit this year unless she surrendered the children’s U.S. passports, which no court had ordered her to do. Mr. Giersch purports to be interested in co-parenting but his actions belie a different agenda.

The case has a complex history but the current situation is simple. The children have a fundamental right to live in their own country for many reasons including:

1. They are American citizens without dual citizenship.

2. Both parents agreed in 2012, and the U.S. Courts ordered, that their time abroad would be temporary.

3. Three years is not temporary.

Mr. Giersch can come to America on his German passport and visit the children here, just as Kelly has traveled back and forth to Europe on her U.S. passport to visit the children there for the past three years.

Kelly and the children have been very patient with Mr. Giersch. He should do the right thing, honor his agreement, and protect the children from the trauma of needless litigation.”

[From E! Online]

Wow. Their only valid complaint is that Giersch wanted the kids’ US passports to be held by a neutral third party and that OMG, kids with German passports are living overseas (by US court order)! I really hope Kelly gets arrested and the kids get sent back. I hope it’s not traumatic for them, but Kelly is the one bringing drama into their lives, not their dad.


ABC US News | World News

18th Annual Super Saturday NY

18th Annual Super Saturday NY

18th Annual Super Saturday NY

Photo credit: FameFlynet

Related stories

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

723 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford shows up in NY court, doesn’t bring kids as ordered (update)”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. original kay says:

    Is that true? was the move to France on temporary, and was he supposed to resolve the visa issues? yes, I know what kelly did to have him deported. has he attempted to resolve the visa issue? can he travel to the USA using his german passport, or has he been banned completely?

    I hope she shows up today, those kids must be terrified.

    team kids.

    • S.C.H. says:

      In order to begin the process to get his visa back, kelly was supposed to write a letter admitting her lawyer made up the terrorism claims. She has not therefor he cannot begin the process.

      • Jasper says:

        She won’t write it because she would be admitting that she lied to get him deported. Even if she does write it, I really doubt it’ll help him much tbh :(

    • LB says:

      She was supposed to send a letter to the State Dept, stating that she and her lawyer made false accusations of terrorism, first. That way when he attempts to enter the U.S., there will be no hurdles. The U.S. takes a mere accusation seriously. She hasn’t done it, and she won’t.

      I don’t doubt that he’s fine remaining in Monaco now that he has primary custody, but her constant attempts to absolve herself for her own predicament and throw everything back onto him is annoying.

    • Maum says:

      He can’t travel at all. He doesn’t have an American passport only a German one. If he is flagged as a risk (which presumably he would be if his via has been revoked on allegations of arm dealing) he would be turned away at the border.

      • original kay says:

        I just read your post below.

        thanks for clarifying, I don’t know anything abut visas, I barely even travel lol!

      • Ennie says:

        he can’t travel (to the US and its territories ) I presume, no not at all.

    • LAK says:

      A visa goes into whatever valid passport you hold. How is anyone buying this outright lie that he can travel to USA simply because he holds a valid German passport?

      His name and details are on a USA revoked list. So whenever he presents his valid passport to a USA port or embassy, he will be flagged and turned away.

      She’s telling a lie right there, and people believe it.

      It’s one thing to believe lies insinuated, but this particular lie is as obvious as the nose on your face. I can’t believe anyone believes it. I can’t believe she’s saying it boldfaced.

      You don’t have to be an immigration expert to know this. You don’t even have to travel to know this. Wikigoogle basic requirements for travelling internationally and the section on visas comes up together with the fact that you can’t enter countries that require visas without one unless there is a treaty (like ESTA for USA) between countries that lends itself to visa waivers. Having your visa revoked automatically removes your ability to take advantage of programs like ESTA which means you have to apply for a formal visa which will flag up all your prior visa issues which in turn might stop you receiving the visa which means you can’t enter the country!!

      • kai says:

        She’s also saying her kids don’t have dual citizenship???

      • Samtha says:

        She’s banking on the fact that a lot of Americans aren’t well-traveled. It’s super disgusting, but about par for the course from her.

      • OriginallyBlue says:

        I wonder, what are his chances of getting his visa reinstated even if by some miracle she were to write that affidavit?

        I really want some judge to just slap this woman down. Outline every single thing she has done to undermine the court and all the lies and half truths she has told. There are still too many people who believe her crap.

      • original kay says:

        you’re right, I should have just googled to find out for myself rather than ask a question here.
        I admit I didn’t even think to, because I don’t travel and wouldn’t even know what to type into google- though visa requirements seems to be a good starting place, in hindsight.

        thanks you LAK, as well, for editing your initial comments :) the second response was much more clear and dare I say- polite? the “geesh!” added to the end of your first comment was a bit overkill. If my question annoyed you, you need not reply :)

      • Sixer says:

        original kay – not to pile in or be mean or have a go or or or – just to (hopefully) enlighten.

        You should be aware also that the US has the most draconian reputation over visas and their relationship to national security legislation. Go to any travel forum, and you’ll see pages upon page of people who have had their US visas revoked for petty reasons, reasons they haven’t been told, etc etc, and a US bureaucracy that isn’t facilitative and basically has the attitude of “someone once smelt something dodgy about you and we don’t know or care if it’s true or not, you ain’t coming in”.

        I say this because it’s news to many Americans. And I also say it being very aware that post 9/11 and Iraq/Afghanistan, my country the UK is very much the same about visas. And most Brits would also be quite shocked to find out what the policies of their country can actually mean for perfectly normal, upstanding people.

        It’s perfectly possible – and happens often – for US or UK visas to be revoked on tittle-tattle suspicion only, and hardline bureaucracy means that once it’s happened, it’s nigh-on impossible to reverse. Even when you have solid proof that the suspicions were unfounded. This is what has happened here. Kelly’s lawyer generated a stink. Daniel’s visa was revoked. The 2012 court documents clearly state that there is no evidence for the visa stink generated by Kelly’s team. The only way for Daniel to get a visa back is for Kelly and her lawyer to clearly state that they lied in an extortion attempt. Since they are unlikely to admit to criminality, that’s not going to happen.

      • Michelle says:

        How different the 2 sides are in so many ways just starting with their attorneys. I hope this case affects Wendy Murphy negatively as well as Kelly. One side is facts and silence, the other manipulated drama and media oversaturation.

      • Neonscream says:

        Yep, even living in an ESTA eligible country will not mean you instantly get a visa to the U.S. you still need to fit certain criteria and if you’ve previously had a visa revoked you don’t meet them, you can still apply for the non waiver visa but it would almost certainly be denied if you’ve previously had one revoked.

        I know someome who had a visa revoked for a very very short overstay when she was a dumb teenager. It took 15 years and her marriage to an American citizen living in Oz for her to get a 60 day tourist visa.

      • LAK says:

        Original Kay: my original comment was rude and i’m mortified that you saw it before I edited it. I apologise.

        That’s what I get for typing before engaging brain. My excuse is this woman is making me so angry with each statement she makes, and it *is* making me angry that her statements are taken at face value when each one is an outright lie.

        I really need to disengage from this drama.

        I apologise again for being rude to you. :)

        EDIT: further to my previous edited comment, what Sixer said. I see many comments over and over again saying he should just apply and voila visa will be granted, but it isn’t that simple.

        Also, when you are turned down for a visa to the USA, or in this case revoked, and invited to re-apply, you are usually given a time out whereby you can’t re-apply despite the invitation to do so. This time -out varies on a minimum of 5yrs ( ? Minimum time out can sometimes be shorter) to never, depending on the reason for a visa refusal. 5yrs being for minimum offences, never being for terrorism or whatever the Patriots Act covers. So perhaps Daniel can apply for a visa, but he is currently on time out and can’t do so until that runs out. Another case of KR misrepresenting possible facts of the case.

      • Ennie says:

        There are people who want to travel to the Us and they are denied visas, and they have no idea why. They won’t tell them the reason. They sometimes are perfect candidates, like they have houses, steady jobs, whatever, but if the interviewer does not like something, then that person will not get a visa. I have been lucky, I have been a holder of visas of different types, but you hear stories while in the embassy and consulate and it’s kind of sad, sometimes the lack of visas get families apart for decades.
        If the children get separated from one of the parents it will be very sad, but not uncommon, what it is terrible is the manipulation of the mother that made the father lose his visa.
        Even with a visa, they can stop you from entry. The second time I visited the USA, it was by land and maybe the person was in a bad mood, because he did not let me in, and he waived the visa in front of my face saying: “this is not yours, it is ours, and I can take it from you any time we want to”. I was visiting family and wanted to go to Durango to try to ski (my cousins are hot-dogs at it). We slept on the border, and the next day the immigration officer was very nice and wished me luck and a good trip.
        It was a weird experience.
        Other time, a friend who works in the Mexican navy was crossing to a border town and she was with her small son and another navy worker. She was bringing an apple for her son. They’d not let her cross with the apple. Anyone who has traveled knows about this, but she had no idea, and they quarreled with her until they learnt that she was a medical doctor, and official in the military. She then threw said apple and crossed. If she had not been an official, I bet she’d lose her visa because of the apple, the ignorance of the law, whatever.
        Visa issues can take years and years to get clarified of tended to. it is not a matter of months. I bet ten years will pass before he gets a visa just due to the the of accusations she made. She did not accuse him of bringing an apple to the USA.
        She is pathetic, and a very selfish mother.

      • original kay says:

        you know, it’s ok LAK. this is a touchy subject and it’s personal to many of us.

        ((hugs))

        thanks for all the info to everyone :)

      • FLORC says:

        Kay/LAK/Sixer/All
        This is a complete terror of a situation. Those kids are taking on so much damage. There’s a message in there that those who hold citizenship in other countries will steal any children you have with them. The whole thing makes me outraged. I think it does with many of us and we get ragey.

        Question because i’m not completely familiar with this mess. Has Kelly ever thought of starting a visa or citizenship in her the nation of her ex? To make things easier on everybody? FMORC and I discussed this at 1 point and it was completely possible and easier if he had children that were citizens in a country he was not. Or is Kelly Completely nutty and will only be an American Citizen? ‘Murica!

        Also, Has Kelly been evaluated or had her children evaluated for emotional distress? She seems unbalanced and kids often get that directed onto them.

      • notasugarhere says:

        FLORC, moving to France would be a logical move. That’s why Rutherford hasn’t done it. She doesn’t want to live in Europe and successfully co-parent their dual citizenship kids. She wants to live in the USA! USA! USA! and raise HER AMERICAN children SOLO.

        Now I have Kim Wilde, circa early 80s, running through my head.

        New York to east California
        There’s a new wave coming, I warn ya
        We’re the kids in America (Whoa)
        We’re the kids in America (Whoa)
        Everybody lives for the music-go-round

      • Cee says:

        The visa is for him to live and/or work in the US. As a german citizen he doesn’t need a visa to enter the country for the approx. 3 months almost everyone gets. However, if he is on a terrorist list, or similar, he will be turned away no matter his citizenship or passport.

        KR is a piece of work. Why can’t she move to Monaco?

      • FLORC says:

        Nota
        Lol! Had to look up that song. Wow.

        Cee
        It’s not reasonable, but it is the stance. Kelly has stated she won’t move out of her country. She’s done so in a way that makes it seem like she thinks it’s the only safe place in the world. And that she simply didn’t have the funds to keep traveling back and forth. That her ex should be the 1 traveling. When her travel expense was offered to be covered then other reasons were brought up. Like he’s utterly unfot to parents their children. It’s forever 1 thing after another.

        She seems sick. That a bitter breakup has directed her to feel so justified in outright lies to seperate a willing father from his children. And when she stated how people should be careful sleeping with people outside their own citizenship… I nearly lost it completely at my phone. Someone needs to have her evaluated. Her delusions are clearly affecting her parenting.

    • Kinta says:

      As far as I understand this, the visa issue is not that easy. He has been deported and can just apply for another visa, if Kelly writes a letter and confirmes that she made up the claims to get his visa revoked. Of course she is not doing that, because that would bring her in an awkward position. So he is not even able to apply.

      Oh and he can not come to visit on his german passport. Again, if you’ve been deported it is not that easy. The US has verry strong restrictions.

      If I understood anything wrong ( I am not a lawyer) please let me know. I am always happy to educate myself on that matter.

      And I am also TEAM KIDS.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think his visa was revoked but he was not physically deported. He was given a date by which he had to leave. If he had not left by that date, he would have been deported. In order to comply with the law, he left before that date. He cannot return because of her antics the way you already wrote.

      • supposedtobeworking says:

        you can be denied entry into Canada for not having enough funds in your bank account. This is a flag that you may be trying to get a job here, which is grounds for refusing entry unless you have a work Visa. You can also be denied for having a single assault, resisting arrest, shoplifting, fraud. Any law that is equivalent to one of ours will lead to a refusal of entry. The length of time for another application is often the duration of the probation.
        If the US felt he engaged in suspicious financial activity, they can deny him. I think a lot of people hold the misconception that a country has an obligation to let you in just because you want to be there.

    • kai says:

      Could he sue her if she admitted it? Can you just go around and tell authorities that someone’s a terrorist when you know he isn’t?

      • Izzy says:

        I’m guessing it was also a crime to make false allegations. So writing a letter to the effect that she made the accusations with no proof, or unjustly, may have landed her criminal charges.

        Which is where she’s ended up regardless…

      • Katherine says:

        I’m not sure about suing, but making false accusations of terrorism is definitely a crime. Some states define it as a violent felony. In multiple states, the accuser can serve time in a federal prison for 7-20 years, which may also include heavy fines. Like all false allegations, it is considered to be a waste of time, money and resources which could be utilized for legitimate attacks.

    • Audrey says:

      It was supposed to be temporary but the judge also stated that she was aware that he may never be able to get another visa

      Nobody really knows what’s going on with it because dad doesn’t talk to the press. Court papers show that Kelly refused to write a letter stating that she and her lawyer lied. And the state department told tmz or something that he has not applied. We don’t know if he has a letter or something telling him that he needs to wait a certain number of years before applying or that he never can. He doesn’t say that stuff publicly so we have kelly’s view.

      But a revoked visa means he can’t enter the U.S. with his passport. He would need to apply for a visitor visa and it would more than likely be denied

      • Samtha says:

        Audrey, someone posted a link to docs below that show the custody arrangement was made permanent in 2014, and the immigration issue was waived. He doesn’t have to try to get a visa anymore if he doesn’t want to. If you ctrl+f (for Windows), and search for Radar, you’ll find it.

      • holly hobby says:

        The dad is actually smart not to talk to the press. The outcome is decided by the court, not by public opinion. There is nothing that a judge doesn’t like than to be outwardly defied. I hope Kelly gets thrown in jail for contempt. Yes it’s traumatic for the kids to get ripped away from their mother but she really brought this on.

        As for her claims of “disturbing treatment,” if that was true, she’d file that in court wouldn’t she? The fact that she didn’t means she’s lying.

        Her attorney should be disbarred. Where does she find these nutjobs? Failed Attorneys School?

    • Steph O says:

      @original kay: I got jumped all over yesterday for asking someone if they could please clarify the visa revocation and its implications. Apparently, if we don’t have time to research US Visa rules, read a 52 page legal document related to the case, and interpret the information accordingly, we are lazy and deliberately obtuse. Sorry for hoping that someone who is better educated on these commonly complicated issues would be kind enough to help me understand, as I am not wasting my hour of daily downtime on researching this case and ending up in a rabbit hole of us visa websites. Anyway, it’s not just you who’s getting some grief for this, thanks for asking these questions so that the deliberately obtuse of us could understand :)

      Team kids for sure.

      • J.Mo says:

        That poster was plain rude to u, Steph O and u asked before the info was supposedly on.every.single.post.lol.

      • morc says:

        I apologized, your metaposting is quite unbecoming, as is yours, J.Mo.
        I’m revoking my apology as you are, simply put, unable to inform yourself.
        I doubt you function as an individual if you can’t skim read 3 posts.
        You won’t invest the time to read up and instead drain others? Seal, please.

    • jwoolman says:

      I read the 2013 Decision, and the only “temporary” thing about it is that if he ever gets his visa back, they can revise the plan to have the kids in New York since then both parents can live near each other and the kids can easily spend time with both. No, he can’t come to the U.S. just on his German/EU passport. It’s pointless to even apply for another visa until Kelly sends the material as ordered by the judge, telling the State Department that she’s a pants-on-fire liar… She won’t do that and has said that she won’t because it would mean admitting wrongdoing on her part. It’s all in the judge’s Decision, which is well worth a read. Also describes how the lawyer (who should be disbarred), with Kelly right there, threatened Daniel with all this unless he signed away his his visitation rights. He refused, the lawyer got on the phone (this was not the first contact, the lawyer had been poking at the State Department about it before). They were even claiming Daniel was going to abduct the children, which is rather ironic. And soon afterward Daniel lost his visa and had to leave the country. That convinces me that Daniel had not done anything that Kelly has claimed, if he had something to hide then he would have signed to make it all go away. But just accusations are enough to revoke a visa. The government does not typically bother with any real investigation under the circumstances – the word of his lying ex and her lawyer is enough in this “better safe than sorry” climate. The judge didn’t buy what she was selling, however.

      According to the judge, Kelly sang the “Daniel is going to abduct my children” song other times as well, along with her baseless claims of drug and gun running. The court seemed rather thorough in investigating all her claims and came up with zero to substantiate any of them.

      Kelly just says whatever pops into her head as a way to block the kids’ father. She was making vague noises this time around that the kids were saying scary stuff that made her afraid to send them back to Monaco, for instance. I think she is trying to make up a script based on mothers who really did have to do a runner with their kids to keep them away from abusive fathers. Her problem is that there is absolutely no evidence that Daniel is or ever was abusive. The judge felt both were excellent parents and that the children were equally strongly bonded to both. Hence the emphasis on ensuring that the kids could have equal time with both. The Monaco/France Plan was the only one that did that without disrupting the children’s lives shuttling them back and forth too much. Video chat has also really made a difference when kids are separated from parents, and Daniel follows all the rules about keeping the kids in good contact with their mom that way and he keeps her well informed by e-mail, letters, videos, etc. Kelly, on the other hand… Well, to the court, Daniel is golden but Kelly is mud. His money has nothing to do with that, he has respected the authority of the court and really believes his children need both parents.

    • moe says:

      I was somewhat sympathetic to Kelly at first. But has everyone read the Rutherford V geirsch statement of decision? You can download it. Oh my god. She is a nut case. She has totally tried to allienate those children from their father. she refuses to put his name on the birth cert despite being ordered to do so; she lied to the state department and got his visa revoked and refuses to write a letter to get it reinstated and she bad mouths him to the children all this has been reported by a neutral psychologist. And he has made ever effort to do the opposite and keep her completely in the loop and try to be civil. She is going to lose custody all together and it will be her own fault. Selfish selfish selfish woman. Those children deserve both parents. They are not posessions she owns!!!!

  2. NewWester says:

    I am curious to hear what the children told Kelly. Interesting she finds this out just before she sends them back. If Kelly can’t prove this she is going to lose her children and her freedom. Poor children

    • LAK says:

      Alarming as interpreted by Kelly. Don’t forget this is the same woman who sued her ex-husband for potty training their son. So the kids could have said something mundane and Kelly decides it’s alarming and therefore grounds for withholding the children.

      And that’s before you get to her overall desire to keep the children.

      • Kinta says:

        She did what?!!! Where did you read that? That sounds crazy 🙈

      • JWQ says:

        Are you serious about the potty training or were you just exaggerating? What’ s the story?

      • jessiebes says:

        This is true. The boy was three years old and Daniel wanted to potty train him. She didn’t agree and sued him.

      • LAK says:

        I’m not exaggerating. It’s in the court documents. This particular incident happened when they were still co-parenting in the USA. In the 3yrs they co-parented in the USA, she took him to court repeatedly for every little thing. Potty training was one such incident.

      • Kinta says:

        Wow. I guess I must have missed that part in the docs. Thak you @LAK

    • InvaderTak says:

      Her idea of alarming is as follows: “My son, who’s kind of been brainwashed, said where he is is so much better, but he always says ‘Mama, I love you so much, you’re in my heart.” She said this on the View. Radar has an article on it titled ‘Kelly Rutherford Sobs About Children Living In France, Says Son Is ‘Brainwashed’. So really all her kids would have had to have said was that they wanted to see there dad and/or go back to Monaco. She can’t even handle that her kids love their father it would seem. Also: . “But I do think that the children are at risk because I was the primary care giver and now I’m the visitor. There are a lot of things being said to them every day that aren’t things that kids need to hear.” Yeah right. Like all the things you tell them maybe.
      Quotes are from the Radar article.

      • Wooley says:

        That is terrible! She is detrimental to those kids, I bet she makes them feel extremely guilty all the time

      • Esmom says:

        Wooley, Yes the guilt trips must be epic. Poor kids are going to need some therapy in the future, I’m thinking.

      • Sixer says:

        The original court documents from 2012 also state categorically that DANIEL was the main care-giver. She was never the main care-giver. Her status was always thus and the court ruling did not demote any status she had had in those children’s lives.

      • Katherine says:

        Kelly is actually being emotionally abusive to those children with her comments and behavior.

    • Samtha says:

      I’m thinking she’s going to level accusations of some type of abuse at him, sadly. This IS the woman who once had either the housekeeper or nanny (can’t remember which at the moment) claim Daniel was homicidal.

    • Becks says:

      If anyone is BRAINWASHING, it’s Kelly. She put her phone number on a piece of paper, showed a 4 year old Hermes that she was putting it in his shoe and got him to promise to scream as loud as he could if Daddy takes him to the airport.

      You can only imagine the things she put into his head to prep a 4 year old to do that.

      • jwoolman says:

        At the time, she was repeatedly expressing the fear that Daniel (who was still in New York) would abduct the children, so I suppose she thought she was abduction-proofing the poor kid. She seems to project into her ex all the stuff that she herself would do.

    • Little Darling says:

      My thought is that the interesting thing might be something pertaining to him filing for single custody or something about them moving. Something minor but still poses a “threat” to her. The fact that she’s bringing it up off camera screams stunt to me, especially for someone who has been so prolific in their vitriol spewing.

      Or, another thought that there are guns in the house, or dad had a girlfriend sleepover. She specifically said safety should they return which makes me feel like whatever it is must be a recent development.

      But of course she will say that to let the court think that she really is concerned and that’s why she can’t send them back.

    • Megan says:

      Maybe they said they missed their father and were ready to go home. Kelly would certainly find that alarming.

      • J.Mo says:

        Can you imagine if dad introduced them to a girlfriend?! She would flip out, however, her boyfriend meeting them is okay -she’s their mother after all.

  3. cr says:

    “ABC commentator: “Rutherford says right before they were supposed to go back to Monaco, her son and daughter told her some really alarming things that made her worry about their safety if she were to send them back. She would not say just what those were.” ”

    Is she going to pull out false accusations of abuse?

    And Dan Abrams is a now a joke. But it’s her having had support from the media people like Abrams that had so many people supporting her, because all they were getting was her propaganda.

    • Sam says:

      That is a joke. If the children disclosed abuse of some kind, then her first reaction should not be to run to a morning tv show. It would be to contact the police, doctors, psychologists, etc. If abuse is being alleged, then document it. Get it on record. Any judge with an iota of sense will demand that abuse allegations be documented in some form – a police interview, a doctor’s exam, etc. And any decent parent would never prevent such things. She’s talking out her rear, as usual.

    • Michelle says:

      These are supposed journalists?? What about getting both sides of the story? Granted Daniel won’t talk because he truly cares about the children’s wellbeing, but how about looking at the court documents. Why is Kelly just allowed to tell half truths and manipulate the public with her spin through the press? The media contributes to this drama by being so one-sided and Kelly in turn feeds off it. There should be a gag order on this case.

      Kudos to Celebitchy for telling the facts.

      • holly hobby says:

        Yes the next step the judge should do is to issue a gag order. I’ve had enough of this clown’s lies.

      • Lady D says:

        I think the judge did reiterate the original ‘keep the kids out of the media’ court order. She played it like she was too emotional to talk after the court case but I bet money she was told in no uncertain terms to button it.

  4. DanaG says:

    I’m so not surprised she did this I thought she would! I hope she get’s arrested and I’m thinking she can kiss goodbye her kids being allowed to go to the States again to visit her. She can’t be trusted and the court needs to throw the book at her.

  5. Katydid20 says:

    I have no legal background whatsoever and know nothing about law, but am I wrong in finding it weird that NY courts didn’t have jurisdiction before but now they do? That’s what confuses me the most about this.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      She committed the abduction in NY. NY has jurisdiction over the abduction.

    • S.C.H. says:

      NY before said it had no jurisdiction to make changes to the custody arrangement. Child abduction is completely different so NY can step in to uphold the custody arraignment on behalf of Monoco.

    • LB says:

      The kids and the father never lived in NY, and Kelly didn’t use to either. She moved there later. California was appropriate under those circumstances.

      As commentators mentioned yesterday, she was supposed to file a mirror order (from the California court) in NY but she refused to do so – probably because she wanted NY to decide the case all over again, in her favor. So later when she asked them to take over jurisdiction, they said they couldn’t, leaving just Monaco.

      So again, she’s complaining about something that is her own fault, as well as her idiotic lawyers.

    • jessiebes says:

      NY doesn’t have jurisdiction to change the original court orders regarding custody. It does however have jurisdiction to enforce it. There is the difference.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      The father filed a writ of habeas corpus in NY, the last known location of the children. A writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure that enables the judge to issue an order requiring Kelly to physically bring the children to the judge. NY can also enforce the CA custody order from 2012 and its mirror order in Monaco as well as any mirror order Daniel may have filed in NY (although that may not have happened due to Kelly’s prior attempt to change jurisdiction to NY which was quashed).

      And NY state or the Feds can go after Kelly for various crimes if they so desire. But it sounds like the father just wants to get his kids back safely and worry about what to do with Kelly later.

      • Izzy says:

        I need to ask this again, and if anyone knows, please chime in. I know that at some point, a mirror order was supposed to be filed in NY. My question is, was Kelly or Daniel supposed to file it? I could have sworn the document at the harris-ginsberg link said it was Daniel who was supposed to file. Though that may have later been changed, or in reference to another order…

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        I saw that too, but it sounds like he did not have to file a mirror order in NY if the 2012 custody order were superseded by the 2013 final judgment, which I believe was when Kelly was supposed to file a mirror order in NY.

        My other thought was that perhaps it was a typo and the judge meant to say Kelly since she is the party actually living in NY. It seemed strange to me that Daniel, who has no ties to NY, would have been required to file a mirror order in a jurisdiction in which he does not live and in which he would not be seeking to exercise his custodial rights. There is a possibility that the judge later hand-wrote a correction onto this document in the court’s file (happens all the time when judges see typos after an order has already been issued). But unless and until someone pulls the originals in the court file in CA, one will never know.

    • Sam says:

      It’s not that the courts have jurisdiction. However, most courts grant deference to the decisions of other courts. So in reality, if the NY court orders the children to return to Monaco, it is not the NY court doing it, it is the court of personal jurisdiction stepping in and acting as the surrogate for the court that has actual jurisdiction, in Monaco. Does that make sense? Courts will generally respect each other’s ruling unless there is some incredibly strong reason not to. There is no reason why the NY court would refuse Monaco’s order. The NY court might not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, but it certainly has personal jurisdiction over Kelly Rutherford. The court in Monaco will want it’s order enforced, but it can’t do that inside the United States. It needs a surrogate inside the US to do it for it, and that’s what it has asked the NY court to do – to use it’s personal jurisdiction powers to bring her in and to enforce Monaco’s order. That is it.

      I think the main failure here is that the lawyer clearly either does not understand herself (and if that’s the case, she’s unfit to practice) or she simply likes getting paid and cannot bring herself to sit her client down and explain to her (in small words) why the case is going against her.

      • Michelle says:

        hahaha. I’d bet Kelly fires her lawyers if they disagree with her. It is all about the $$$$ for some lawyers, so they spin it Kelly’s way using vague statements in the press. Kelly’s new boyfriend is probably helping her out financially too, imo.

      • Ennie says:

        Like in the Alondra Luna case. A Houston girl was taken by her father to Mexico when she was about 6 yrs old. The mother, a Houston resident was years and years looking for her, but the father hid. The mother herself came looking for her, but nothing. Then she thought she found her daughter and filed an order and the girl was taken by the police from the Highschool she was studying. YEs, right there from the school she was taken to the USA. She claimed she was the wrong Alondra (same name ) , that she had her own family, etc. And two weeks and after DNA testing, yes, she was taken back home.
        The police here were very criticized, but they were just enforcing the orders from interpol or whatever treaties they have, they did not have jurisdiction to do a DNA test here.
        The photographs from the police taking the screaming (wrong) girl from the school are brutal.
        After all this brouhaha and international news, etc. The father decided to give back the real Alondra. He struck a deal with the mother to avoid jail.
        He had not mistreated her, and he never spoke ill of her, he just did not want to live afar, he had no money or visa to visit his daughter, so he kept her. It is sad how these families are torn apart. Thank God he decided of abide by the law.
        The teen now lives with her mother again, rekindling the relationship, because they had no contact at all for about 7 years, but she speaks no evil from her dad.

      • holly hobby says:

        Didn’t Wendy Murphy identify herself as the children’s lawyer in the previous custody case? That nutjob had another attorney and Wendy Murphy was representing herself as the kids’ attorney. I remember reading here (thanks by the way for the great legal commentary!) that the court is responsible for appting the kids’ attorney so WM was misrepresenting herself.

        Now she’s this nutjob’s attorney?

      • Bread and Circuses says:

        I believe Kelly has been through three sets of lawyers in the past three years. Sitting her down and talking to her probably doesn’t work out well.

        Not that I don’t think it possible these lawyers are bottom-feeders, but it is also possible they’re doing their client the maximum good they can by white-gloving her just enough to not get fired, so Kelly can have some consistency in her legal defense.

        Kelly is her own worst enemy; it’s their job to try to be her best advocate, and part of that may involve just trying to stick around long enough to do her some good.

    • Katherine says:

      NY doesn’t have the jurisdiction to make any changes to the custody arrangement. However, they do have the jurisdiction to enforce it and uphold any US international laws. Kelly committed abduction in NY, so the state does have the jurisdiction to enforce any kidnapping laws.

    • Katydid20 says:

      Thanks everyone. Told you I had no clue about the law or anything legal :)

  6. Palar says:

    Has anyone bothered to ask what the kids want? Seems all the courts have messed this one up, Kelly shouldn’t be kidnapping them but yes 3 years is not temporary.

    • Bings says:

      The children are much too young to be asked.

      • nicole says:

        They are too young to have a say. That’s not supposed to be mean but children of that age can’t really determine what is in their best interests. Little kids may end up picking a parent that is the “fun” one with no real parenting as they can’t tell that is not what they need which opens up huge problems of abuse of the system. That’s just one example.

    • LAK says:

      The kids have their own legal representative. @bearcatlawyer explained it very well the types of legal representatives children can have in these types of disputes. What stood out for me in bearcatlawyer’s explanation is that the children’s representative is there strictly for the children’s best interest eg if Kelly/Daniel convinces the kids to say whom they’d rather live with, the representative can counter-argue that it’s not in their best interest to go that route since the kids are too young to truly understand the implications of that decision.

      • ol cranky says:

        has a court-appointed special advocate been appointed for the children? the person representing themselves as the attorney for the children was actually someone hired by/paid for by Rutherford so they really are not legally acting in behalf of the children.

        Dan Abrams support for this is astounding as he used to be quite a supporter for CASA which is an organization to ensure the rights & well being of children aren’t trampled on and that they have unbiased representation to ensure someone is actually advocating for the best interests of the child/ren. Kelly Rutherford must give really good head or have some incredible blackmail material on him for him to be willing to throw logic and common sense out for her

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Considering their mother just kidnapped them what do you think the ‘children’s’ say would be? There’s a reason we don’t give young children that option and it’s for the very reason one party could manipulate and poison the child against the other party.

    • lunchcoma says:

      Court documents indicate that the children have good relationships with both parents. Apparently Kelly’s parenting style is a slightly better fit for one child and Daniel’s is a slightly better fit for the other – and when it’s a case of “slightly” and the children are so young, keeping siblings together is a priority.

  7. lucy2 says:

    I hope she picks out a pretty, all white dress for her mug shot.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I predict red, white, and blue with Stars and Stripes for everyone!!!

      Because, AMERICA!

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      Lucy2 I just checked the picture in TMZ she is in WHITE!

      • notasugarhere says:

        Capri leggings and tennis shoes. Because that’s how you dress for a court appearance in NYC?

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        @notasugarhere, well, it’s not like she has any respect for the U.S. court system so her outfit does not surprise me at all.

        But honestly who wears all white in NYC? I may be a tad OCD, but I would not want to have to worry about getting clothes like that dirty.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m too clumsy to wear white. Dark colors are your friends.

  8. Mrs Darcy says:

    *1. They are American citizens without dual citizenship.*

    :O Is that true??

    • cr says:

      No, it’s not. This is her American jingoism showing.

      • Mrs Darcy says:

        thank you. But it is a part of the statement from her lawyer. Wouldn’t the lawyer be stating ‘facts’?

      • cr says:

        The lawyer would be stating facts if they were a decent lawyer. However, Kelly’s previous lawyer, and her current one, Wendy Murphy, seem confused on what facts are. Conveniently so.

      • o_o_odesa says:

        CR – Great use of the word “jingoism”. I haven’t heard it in a while!

    • Kinta says:

      Nope

    • Joss RED says:

      .

    • LAK says:

      Having read some of the background of this lawyer, facts are not in her wheelhouse. No matter the case. Not even when confronted with indisputable ones.

      She takes a stand on an issue and then stands her ground no matter what.

    • Norman Bates' Mother says:

      I remember reading about the dual citizenship in the legal court documents. Did my mind just make it up? If not – why does her lawyer think she can get away with spewing such lies? And not for the first time. It’s easily verifiable even for us and the judge has it all written in the file.

      All they seem to do is try to turn the public against Giersch, but it won’t work in court. My only explanation is that all she cares about is fame, not the children, so she’d rather lie and break the law to gain the public’s sympathy than behave like a mature, loving parent and regain the judge’s sympathy. Her priorities are seriously messed-up.

      • Chinoiserie says:

        I do not know how winning the public’s sympathy could help her but I still wish the father’s lawyer would make some statement about the basict facts. I suppose since he does not live here it does not matter to him what the US public thinks but maybe she would stop her media campaing if nobody was lisening and maybe the kids would not be as confused about what happened when they are old enough to read articles. But this sitsuation is really her fault and the tabloids for not cheking facts.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Chinoiserie (great name, btw) – most lawyers will tell you it is almost NEVER in their clients’ interests to open their mouths and talk. They also will not speak in detail or will instead release terse statements to the media. Especially today with the rise of smart phones with video and recording capabilities and a 24 hour news cycle on TV and the web, it is best to stay silent and be thought a fool rather than open one’s mouth and remove all doubt! Clearly these are lessons Kelly and her team have NOT mastered.

        IMHO, his lawyer is playing it very smartly. She issues short, relevant, fact-based statements that will not embarrass her or the father in the long run. Believe you me, when the father likely moves for sole custody, they will drag out every single one of Kelly’s interviews and highlight all the ridiculous stuff she has said.

      • Chinoiserie says:

        Bearcatlawyer, thank you for explanation, for this and in general (and nice to know my username is liked), your comments are so interesting! I am hoping to get in law school next year so this is really fascinating.

      • Peanutbuttr says:

        Fahi Hallin is considered one of the best family lawyers in America (by her peers), and is an expert in international child abductions.

    • Samtha says:

      That made me do a double-take. Her lawyer is outright lying. Completely unethical.

    • Wonderbunny says:

      That was my first question as well, but what’s odd about that statement is that if they don’t have dual citizenship, then why is she talking about “U.S. passports”? If they’d only have one citizenship, then it should just be “passports”.

      Takes a very special type of personality to lie so boldly.

    • Sam says:

      No. The kids are entitled to German citizenship by virtue of the fact that their dad is a German citizen. I know this because I have it. I was not born in Germany nor have I ever lived there for any appreciable amount of time. However, my mother is a German citizen living in America. Germany permits any citizen to apply for citizenship for their kid, regardless of where the kid was born or resides now. So I have it.

      Her kids are German citizens by virtue of the fact that their dad was a German citizen when they were born. Nothing else is required. They can live in Monaco because both Germany and Monaco are EU members, and people who are German citizens can pass freely between EU states without an issue.

      Her lawyer is straight up lying at this point.

      • Ana A. says:

        Agree. I think that was why he wanted to have the birth certificates in the first place and why she was ordered to give them to him and to make him the father in it. That way h could go to the German embassy and ensure that his children have dual citizenship.
        The only thing you have to do to get German citizenship is to have a German parent that registers your birth to a German authority. That’s it.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Monaco is not an member of the EU but they have agreements in place regarding residency etc.

        But yes, they’re dual citizens and there’s nothing she can do about it.

    • Katherine says:

      No.

  9. Maum says:

    I just don’t get how the lawyer can use the argument he hasn’t replied for a visa over and over again. He CAN’T re-apply.
    What do they expect to happen? Why doesn’t any responsible journalist challenge them?????

    Her statement is so bizarre. She goes on about the citizenship issue (and there is no way to are not dual citizens. It takes a birth certificate to get them recognised as German- I can’t believe the father hasn’t done it as it give them legal protection in the EU and they can reside there without having to apply for visas) because it’s her ongoing ‘battle cry’ and then randomly mentions fearing for their safety.

    Surely if she genuinely feared for their safety she would scream it on the rooftops????

    • Linn says:

      It’s so absurd that Kelly talks so much about wanting so be with the children and how hard it is for everyone, but she apparently never even TRIED to find a way to move closer to them.

      It’s the USA or nothing.

      • LAK says:

        She gave an interview recently (sorry I can’t remember which show) in which she was asked why she hadn’t moved to Europe to be closer to the kids and her response was along the lines of why should she!!!!

      • Tiffany says:

        Who would pay attention to her overseas. I said this last thread, she has a career as a martyr and it is bringing her more press than her acting career ever did.

        This woman is a walking timebomb and dumb**ses like Messing and Abrams better have their 140 characters ready.

      • FLORC says:

        Because it would make an already hard situation better for the kids.
        Because other countries are awesome and it’s fun to travel.
        Because expanding her knowledge of culture that her kids are absorbing is good for everyone……. The list can only go on. This lady only sounds ignorant to accepting any viewpoint that isn’t her own. Ugh.

  10. Lilacflowers says:

    Sure, the kids have a right to live in their own country but, despite their bigoted, jingoistic mother’s views, they have more than one country AND their rights to not bestow any rights on their bigoted, jingoistic, tax-dollar wasting mother to have physical custody of them for more than one second beyond the court orders.

    And Kelly’s lawyer should keep her mouth closed about the kid’s rights; she does NOT represent them.

    • Crumpet says:

      Very very good point. The lawyer is a lying wacked nutjob who will hopefully soon be disbarred. I canNOT believe Kelly actually found a lawyer who would knowing lie in public statements. Oh wait. What am I saying?

      This whole story is very distressful to me for personal reasons. Daniel and his parents must be scared stiff for the children – I know I am.

  11. Betti says:

    I wondered when she’d play the ‘abuse’ card – i’ll bet any money she’s coaching them right now on what to say. Funny its never come up before.

    This woman is only thinking of herself and clearly doesn’t give an eff for those kids. If anyone is abusing those kids its her – emotional abuse is just as bad as physical.

  12. LAK says:

    She contradicts herself even as she defends herself.

    And what does she mean kids need a parent present? In her mind their father isn’t a parent?

    It’s also interesting how they never mention the father. She talks as if she is the only parent. Her lawyers and her repeatedly say the kids are being sent away. Period. This removes the father from the picture completely such that it appears her kids are being sent to live some place unknown with persons unknown. And that omission is playing very well with her supporters. Coupled with ‘Murica, you can see why some people don’t look beyond it.

    Won’t give vague abuse allegations the time of day. If he is being abusive, tell that to the judge. Don’t insinuate.

    • original kay says:

      I really don’t think she considers him a person, let alone the father of her children.

      sad. all she is doing is hurting her kids.

      • Aly says:

        There are so many signs that this woman is unstable and vindictive. My thoughts go immediately to the damage that she is causing her children that will affect them for the rest of their lives. I can not even imagine how confused they must be, and how polluted her words are regarding their father. They are perhaps unaware of the full magnitude of this situation but they will be as she has made a private matter a public showcase. Vile and selfish Kelly, you should be ashamed.

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      I am cynical and just wondering if the “alarming things” she heard was the kids saying they are looking forward to seeing their daddy again. I hope the judge throws away the key when dealing with her today, she is a danger to those kids.

    • GingerCrunch says:

      That’s how severe her narcissism is.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She said “they also need the love of a present parent, someone that’s there”. It sounds as if she’s claiming that as they all live together as extended family (kids, father, grandparents), the father is not doing the parenting.

      He was always the main caregiver for their son while she worked. Now she seems to be implying that if he’s working and the grandparents do some child care, he’s a bad distanced parent.

    • Becks says:

      This is how this woman operates:

      Widely disseminate half-truths and innuendoes, allow people, the vast majority of whom have only a peripheral awareness of this case, and certainly have never read word one of the ruling, to jump to the obvious conclusion she is trying to lead them to, and sit back and watch the support roll in as people now believe this is a mother whose American kids are being ripped from her loving arms by her mustache-twirling foreigner ex-husband who got kicked out of America because he arms terrorists.

      When she says children need a parent who is present, that’s not a lie. Children do need a parent that is there for them. She did not say that Daniel is not there for them, but there is a strong insinuation. She obviously wants people to jump to that conclusion.

      I have read many print interviews where she does this exact thing; not exactly lying, but certainly omitting the portion which reflects badly on her. Only someone who has read the court documents can tell she is being less than truthful.

    • FLORC says:

      The contradictions are so obvious. Why is no one calling her out on this? I understand the father’s side is playing it smart by keeping shut. Let Kelly talk herself into a hole while everyone with the facts (court) are the ones to make decisions. Still, I want someone in the court of public opinion to just call out her nonsense. Much like is being done here.

      The longer this goes on and her narcissism (ty GingerCrunch) is entertained the more harmful this is on the kids.

  13. Christina says:

    Her kids told her nothing- I’d be shocked if she even brought any sort of allegations to light. She disgusts me. What she is really hoping to achieve is to alienate her children from their father. I wonder what she says about him behind closed doors to her children every single day. I think she attempts to confuse them. She obviously doesn’t want to co-parent. In my opinion, she is not doing this for her kids. She’s doing all of it to stick it to her ex. I understand missing your children- BUT she tends to avoid mentioning that in addition to the summer she sees them six other times a year. This whole situation has become a bad Lifetime movie. Kelly should play herself, since she seems to need the work. I feel for her kids.

  14. Cran says:

    I am completely bewildered at her constant refusal to accept the fact that her children have dual citizenship. This is not an issue that exists in some grey legal area. That Kelly refuses to accept that basic truth shows how deeply her sense of alienation from her ex goes. As for the deeply disturbing things her children told her but she will not disclose on camera I have my doubts.

    I applaud Daniel in his extraordinary efforts to co-parent from another country with a person who takes every opportunity to degrade him publicly and legally. He cannot even be here in person to defend his or his children’s rights due to Kelly’s machinations. Yet Kelly and her attorney blithely carry on with no regard for the children’s welfare. Children who are coming to an age where they notice things and ask questions because their routine changes or they overhear things.

  15. Luca76 says:

    Wasn’t she supposed to write an affidavit detailing her lawyers lies to the State department ?didnt she refuse, and isn’t that the only hope for him to get a new visa?

    What a psycho.

    • Izzy says:

      Yes, and yes.

      And YES.

    • RUDDYZOOKEEPER says:

      I’ve been getting the feeling from this increasingly crazed and desperate woman that pretty soon all three of them – kids and psycho mom – are going to be found at the bottom of a bathtub with a note on the sink about how they’re all “finally free.”
      Somebody needs to get those children away from her. Now.

    • Liberty says:

      And get a mirror order in NY, which she also did not do.

    • Katherine says:

      Bingo.

    • Robin says:

      I’d love to hear from someone who really knows immigration law on this…she has refused for more than three years to write the letter admitting that she and her lawyer lied about the allegations that caused his visa to be revoked. Since she’s clearly not going to write the letter, why doesn’t the State Department just allow Daniel Giersch to re-apply for a visa on his own merits, and consider her refusal to write the letter a tacit admission of her lies? Why allow this lying psycho to have control over whether Giersch can even apply? He might not get a new visa, but I don’t understand why HER refusal to write the letter is the controlling factor in whether he can even apply.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Depending on the exact ground under which his visa was revoked, he may be forever barred from reapplying for a new visa. Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act details grounds of inadmissibility, that is, reasons why a person is ineligible for a visa, green card, or entry into the U.S. Some of the grounds are waivable, meaning a person might be able to get a visa or gain entry to the U.S. after seeking the permission of the U.S. government. But some grounds are flatly not waivable, and filing a visa application is pointless because the U.S. consulate would not even process it. So while Kelly do not have control over whether Mr. Giersch can file an application for U.S. visa (the State Department does), her and her attorney’s refusal to recant their prior allegations against him render him almost certainly ineligible to apply. Besides, even if Kelly or her attorney did recant (which they will not do because they would subject themselves to criminal prosecution for lying to a U.S. government official, conspiracy, etc.), that may not be enough to ensure that Mr. Giersch can get future U.S. visas. After 9/11 the State Department has operated under a “better safe than sorry” policy when it comes to giving visas to people who might be dangerous – even when there is no substantial or probative evidence that the people are in fact threats to the U.S.

        It is equally hard for someone in Mr. Giersch’s situation because in effect he has to prove a negative and the State Department is not legally obligated to give him the complete details of what Kelly and/or her attorney said he did. How do you prove that you have not done something particularly when you do not even know exactly what you were accused of doing? NOT so easy to prove, I promise you.

  16. ShazBot says:

    If she had truly alarming information with a leg to stand on, why wouldn’t she have filed an emergency injunction or something with the courts, instead of kidnapping her kids and releasing an asinine statement saying she trusts it’s all resolved now…wtf woman?

    • S.C.H. says:

      Exactly! She released two prior statements about not understanding court orders and how she doesn’t have to return them bc NY and CA don’t have jurisdiction. Claiming abuse now is so transparent and disgusting.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Because that’s what sane people who actually have a legitimate legal claim do. This jerk is now going to subject her children to court-ordered visits with police and therapists to determine whether there is any merit to her claims.

    • Pinky says:

      Or maybe, because no U.S. Court assumes jurisdiction, there is no one with whom to file a claim/emergency petition. That would be her logic, anyway. And it kind of works with her narrative. And please, don’t start yelling at me for being able to think the way she and her lawyer might be thinking.

  17. Talie says:

    She is not showing up in that court room.

    • Pinky says:

      I’ll wager that she does, but she does not bring the kids and throws herself on her sword, saying she’d rather be arrested than give up her rights as a mom to protect her kids. Anyone else want in?

      • Becks says:

        I’ll take that action.

        She’ll want to be viewed as a martyr to the cause against parental abduction. And the sad thing is that she won’t even get the irony.

      • Izzy says:

        EDIT: Well, we called it. They need to haul her stupid ass to jail and issue an Amber Alert, pronto.

        Second that. It’s what I thought to. I hope they arrest her and her shady, overpriced idiot lawyer. There is NO doubt in my mind that she has a hand in this as well; otherwise she would have kept her mouth shut, left the statements to PR reps, and advised her client properly.

      • Samtha says:

        Welp, looks like you were right.

      • Katherine says:

        You have a gift.

  18. danielle says:

    Ugh. I’m wondering if her lawyer told her she was in deep trouble with the abduction and she would need a darn good explanation for not sending them back, so now she’s thinking about making up some abuse allegations to justify herself. Those poor kids.

  19. Blue says:

    Ugh those poor kids. She needs to do the right thing and send those kids back home to their daddy in Monaco.

  20. vauvert says:

    I rarely think a parent deserves to lose the right to joint custody but in this case I think the courts need to award Daniel full custody once and for all and be done. The Monaco court can do it, the NY court can enforce it and put the kids on a plane. She is nuts beyond belief and the way she talks is not only a word salad but also a bunch of lies. What shocks me is that any respectable lawyer is willing to make public statements that are false, supporting a crazy client who is not obeying a legal decision taken by a California court regarding where the kids should be and for how long. The fact that the CA court no longer has jurisdiction doesn’t change the fact that it was the original source of the existing custody agreement and visitation schedule, for which the mirror order was then filed in Monaco. If she is too stupid to understand that she has brought it to this point and that an american judge sent her kids to Monaco, why don’t her lawyers set her straight??
    Mind you they can’t be that good to begin with because look at the mess they just allowed her to get into, keeping the kids illegally. Hopefully Daniel can afford the fortune this is costing him and hopefully he has the mental fortitude to stay classy to the end, acting within the limits of the law and getting the kids returned to him properly, sooner rather than later. Cant imagine what he must be going through.

    • Izzy says:

      Reading up on the background of her lawyer and some of the public statements she’s made on other cases… the lawyer is not all that respectable.

    • kai says:

      A crazy, disobeying client who isn’t even all that rich! Didn’t she cry about how she lost all her money at some point?

      Giersch is apparently a multi-millionaire (at least that’s what they keep saying, IDK) and he has some experiences with drawn out legal battles. I think at the very least he is good at picking lawyers and knows when to listen.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      This. The system will eventually end up failing these kids further by leaving them with someone dangerous and dellusional.

      Hopefully she doesn’t hurt them.

    • Caz says:

      I’m exhausted from reading all of these posts. The depth to which this nonsense has been allowed to go to is deplorable. My sympathy is with the children. Totally agree with you.

      Everyone…choose your intended father/mother of your children wisely.

  21. ThereThere says:

    Her lawyer keeps saying “temporary! temporary!” but this document (sorry for the poopy watermark, thanks Radar!) says on p15 that the 2012 order was made permanent on Nov 2013. It’s also notes that no party contested that order!
    So, once again, her lawyer is a liar!!

    http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/rutherford-signed.pdf

    • Samtha says:

      Thanks for finding that! So basically, everything she’s said is verifiably a lie.

    • L says:

      Exactly. The visa issue is a moot point and was resolved back in 2013. She was supposed to write a letter and contact a immigration representative. In the Oct 2013 statement of decision she was told to file a notice to obtain an Immigration Expert’s report which will investigate if either party has fulfilled their obligation vis-a-vis of obtaining a VISA for him. The Oct 2013 decision actually gave her till January 2014 to file that notice . She didn’t file one. He also didn’t obtain a immigration expert (as the visa was held up by her not filing the official statement that she was ordered to complete),

      The provision stated in clear cut language that if no one files a notice by January 2014, then both parties waive the Immigration issue. Neither party did, and the judge ruled that it was no longer a issue and not part of the custody plan going forward.

      So all this ‘temporary temporary’ he’s not doing the visa stuff garbage is ABSOLUTE BS. She can’t waive the immigration issue and then trot it out again as a weapon to use against him, when if she wanted to fix it would have done it 3 YEARS AGO. Which she didn’t do most likely because she knew she would get in trouble for lying to immigration. She gets horrible horrible legal advice.

      This woman is a psycho.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ L

        Thank you very much for explaining how the immigration issue was waived and thank you for your other informative posts.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ ThereThere

      Thanks for posting that! Wow. Good find.

  22. NellStar says:

    No doubt she’s working on putting together the acting performance of her life today. I can’t stand this narcissistic fool. I get so worked up reading the garbage she spews and thinking about the damage she’s done to her kids. This was always about winning, never about her kids wellbeing. I hope the judge refuses to listen to one word she says, orders the kids back to Monaco. As much as I believe in two parents being involved in their children’s life, she’s gone too far and refuses to acknowledge the father – Daniel, not one person would be shocked if you applied for sole custody and supervised visits. Enough is enough.

  23. Beatrice says:

    A sad excuse for a mother. This nutjob’s only concern is her vendetta against the father, not her children’s welfare. She acts like he’s taken them to live in a hut in some third world country. Hey Kelly–Monaco’s pretty nice and has all the modern conveniences that we have here in the US. It’s her fault anyway that they live outside the US because she had Daniel deported thinking she’d get sole custody.

    • Becks says:

      It’s often been said that Monaco has a crime rate of zero. Although that is a little hard to understand, that is what is often stated.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Almost zero. There have been a couple of high-profile thefts and murders in recent years that shocked people. But it is a very small place with a lot of security cameras.

  24. Chelsea jones says:

    I am a bit surprised at how many people are attacking the mom. How is it in the best interest of a two year old little girl to be taken from her mother ? The courts, to my knowledge, found both parents to be fit parents. Despite other citizenship, the kids were born and living here when divorce proceedings began. Why should the children leave their home because the dad has visa. problems? That is the fathers problem, not theirs. Kelly should have been court ordered to get on a plane and take the children to see their father, with them splitting the expense. All these people sending hatred remarks, do you not have kids? It is a Mothers natural instinct to protect and raise her kids. You cannot throw stones if you haven’t been in this position. I don’t think any mom would sit back and watch her kids be taken to a foreign country to live where they didn’t speak he language and lose all American court jurisdiction. Dad, scream loudly to get your visa. Spend your money there, rather than fighting for the right to live in another country, where your kids are far away from their Mom.

    • GingerCrunch says:

      wait for it…

    • jessiebes says:

      This has been answered so many times.
      Please read the court documents.

    • Insomniac says:

      So Chelsea, you’re perfectly fine with Kelly erasing the children’s father from their lives? That’s what would have happened if her original scheme had worked in her favor.

    • Izzy says:

      FTLOG, please go back to the comments thread on yesterday’s post and READ. Everything there is clearly explained, including links to the court documents, which very clearly spell out why Kelly Rutherford deserved to lose custody in the first place.

    • Bella says:

      You choose to overlook the most pertinent detail in order to beg sympathy for this mother, which is that she is 100% responsible for her ex’s visa revocation. So, no, while it is certainly not their children’s problem, it was a serious lie designed to force their father out of their lives permanently. Kelly was ordered to sign an affidavit acknowledging this false attempt, to assist Daniel to reapply for his visa, but has stated she will not admit wrongdoing. And has failed to do so to-date. It is absurd that she denies her legal culpability and spreads baseless propaganda, when the court records are public. It is also curious that you state awareness that the court found both parents to be fit, yet seem to ignore the entirety of the courts findings, which clearly state Daniel to be the only parent who has not attempted to alienate the children and has shown commitment to respecting the role of their mother in his kids lives. The courts findings in no way indicate Kelly to be cooperative, reasonable or focused on the best interests of her beloved kids.

      • Isa says:

        She’s not protecting her kids at all. She has put them in the middle of this custody battle that never should have happened. She is using them as pawns to hurt their father. There’s no way I would do this to my kids.

    • Cran says:

      @ Chelsea Jones if you have been following this situation at all I cannot believe you would have written your comment.

      1. The children have American and German citizenship.
      2. Kelly has not been found to be a fit parent. It is in court
      papers (legal documents) that she repeatedly resists attempts
      at co-parenting.
      3. Refused to put the fathers name on their daughters birth certificate which the father ended up having to court to make happen. A court order which Kelly ignored.
      4. As for the visa issue he cannot do what he needs to do until Kelly submits in writing her claims (which are what started the visa mess) were false. She has not done so and I believe she has not because it may trigger serious legal action against her if she submits the letter.

      • Tammy says:

        That is not what the court documents say Cran.. both Kelly and Daniel were viewed as fit parents and granted joint custody but because Daniel’s visa was revoked, could not coparent in the US with Kelly and he was seen as the one who would most likely foster a relationship for the kids with the mother, physical custody was granted to him until the visa issues were worked out.

        Now this could be a lie on Kelly’s part.. she has stated she did submit such a letter.

    • Sixer says:

      Sealion alert!

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think some of us suspect these folks are Rutherford plants, paid to try to change public opinion in her favor.

      • jessiebes says:

        They only show up once and never return to read the answers.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        I love this turn of phrase! I can’t wait to use it in my office!

      • Sixer says:

        I only found it out the other day, about something completely different, after having been suckered into spending ages posting evidence after evidence to counter the assertion, even though it had been done countless times already.

        It’s the perfect term for it, isn’t it?

      • Liberty says:

        — perfect term. And yes, they’re probably paid plants. They filter in the same phrases, use of caps, etc. Paid commentators as we know are now an actual industry. so….

      • claire says:

        This cracks me up though I have no idea what it means! Can someone explain? I know it’s used for these types of people but where did it come from?

      • morc says:

        Did any of you also see that they always use femlae first names?
        It’s never “teaspoon” or whatever,but “Susan”, “Chelsea”, “Zoe” etc.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I can’t post links. Do a search for Wondermark Sea Lion Has Been Verbed to find the story behind its origin.

      • Ennie says:

        LEts’ see if the link goes, the pictures are hilarious, particularly, of course the one with the sea lion.
        http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      The reason the father has “visa problems” is that the mother LIED and said he was an international arms dealer to terrorists in an effort to cut him completely out of the childrens’ lives. He could reapply for a visa, but she would have to admit she lied, and she won’t do it, so his efforts would be useless. She has created this mess herself. Please go back and read the other articles on this topic. It has been clearly laid out over and over again. You have no idea what you are talking about.

      I would also like to add that fathers have feelings, too. Mothers do not have exclusive rights to their children. I have two brothers, and my younger one lost his 19 year old son last year to a lung disease. Your comment about how it is fine for a father to lose his child but a mother would be heartbroken makes me want to vomit. His heart has a hole in it that will never mend. Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        So true, GNAT. My favourite uncle lost a son in a car accident and was never the same again. When he was dying of cancer, one of the things he said more than once was that he wasn’t scared to die because he could finally see his son again.

        And Kelly thinks she has real problems….

      • Neonscream says:

        It would have killed my father if he had been prevented from seeing us as children, hell we’re all over 35 now and it would still kill him. His love for us and desire to protect us is no different from that of our mother. There’s a photo of me as a newborn in the hospital, I was that difficult labour kid (always had to things the hard way) and nearly died, heart stopped several times. In the photo my mum looks exhausted but she’s smiling and looking at the camera, my Dad is staring at me in my cot with a look of fear that breaks my heart. Mum says that look didn’t start to fade until I started walking. Women who push the idea that mothers are more important or more loving or more nurturing are only helping the MRA freaks, not children.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Neonscream, that is a really sweet (and scary about your birth) post about your Dad. Is he more protective of you than your siblings, or has he grown out of it as you’ve gotten older?

    • justcan't says:

      you do realize that she’s the reason for his visa problems, yes? and that he pays for her to get on a plane 6 times a year to visit the kids, outside of the 3 months of custody she has, yes? ok just checking.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      “I don’t think any mom would sit back and watch her kids be taken to a foreign country to live where they didn’t speak he language and lose all American court jurisdiction. ” I strongly suspect the children speak the same language as their father and paternal grandparents and the people living around them in Monaco.

      • L says:

        Exactly. The kids speak French and always have. She herself taught them how to speak french (and claims to be fluent herself) in interviews.

        I’d imagine they are trilingual-French/German/English.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Edit, just saw L’s posting. So tri-lingual is likely.

        German and English with their father, English and French with their mom on the daily calls, mostly German with the grandparents, French and English at the international school and with their friends.

        I read Sandra Bullock’s son already speaks both English and German. She’s fluent in German from her mother. At the school he attends, he’ll start French soon. Start young with languages!

      • KellyBee says:

        Clearly Chelsea Jone wants ignore all facts and live in ignorance so there’s no point in trying to school them on this case.

    • Samtha says:

      There’s one in every bunch.

    • Patty says:

      A woman giving birth does not automatically make her more entitled to her children than the father of said children. Especially when the parties were married and the father has always had a strong desire to be a part of their kids lives. Read the court documents.

      Also not every woman who has given birth has the mom instinct or has the best interests of her children at work. One only needs to read the news to see that. Mothers can also commit abuse. Mothers also neglect and abandon their kids, etc.

      It’s pretty clear to me as someone who has been following this for a while and who has read all of the court docs that the kids are better off with their dad.

      • Amelie says:

        Perhaps not, but mothers carry, nurture and give birth to the child. They breastfeed (sometimes) it. They bond with it stronger than a father. Sorry, that is just a biological fact. I will outright admit I know nothing about this story, so I am going to read up on it but I will never apologize for believe a child will ALWAYS belong with THEIR MOTHER barring unfitness or abuse. Sorry, but a mother does, and always will, trump a father as a parent. It is a biological fact of nature. Also, she has at least one girl that I can see, and girls NEED THEIR MOTHER, especially during puberty. If you know what I mean. The children seem like they love their mom. They don’t seem afraid of her. Or abused by her. How about asking them where they want to live?

        I think it would be different in my mind, (even though I still strongly believe that all things being equal and ok that children will always, always belong with their mother and it stuns me that women would turn against their own and advocate against a mother – where is the sisterhood and feminism?) if they were all boys. But seeing as at least one is a girl, I believe more than strongly that they need their mother. Girls always will need their mother, it is a great injustice to girls to keep them from their mother, and unless in exceptional circumstances, I do not believe it is ever right for a mother to lose custody of her daughters to the father. I believe that in my heart, soul and with every fiber of my being, and always will. Now, I am going to read up on this story and see if facts that I am not aware of (have to be bad though, such as sexual or physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect – scheming against their father is not grounds imo as it affects only the adults) might change my view. It must be something really bad though, for so many to be so vehemently against the mother having custody.

      • Neah23 says:

        @ Amelie

        From you comment I feel sorry for whoever you have kids with. There so much self entitlement in the comment it’s not even funny.

      • Jessiebes says:

        I am so embarresed for you Amelie.

      • Amelie says:

        Neah and Jessiebes, all I said was the truth. If you are a woman, you would know us girls need our mom. Nothing self entitled about that, I thought it was the one fact of life all us gals could agree on? I will never be ‘embarresed’ for being a feminist who stands up for mothers and women’s rights. Never, on the contrary, I feel sorry for those who don’t. I can’t believe this is 2015 and not the 1900s. smh ._.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        i have never read a post that made me so angry. Do you have any idea how many mothers abandon, beat, belittle, sell, ignore, abuse and ruin the lives of their children? Choose drugs or alcohol over their children? Choose men over their children? So you don’t mind that this woman lies and deliberately tries to be sure that these children don’t have a father in their lives, while he has tried everything in his power to make sure that the children have two parents in their lives? He has clearly had their best interest at heart while she clearly has thought only of herself? But wait! She has a vagina! And breasts! So obviously she’s a better parent and her love is more important than his. I’m sorry that you have never known a good man. You obviously had a terrible father and if you have children, you obviously chose a terrible husband. Because otherwise you could not possibly be so ignorant and cruel and oblivious to what is truly important in a child’s life. I pity your children.

        As for your claim to being a feminist, again you show that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • Jessiebes says:

        hahhahaha. Are you for real? I don’t even know what to say to this ignorance.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        @Amelie

        When it comes to court and custody hearings the balance usually tips in the favor of the mother as evidence by this sad circus. Not sure why you’re using feminism to defend something that already works out for you. Furthermore as evidence by this case some mothers can be poisonous and shouldn’t have their rights trump a man simply because their nipples produce milk.

        It’s also kind of ironic since while you were invoking feminism you were also using every tired female cliche. ‘Girls need their mothers for their periods you know’ Why? Because if men even have to think about blood they pass out and those girls end up using tied together leaves’. The kind of sisterhood you’re advocating for sounds more like a cult. You admit you haven’t read any details but that it seems like the children love their mother and there’s no abuse. You also admit the mother scheming would be fine (but I’m sure if the Father did the same thing you’d be furious) because that only effects adults. So I guess none of us really likes our children and if someone schemes to steal them from us permanently we just shrug and go about our day.

        2015 feminism: we want men to have equal rights to parent and support as well as allowing them to experience the issues of puberty and mestruation in their daughters. We don’t want to lock girls away on an island is misinformation and mystery.

      • Samtha says:

        @Amelie, I’m not going to get into most of what you said, because there’s so much there that I find wrongheaded, there’s really no point. Neither of us will ever change our minds.

        I will say this: being a feminist does not mean giving other women a free pass to do despicable things. And having a uterus does not mean you’re a good mother who deserves your children no matter what.

        Manipulating your children and trying to alienate them from their father is a form of emotional abuse. The fact that you don’t or won’t realize that is troubling.

      • Neah23 says:

        @ Amelie

        What your says has NOTHING to do with being a feminist but everything to do with self entitlement and its sad that you can’t see that. As a woman in 2015 I know both boys and girls need a good stable parent in their lives, wether it be the mother or the father.

        FYI Kelly is still in her kids lives she just doesn’t live with them.

      • o_o_odesa says:

        @Amelie
        Maybe read up on the story. You look really foolish.

        My husband bonded with our son first. After giving birth I was in pain, struggling to breast feed and feeling a huge disconnect between the pregnancy and giving birth. I was there to fulfill his needs but it months before I felt we bonded. I can honestly say that my husband had the initial bond, and thank god he did, because I just couldn’t. You are wrong, and your words are dangerous, especially to those struggling with postpartum.

      • Katherine says:

        Thank you, someone with a brain. :)

        Amelie has some serious, deep-seeded issues. Her ignorance and self-entitlement is strong. Women don’t get a free pass for emotional abuse.

      • Erinn says:

        “I can’t believe this is 2015 and not the 1900s. ”

        And here you are, enforcing the crap out of dated gender roles. A mother does have a different relationship with the child while carrying it, and if they’re breast feeding, and if they’re the primary care giver. But a father can just as easily be the primary care giver. I don’t “NEED” my mother in my life to raise me – look at all the women who have lost their mothers – last I checked, they still managed. I WANT my mother in my life because I love her. But I love my father as well, and I would never have been able to choose between my parents – because they were equally important in my life.

        I feel sorry for you, that you have such an outdated view on the role of a father in a child’s life, and your idea that a girl absolutely must have a mother to teach her ‘womanly things’ or whatever idea you are holding. Children need love and care; they don’t need a specific gender providing it for them.

      • Amelie says:

        Wow. These replies to me are all degrees of crazy, simply because I asked for information. And you guys are calling Kelly crazy? To me your hysterical replies to me indicate some of you are as unstable as she is! No way did I deserve most of those replies. Cray cray.

        You got me all wrong. I have NEVER said the children should be with a parent who alienates the other. You are obviously inventing a narrative and verballing me, perhaps based on previous encounters you have had with other previous questioning posters. I am not them. Don’t take it out on me. I have NEVER said any of the things you are all insinuating. Maybe she is unstable and a bad mother but what do you call your comments to someone who said nothing more than *all things being equal* and in absence of neglect or abuse, children belong with their mother – backed up by American Pediatrics Association, Child Psychologists, and the law, and simply asked what she did apart from this custody battle? I clearly stated as a disclaimer, which some who replied to me clearly did not even read, that as long as there was no abuse or neglect, so save the talk about beaten, abused children from alcoholics. It was more than clear that I was talking about situations where that wasn’t an issue. So why even bring all that up? I asked for information and stated that as long as there was no neglect or abuse, that children should be with their mother where possible. And as I said, this is backed up by all the pediatric experts. In response, I am told someone is ‘embarresed’ for me, that I obviously had a bad relationship with my father (I had/have a very close and loving relationship with my father as well as my mother, and they have been married for 46 years however they were separated for 7 months once, and I as a daughter needed to be with my mother, as is natural, it didn’t mean I loved my father less!!), they feel sorry for any children I have, that I have some ‘serious, deep-seeded’[sic] issues – ALL this, all of this, JUST because I asked what was done wrong and repeated the what Doctors, Pediatricians, Psychologists and Therapists have all said. smh I don’t think I am the one with deep-seated issues. O.o Backing out slowly out the door while looking around warily. I’ll leave you all to your feeding frenzy and pitchfork party. wow. :I

      • notasugarhere says:

        Nice try, Amelie. All we have to do is read your original post, and the subsequent logical and thoughtful replies to it, to draw our own conclusions. No frenzy, just people who have logically disagreed with you.

        Personally I don’t own a pitchfork.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        @Amelie

        1. Congratulations on being able to frame information in a way that suits your argument. Those pediatricians were not referring to a case like Kelly and even a basic understanding of the reading would show that. They were referring to cases where things are equal and courts have to decide how to proceed with custody. This scenario is entirely different and there’s plenty of fact-based evidence to show why.

        2. People were calling you out on your dated antiquated feminist rhetoric where men can not naturally feel the same love and provide equally to their children because they do not have vaginas. Or that girls should only be with mothers but it’s okay if a boy isn’t since his mom can’t really help him enough as a woman. I notice you’ve abandoned that topic since it’s been so resoundingly criticized.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Yes, Amelie. Your statement that fathers don’t love their children as much as mothers do just screams great relationship with your father and men in general. And I’d love to see a link to your information that this is what doctors, pediatricians, therapists and psychologists have “all said.” My father and my brothers love their their children every single bit as much as my mother and my sister-in-laws do. And my mother and sister-in-laws have the deepest, most abiding love for their children imaginable. They would all see your remark as the disgusting, sexist nonsense that it is.

      • Erinn says:

        They bond with it stronger than a father. Sorry, that is just a biological fact”

        “I will never apologize for believe a child will ALWAYS belong with THEIR MOTHER barring unfitness or abuse. Sorry, but a mother does, and always will, trump a father as a parent. It is a biological fact of nature.”

        “girls NEED THEIR MOTHER”

        “I think it would be different in my mind, (even though I still strongly believe that all things being equal and ok that children will always, always belong with their mother and it stuns me that women would turn against their own and advocate against a mother – where is the sisterhood and feminism?

        “Girls always will need their mother, it is a great injustice to girls to keep them from their mother, and unless in exceptional circumstances, I do not believe it is ever right for a mother to lose custody of her daughters to the father. I believe that in my heart, soul and with every fiber of my being, and always will.”

        Nope, pretty sure we addressed your points, not made them up. Here’s some stats for you:

        “40% of child abuse and neglect comes from mothers and only 18% from fathers.”

        “In many instances, fathers are as important developmentally as mothers. In some instances, they turn out to be even more important developmentally than mothers. And what we find extraordinary is that, sometimes, a mother’s influence drops out altogether.”

        ““We’ve assumed for years that all kids need for normal, healthy development is a loving relationship with Mom, and that dads are primarily there as financial supports for the family,” says Rohner. “We now see how fundamentally wrong that is.”

        Gary Direnfeld, a social worker from Dundas, Ont., said he hopes the study will help quell the cultural tendency to treat mothers as both sole hero and villain in a child’s life — alternating between bashing and enshrining them, depending on the youngster’s behaviour.”

      • Katherine says:

        lol No frenzy here, Amelie. Just people pointing out your ignorance. What happens if the child’s mother is an alcoholic who can barely take care of herself, let alone her child? And let’s say the father is a perfectly stable, healthy, much more fit parent in comparison. Believe it or not, this kind of a situation is more common than your antiquated, pea-sized brain can comprehend. I’m guessing you still think that child is better off with their mother because “Yay, women!” Now, THAT’S disturbing.

      • Fallon says:

        @Amelie – I have nothing to do with my mother. I certainly don’t need her in my life. You can take your “girls will always need their mother” crap and shove it. I’m a woman – and I don’t need my mother.

      • holly hobby says:

        Wow Amelie. Girls need their mothers? What about all those girls who lost their moms to cancer or some other illness and their dads raised them? So you think they are deprived? No it’s not necessarily true that gender entitles the parent to have kids. THey have to be a good parent and Kelly isn’t.

      • FLORC says:

        Speaking from the science of things That’s complete BS!

        Mothers do not bond to biological children in a way impossible for others to do so.
        Numerous studies have shows on a chemical level parents of bio kids (both moms or dads) have set off the same reactions as adoptive parents. AND Bio parents have also been found to not bond with their children AT ALL. Blood does not guarantee a bond. It does not guarantee love. The ignorance in that is astounding!
        Holy Hell people.

        Now to speak of 1st hand experience. I’ve delivered babies to parents that instantly fall in love. Others who don’t care. I’ve seen mothers care so little it has to be requested they bother to breast feed or at least pump for their infant to have a chance at living. Some who do drugs while pregnant and feel like life is out to get them for being burdened with a baby with a disability (mental or physical). It’s horrible, but true. Biological mothers have no greater bond and are not assured any bond over their biological children.

        I’m speaking facts, Science, and my own 1st hand accounts.

    • GreenieWeenie says:

      how foreign can it be? Like no woman ever who married a guy from another country in the US on a VISA contemplated the fact that her children might end up there?
      But it’s sooo foooooooooreeeeiiiiiiggggnnnnnnn!
      A) It’s Europe, which French-speaking all-white-wearing Kelly-who-named-her-child-Hermes clearly SWFs, so it can’t be THAT foreign
      B) THAT’S WHY YOU GET YOUR SPOUSE A GREEN CARD.

      But she didn’t enable him to stay; she guaranteed he’d have to leave; and it apparently never crossed her mind that he might have custodial rights equal to hers (*mic drop* I know. It’s shocking).

      • Isa says:

        Feminism, to me, is about equal rights. I know my husband is capable of loving and nurturing our kids. He does a better job than some women I know. Just because a woman has a uterus doesn’t mean she is a better parent than a man.

    • Katherine says:

      Kelly, shouldn’t you be in court?

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Lol.

      • FLORC says:

        Haha yea…
        This whole mess. Those poor children… I hope they can just find some peace with their dad for now away from this crazy. Then their mom can visit and all can be happy.
        Kelly kind of shot herself in the foot with the coparenting meeting in canada imo.

    • holly hobby says:

      Um Ok Chelsea/Kelly. The bottom line is she is in comtempt of court. Read all the court documents and you will understand. I still can’t believe there people still uninformed about this case! Do a google search for the court docs, not transcripts of a delusional person’s media interviews.

      • Michelle says:

        I think people are so uninformed because Kelly’s side is the only one running to the press to tell their version of the facts. People blindly believe her.

    • jwoolman says:

      The children already spoke French, they were in French schools in New York. Kelly had said she often spoke French at home with her little boy. The 2013 Decision is online and very detailed. The boy was very anxious when separated from his father. The dad was indeed a primary caregiver from the beginning. The kids also were familiar with international travel. It wasn’t a big change for them.

      The judge pointed out that the children were not doing well with too many transitions between homes. It was best for the children to live with their father in Monaco/France and have their mom do the bulk of the traveling to see them. If she had not lied to get his visa revoked, they could all have stayed in New York as they (kids and parents) had been doing before she did that. Kelly lied to try to get rid of their father. The judge felt both were excellent parents and the kids were well bonded to both, but the dad had demonstrated his ability to co-parent successfully and obey the court rules while Kelly kept violating the rules, trying to alienate the children from their dad and blocking his visits. The court correctly felt the dad would not do such things and so the kids would remain comfortable with both parents if they lived with him but not with Kelly.

  25. kai says:

    I can barely read her and her lawyers’ statement, because their arrogance and insanity is just so mind-blowing.

    The kids DO have dual citizenship, right? Because someone above mentioned you need the birth certificate for this and didn’t she refuse to put Giersch on the daughter’s birth certificate or something? That’s resolved, right?

    Off topic: Thanks to this thread I’ve learned what ‘jingoism’ is. Who said gossip wasn’t educational? :-)

    • Becks says:

      For 3 years.

      That’s the length of time, she refused to put his name on Helena’s Birth certificate. Under threat of law, after having promised to do so, then later going back on her word, she dillied and dallied for 3 f***ing years.

      Did she refuse because she had doubts that Giersch was the father? Did she refuse for religious reasons? Refusal by principle? No. The Court documents said that she admitted that the only reason for the refusal was her feelings were “hurt”.

  26. HK9 says:

    I knew the shenanigans would be epic when it came time for the children to return. I’m also really disturbed by the fact that her lawyer is telling boldfaced lies such like the kids don’t have dual citizenship and all that other crap about his visa. (BTW thanks to all on this site who provided links to court docs and such for nerds like me who wanted to read it!)

    While I hope that there isn’t anything disturbing that the children told her, I don’t believe that’s the case. I think she’ll say anything to keep her ass out of jail and keep the kids.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Her lawyer would only get in trouble for supporting her efforts to defy a court order if the lawyer encouraged her to do so. If she did it on her own, it’s the lawyer’s job to try and keep her out of trouble for it. By claiming that the children do not have dual citizenship, etc., the lawyer is “stating her position.” If she’s wrong, she’s wrong, but Rutherford is taking the position that her children do not have dual citizenship. I have no idea what she’s basing that on, and as I said below, I hope she goes to jail, but I think her lawyer has to try to find some basis to keep her out of trouble and is doing a pretty good job with what she has to work with. I think privately, she’s probably pulling her hair out.

      • Samtha says:

        The thing is, she’s not making this argument to the court. She’s making it to the US public. And it’s pretty poor legal argument, since it’s simple thing to prove or disprove.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Agree, I’m just saying she (the lawyer) has dog doo to work with, but she’s trying to get public opinion and the court on Kelly’s side. Not going to happen, and I wouldn’t personally represent her, but if the lawyer has chosen to, it’s her job to spin the dog doo as best she can.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      The most ethics complaints are filed against attorneys who practice family law because the client is never happy in a divorce/custody case and clients simply just don’t listen. A lawyer also cannot always just drop a case if they decide they don’t like the client. In some cases, they have to file a motion and ask the court’s permission and even then, the judge can deny it and they’re stuck defending the client’s stupid behavior.

      • HK9 says:

        Thanks for the additional info!! I was wondering how the lawyer is getting around some of the facts in this case and @goodnamesalltaken I too think the lawyer is pulling her hair out. Working with Kelly can’t be easy.

      • Lady D says:

        I remember when Lohan’s lawyer wanted to quit her and the judge wouldn’t let her.

      • DIANE says:

        And good luck to that lawyer trying to get paid. When KR filed for bankruptcy in 2013, over $1,000,000 was for lawyer’s fees. I can see this sick woman doing a complete about face. Showing up for that September hearing in Monaco and deciding she’s going to live there now and insisting that he’s going to buy her a house and support her and she’ll hound that poor family until something violent happens. I hope not.

    • GreenieWeenie says:

      Do you think her argument for the non-dual citizenship claim is something like “I never gave my permission so whatever their father obtained for them is fraudulent”? (FYI, you only need the parent with the nationality to register the child’s birth certificate for citizenship. I did my nationality for my son, and my husband did his).

      I wonder why it’s not fraudulent for her to have kept the father off Helena’s birth certificate for like two years…

      • FLORC says:

        Yup. His nationality was fine and even by her own admission an attractive quality. Post break up it’s now the worst thing ever as she doesn’t have full control over custodial manipulation.

  27. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I hope she goes to jail. She is lying to the Court, again, and has shown that she will do whatever she wants if the Court doesn’t rule in her favor. Her children are not in danger. She has created this mess herself. I despise her and her attitude and the way she ignores the fact that they also have a right to be with their father. I hate the way she’s trying to use her fake patriotism to support her baseless claims. Ugh, everything about her is disgusting. I don’t think she cares about anything but getting her own way.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Preee-cisely.

      One wonders if she selected him carefully for impregnation because she thought that as a “foreigner,” he would be easy to eliminate from her life. After all, if being an American is so important to her, why not become pregnant by another US-only citizen?

      As it turns out, other countries have laws too and people from those other countries have brains and hearts.

      She’s creepy.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        so creepy.

      • Aren says:

        I think she married him because he looks like her. If you see pics of them together it seems like another case of “They fell in love with themselves”.
        But if she’s so patriotic, she indeed should’ve married an American citizen.

      • Ennie says:

        She had married another foreigner before, the Venezuelan(?) young man that was seriously ill and she dumped him months later, not after securing a feature in Vogue or something like that, even if it was published a month AFTER she had abandoned him.
        Carlos Tarajano died in 2004 of his heart condition. Rutherford married Giersch in 2006, already pregnant.

        “the curse of the Instyle Wedding” (article by the NY times)
        A YEAR ago this month, Kelly Rutherford, an actress who starred on ”Melrose Place,” married Carlos Tarajano, a Venezuelan banker, at the Good Shepherd Catholic Church in Beverly Hills.

        Mr. Tarajano had proposed to Ms. Rutherford with a three-carat emerald-cut diamond ring flanked by tapered baguettes. On her wedding day, the bride wore a Carolina Herrera gown, and 140 wedding guests danced to salsa music in the Sunset Room of the Beverly Hills Hotel until the small hours of the morning.

        InStyle magazine featured the wedding in its February 2002 issue. But by the time it arrived on newsstands, complete with gauzy photographs of the couple grinning as they cut the cake, Ms. Rutherford had filed for divorce.
        (…)

      • Becks says:

        Weeks before the cover was due to come out, Carlos had contacted the magazine and told them Kelly was dissolving the marriage. He didn’t want the cover to run in light of her abandonment of the marriage. The magazine then contacted Kelly but she refuted what Carlos said. She lied in order to make sure the cover would still come out as scheduled.

    • Pinky says:

      It’s less about getting her way than it is proving she was right all along (and revising the narrative to support that) and about proving she’s better in every way than Giersch. She must always be “winning,” against him or the world has spun off its axis.

  28. Kinta says:

    Well, I do have a general question and I hope someone can answer it. How is it possible that these court documents are online and available for everybody to read? Isn’t that a private matter? I am just curious because in Germany you would normally just be able to publish something so private, if there is a valid reason for the the general public to know this. Therefore the general interest overrules the private matters – but it is a really tricky thing.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Most court documents in the U.S. are on-line now and available to the public. You have to have a reason and get the court to designate them “sealed” if they need to be kept confidential. Some reasons would be that they contain trade secrets, or information regarding national security, or criminal records of a minor. The fact that they might embarrass you is not the court’s problem.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Many of these records are considered to be in the public interest.

      Along similar lines, wills are made public after death.

      • morc says:

        Wow, I had no idea about the wills part.
        One thing I love about celeb legal feuds is what you learn, for instance I didn’t know you only had to post 10% of bail, thanks Lindsay!

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        LMAO, the ‘Thanks Lindsay’ got me morc.

      • jwoolman says:

        Morc- actually, Lindsay had to pay the bail bondsman (private party) 10% of the bail (non-refundable fee) and then he or she paid the court with a guarantee of the rest if Lindsay didn’t show up in court. Generally bondsmen have a financial arrangement already set up with the court to cover the remaining amount if needed. If instead Lindsay had paid the full bail herself, then she would have been refunded the full amount after showing up. So she lost a lot of money each time she went through a bondsman, for example $20,000 for a $200,000 bail. Some courts are allowing payment of 10% of the bail by the individual in some relatively risk-free cases, probably with something put up as collateral to cover the difference, but I don’t think Lindsay ever was able to do that. Either the courts in her cases didn’t allow it or she wasn’t eligible. She didn’t have clear ties to the community, didn’t own property and didn’t have settled family in the jurisdictions. She could have done a runner with no problem at all.

      • morc says:

        I knew you could use a bail bondsman but I didn’t know you almost certainly would have to go through one and aren’t individually allowed to post 10% of bail, in most cases.

        This stuff is so educational, ha!

      • jwoolman says:

        Morc – it depends on your resources. Some people would just pay the full bail and get it back once they appeared in court. Sometimes the bail bondsman is needed just to avoid keeping someone in jail while family tries to get the money together. But it’s loads cheaper if you just pay the bail outright, since the bondsman’s fee is not refunded to the person who appears in court (the court refunds it to the bail bondsman, of course). Lindsay obviously didn’t have the funds. Other people came up with the 10% for her. Her bail was set pretty high because she was a flight risk due to her vagabond ways as well as her apparent financial level, considering her lawyer cost several hundred dollars per hour. All those years on probation and her scofflaw habits really cost her (or somebody).

        Yup, gossip is educational!

    • GreenieWeenie says:

      Probably Freedom of Information Act too–the one useful thing accomplished by the Bush Administration. Anyone can file for public information.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        And many times you don’t even have to file using FOIA. You just ask the appropriate jurisdiction for arrest and court records, for example.

        As for wills – yep! Lawyers will word certain things very carefully because they want to avoid challenges after the wills are made available.

    • holly hobby says:

      If you can get yourself to the courthouse, you can pull any file that isn’t sealed and read the case file. It’s open to the public. You do not have to be a party to the case to access the files – said someone who used to be a court file clerk.

      • Samtha says:

        You can also read many files online by going to the court’s website. If it’s a federal case, you can check PACER.

      • Casi says:

        When my friend’s husband cheated on her and the girlfriend was crazy, we used several public court documents to convince the husband to keep Crazy Girlfriend away from their children. It was a good thing too, because we had no idea how crazy she really was until their relationship didn’t last.

  29. bella says:

    It is not the first time she accuses him of abuse. Kelly have accused him of abuse before , the court examined the case and found out that the allegations was unfounded. (kelly was lying) (think it was in 2009, it is in the cort documents)

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Interesting. She just lies whenever she doesn’t get her way, doesn’t she?

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Yes she does. Another sign of a narcissist (did I spell that right?) or as we called ‘em in the good old days, a sociopath. Well, her lies hit the wall. If only the justice system worked as well in other areas…

  30. OriginallyBlue says:

    This woman and her dumb lawyer are a piece of work. Between the two if them they barely have one fact correct. I can’t even read the statements or video. It is disgusting the lies this woman tells. She has had the kids for a month, yet it was right before they were headed to the airport that they told her something alarming? She doesn’t deserve those kids and I hope Daniel goes to court for tighter restrictions, since I don’t think he will cut her out of their lives despite this stunt.

  31. Tiffany says:

    I just thought about why Kelly went for the jugular lately or what that news was that disturbed her.

    Daniel has a girlfriend and they are living together and/or getting married.

    No one is allowed to have their life continue and be happy.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I don’t know if he’d be that naive at this point. I think he’d secure the children’s legal position first. Him moving forward romantically is the one thing bound to make a woman like this try something like this. In her mind, it is okay for her to date but not for him. I suspect this is why we rarely see Gabriel Aubry dating either.

    • Samtha says:

      That’s very interesting, and makes a lot of sense.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Well, who knows, but the prospect of the kids’ father adding another potential “mother” to “replace” her would likely remove the last nail out of the wobbly hinge that is Rutherford’s mind.

  32. Mzizkrizten says:

    As a mother I have to say that wherever my children live, that’s where I live. I would do whatever it took to be a part of their daily lives. Especially if I didn’t trust their father. I would not live in a different country and fight court battles that way. I’d be as close as possible, proving my parenting and invested interest in my children and I’d also be as amicable as possible with the father, if only to have something to prove to the courts. Both parents in this case seem to be more interested in sticking it to their ex and using the kids to do so.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Giersch appears to be following the court orders to the letter and actively trying to co-parent. The only one interested in harming their ex and the ex’s relationship with their children is Rutherford.

    • Insomniac says:

      But the children’s father has tried to coparent amicably with her despite all the crap she’s pulled. She’s having none of it. I don’t see how he is trying to stick it to anyone.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Okay but seriously where is the examples of him ‘sticking it to his ex’ people say that when there’s 0 evidence on his side and a mountain on her’s. It sounds more like people can’t admit she and she alone can be wrong and they have to figure out a way to balance the scales.

    • Katherine says:

      Daniel has shown to me that he has his kids’ best interests at heart. He’s not interested in using them as a pawn, Kelly is the only one doing that.

    • jwoolman says:

      My mother never had a mean word to say about my father in front of us kids. Sometimes she had to tell us stuff we needed to know, but she always spun it in a kindly way to not make us think badly of him, saying he was having a hard time and depressed and not thinking straight etc. I got fed up with him all by myself when I was 14, but it was definitely all my own decision and mom had absolutely nothing to do with it. She still spoke nicely of him regardless even when he was driving us all crazy. That was absolutely the right thing to do. No matter what one parent thinks of the other, it’s crucial to let the kids make up their own minds with no coaching and have their own relationship with the other parent.

      When I heard Kelly say her son said something about loving her and having her in his heart, I immediately thought that he might have heard that from his dad, maybe explaining how you can still love someone when they aren’t around all the time. My bet is that he covers for Kelly the same way my mom covered for my dad, putting the best spin on everything.

  33. kkm says:

    Just a quick question: What percentage of the criticizer, i mean commentors are American? My guess is maybe 0%. There seems to be an awful lot of vitriol aimed at an American woman for wanting her kids to be with her in America, where they were BORN. The basic problem her is an (admittedly American) CA judge made an abdominal initial ruling. That judge has since been criticized roundly for the ruling that the children should be removed to another country. The bottom line is she comes off as arrogant and beautiful and AMERICAN and THAT’S why the majority of these comments are against her. Is she perfect? No. Is the father perfect? NO. But the children do have rights as US citizens to live in their own country with a perfectly ft mother.

    • Morse0412 says:

      uh I am american and I think Daniel should have the kids in Monaco…i dont understand why my citizenship should trump logic. As much as I love America, its not the automatic answer or solution

      • kkm says:

        I just said the children have rights to live here. That seems fairly logical to me.

      • TotallyB says:

        0% American? Oh, honey–seriously? I’m trying to give you credit for not trolling (or, what was that fine addition to our Celebitchy vocabulary? ‘Sea-lioning’? Woof!) but this does make it difficult.

        100% Born in the USA. Veteran (shot at, even!) So that means that, like Lilacflowers, I’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and defend it against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.
        The Constitution recognizes jurisdiction by foreign powers as regards citizenship, and further Acts and regulations (e.g. Civil Rights Act, Immigration Acts, et al) make it very clear: the children don’t lose US citizenship by recognition of their German citizenship AND VICE VERSA!

        So they equally have rights to live in the country of their father’s residence, as well as the US. One is not better or ‘more right’ than the other.
        Just in case you really are attempting to view all of this logically.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thank you for your service, TotallyB.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Oh, hey, NOTA–thank you for the kind words!

    • Samtha says:

      This might be my favorite comment of the day. It’s like performance art. Really dumb performance art, but still.

      ‘Murica! Hell yeah!

      • notasugarhere says:

        But well-paid performance art? How many of these pro-Rutherford commenters are doing this because they believe her? That they’re gullible-enough to believe this drivel? So depressing.

        p.s. OP, abominable not abdominal. The decision, upheld by subsequent rulings, was praised by many who saw through Rutherford’s games. You apparently can’t see through them.

      • cr says:

        I hadn’t heard the term sea lioning before, but now whenever I see a comment like this I do interesting visual images.

        http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/873260-sea-lioning

      • kkm says:

        cr you apparently have waaaaayyyy too much time on your hands.

      • cr says:

        And that comment to me indicates that you are indeed trolling, because it took me less than a minute to find that pic.
        But troll away, I need some laughs this morning.

      • notasugarhere says:

        And another, Patricia, has shown up below with copy-and-paste rhetoric.

    • Dbw says:

      I’m American and I think both Kelly and you are idiots.

    • Greenieweenie says:

      Abdominal! Just abdominal!

      • kkm says:

        hello…auto correct. obviously not a stomach ruling.

      • Pinky says:

        Reminds me of one of my favorite Onion pieces: a picture of an ab machine for the Abominable Snowman. The tag line was: “It’s abdominable!”

      • Ennie says:

        LOOOOOLLLLLLLL
        I had not even bothered t oread the comment, had to scroll back to see hahahahahahahahaha
        .

        And kkm is at least staying here to complain, she not just dropped by , seasoned and left, oh, hello, kkm, I am not american, but I still think that Kelly is a terrible mother for not letting her children have a father in AMERICA (she kicked him out).
        Please check the Sean Goldman case

      • Saywhatwhen says:

        @Greenie…Lol. Dead!

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      The judge made an “abdominal ruling…” Ooh, ow, that troll really knows how to go for the gut.

    • Sixer says:

      I’m British and think Kelly is an arse. Take that!

      You, however, I love, and will love forever, just for abdominal. Utter brilliance.

    • LB says:

      American here; lawyer as well. I don’t agree with you at all.

      As for your last sentence — fixed it for you

      “But the children do have rights as US and German citizens to live in their own country with a perfectly fit mother or father.”

      Children often don’t just have one parent. Not sure why the father doesn’t matter or that it doesn’t matter that the older child has stated having anxiety being away from his father. Kelly needs to do the right thing here and put the kids first.

      • kkm says:

        They already live in another country with their perfectly fit father, so those “rights” already exist. I was merely stating they have American rights as well.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Multiple American judges have decided multiple times that they are better off living in Europe with their German father. Their rights as ‘Muricans are not being infringed upon. Their rights to be treated as human beings rather than possessions ARE being infringed upon by their mother.

      • bluhare says:

        They do have rights in America, kkm. Unfortunately, their mother lied to get their father’s visa revoked so he can no longer live here. The judge at the time decided that their father should have primary custody (even though they have a 50/50 custody ruling) because SHE can go to them, but HE cannot come and see them here. That is why they are in Monaco. If Daniel had not had to leave the US due to having his visa revoked and facing deportation — thanks to Kelly’s lawyer — this situation would not be happening and the kids could well be living here with both parents.

        SO this is all Kelly’s fault. If she hadn’t been trying so hard to win at any cost she wouldn’t have lost so badly.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I am American and a lawyer, and I think Kelly’s behavior is abominable and her lawyers are unethical. They have yet to make any legal arguments that make sense too.

      It would be wonderful if Kelly would put on her big girl panties and be a committed, amicable co-parent with Daniel, but she won’t. So yeah, Team Daniel, Team Kids, and Team Monaco!

      • Saywhatwhen says:

        I am a lawyer, not American, but called to New York State Bar and living in Europe and I think that judge that granted primary custody to Daniel upon Kelly’s visa misdeeds is simply brilliant… very rational, fair and simply wise as far as decisions go.

    • Sunnyside says:

      I am an American. AND a mother. AND my children have dual citizenship due to their father’s nationality! And- GASP- I think Kelly is in the wrong here! I can tell you also that I think what she is doing to her children mentally and emotionally is abhorrent and that since she has proven time and again that she is incapable of co-parenting with the children’s father that she should be stripped of all custodial and physical rights. She should get only supervised visitation. The children should live with the most stable parent, aka the father, and if that means Monaco then that means Monaco. I’m watching what she does here because whatever the state department does will have an affect on all international custody disputes

    • Sunnyside says:

      By the way, as U.S. Citizens they have the RIGHT to live in the U.S. But they are not REQUIRED to do so. The mother’s actions made it impossible for the father to live in or visit the USA so they live with him in Europe. They are perfectly allowed to move to the USA when they are 18.

    • Insomniac says:

      Nice try. I’m an American who’s mortified by Kelly’s jingoistic attitude.

      What’s next? “Are people here blonde? If you aren’t, you’re jealous of blonde Kelly and her blonde children.”

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        I’m another mortified American. And I’m mortified that she is appealing to jingoism to obscure the facts of her case. I wonder if she’s actually all that ‘patriotic.’ Rather she seems to be exploiting the media who in turn mislead their audiences.

      • Bread and Circuses says:

        @Who ARE these people?

        Well, she’s not patriotic enough to respect American laws, American judges (and their orders), or the American legal system, is she?

      • Tara says:

        Watp: I think she’s patriotic in the same way that she’s a mother, in name and self-interest only.

    • Neonscream says:

      The vast majority of people commenting here full stop are Americans. Finding the attitude that America is the best country in the world and everywhere else is second best is what is distasteful and objectionable.

    • claire says:

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Oh sweetie. Go somewhere else where people disregard facts and common sense.

    • Izzy says:

      I’m American by choice, I gained my citizenship. Looking at this from both sides, and having read the court decision, it’s pretty clear that Kelly Rutherford should never be allowed near these kids again. I cannot begin to imagine the damage she’s done to them psychologically.

    • Scarlet Vixen says:

      I am an American who is divorced and has been able to successfully co-parent a minor child in a completely drama-free way. I think Rutherford is a bad mom. I am also now married to someone who has dual citizenship (born in Canada to Dutch parents and then raised in the Netherlands before moving to the US) and we have minor children. I still think Rutherford is a bad mom. She will lie, cheat, steal, and worse to have those kids–NOT because she is a good mother–but because she is a BAD one. The only person’s feelings that matter to her are her own. What is REALLY best for her children has never occurred to her. And it never will. It’s all about HER, what SHE wants, and WINNING.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      So basically your perception of the situation comes down to chanting “USA!” a dozen times? Sheesh, reading is fundamental and learning is awesome. Please do so much of both.

      • Katherine says:

        lol What do you expect when the American education system is thoroughly broken? This is what you get. I see it every day as a teacher.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Sad but true. It really is shocking when adults pop into a topic and essentially say, “Now I haven’t done any research on this issue and I don’t know a thing about this case but here’s why you’re all wrong and I’m right.” Information is a valuable tool, why do many refuse it or deny it to others I’ll never know.

    • Steph O says:

      @kkm I’m American and think her behavior is beyond reprehensible.

      As a parent, I understand the need to advocate for your children’s wellbeing, as they don’t always have their own voice, especially when they are young. But this situation veered away from her acting in her kids’ best interest a very long time ago. If she was truly prioritizing her children’s well being, she would not be putting them through such a horrible ordeal. Her children will be old enough to understand the implications of all this one day – I hope they aren’t completely scarred by her insanity.

    • Neah23 says:

      From one American to Another 😄😄😄😆😆😆😂😂😂😂😂😂 I just can’t with this comment.

    • LAK says:

      KKM: it seems multiple American judges and officials of American courts, not to mention the American Bar Association agrees with us dastardly foreigners.

      BTW: since the Prince of Monaco (and his siblings) is half AMERICAN with an AMERICAN mother, will you start supporting *Nota’s petition to have him rescued from Monaco back to American soil too?? I mean, his AMERICAN rights have been violated. From birth no less. This miscarriage of justice needs to be addressed stat.

      *Nota: I can’t let go of that joke!!! :)

      • Becks says:

        Don’t blame you, it was a brilliant joke. I laughed despite my chinese inscrutability.

        Holy cow, this thread is long. Helloooooooooo up there at the top……..

      • notasugarhere says:

        Its a good joke. Free the unelected Monacan Head of State and allow him to be Al Kelly of Philadelphia. Free the Pennsylvania Princeling!

      • Katherine says:

        haha Awesome! Damn Prince Rainier III for violating Grace Kelly’s American rights by whisking her off to Monaco to get married and keeping her there. The nerve of them to have half-Monégasque, half-American children. Poor Prince Albert and his sisters, they must really be miserable over there in Monaco, what with their violated American rights and all. Rescue the Royal Family at once!

    • Wonderbunny says:

      “The bottom line is she comes off as arrogant and beautiful and AMERICAN and THAT’S why the majority of these comments are against her.”

      I’m not American and I can tell you this: nobody would care about her being American if she didn’t keep bringing it up all the time. Besides, what you’re saying is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you keep being really annoying, entitled and constantly mentioning your nationality, others will associate those things. “She’s the really obnoxious American.” Please do not add to that stereotype.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Natural born American citizen who is sworn in three jurisdictions to uphold the Constitution of the United Ststes of America, that jingoistic bigot is an embarrassment to this nation and, if it didn’t mean more of my tax dollars spent on her stinky butt, I would love to see her thrown in jail for the contempt she has shown for our laws. Those kids belong with their father

    • kay says:

      “beautiful arrogant and american”????? rofl.
      omg, you just out did amelie.
      thanks. i needed that gravity defying laugh today.

    • holly hobby says:

      Ok Kelly- Why do you think all the commentators here are Canadian and European. This site is in the US so of course the bulk of us live here too. Ugh such a nearsighted argument.

    • Robin says:

      I’m an American, and very happy to be one, and I am intelligent and am able to think critically, and I am ALSO able to read legal documents and understand them. Everything in this case that has been made public indicates that Daniel Giersch has complied with all court orders and is doing a good job raising the children, including having them spend time with their mother in her home country. No doubt if Kelly Rutherford and her lawyer hadn’t lied and gotten his visa revoked, he would bring them to visit more often. As it is, she has as much access to them in Europe as she wants, and she can travel there multiple times a year at HIS expense. So ridiculous to think that no Americans are smart enough to understand this case.

      And as others have pointed out, “abominable”, not “abdominal”.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Kkm
      So your argument is everybody hates us because they’re jealous of our beauty and superiority? Ok. Maybe read up on the facts of the case. Signed, an American

    • Tara says:

      I’m American and a mom, and Kelly Rutherford disgusts me so much I feel an involuntary wretch in my stomach when I see her clown grin, not to mention her clown feet. She is a liar, pathologically narcissistic, and a mother only biologically. Totally revolting.

    • jwoolman says:

      U.S. citizen born and raised here. I think the judge made an excellent decision. I hear Monaco even has running water now. :)

      Really, there are other places in the world where you can have a happy childhood.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        Not American, but european, and this case is just disgusting, KR is not a good mum.. and

        @KKM , really, not all Europeans throw vitriol at Americans. We may not see eye to eye sometimes, because the history of both continents is so different, thus leading to different points of view on different subjects, but in this particular case, there’s no American versus non-American… In this case, it’s just a matter of crazybat-sh*t mum versus steady fit father. If the crazy mum was european and the fit father was american, I’d still be on dad’s side…That’s for sure…

  34. Morse0412 says:

    Do we know if there is a time frame that she has to be at court? I mean its 9:15 NY time already so just curious

    also-why did it take so long? I know it was only 36 hours or so but that seems like a lot of time for an unstable parent to have abducted children. I feel like she should’ve been in court yesterday. Anyone with legal background please explain

    • notasugarhere says:

      She pulled this stunt Thursday or Friday. Courts were closed Saturday and Sunday. Giersch’s lawyer went to court Monday, Rutherford has to appear today/Tuesday. I hope he had PIs trailing her, because that delay could be crucial if she’s hidden the kids.

  35. Jessica says:

    Can someone explain why she hasn’t already been arrested? In my country you’d never just be told to show up in court a few days after kidnapping your kids and violating the Hague convention. You would immediately be arrested. Tracked down and arrested. If it looked for a second like you had run, a manhunt would begin. You’d also lose custody for the time being. Any allegations against the other parent would be looked into while you were in jail, and if it was found that the allegations were true, the children would be placed with other family or in state care if family could not be trusted to uphold the court’s rulings re: access. You’d still be in a ton of trouble for the kidnapping, it would be years before you’d have a chance of getting custody again.

    The reaction to this just seems very, very chill is what I’m saying. I’ve seen action being taken much faster in cases where parents living within a few miles of each other have ignored custody arrangements, but this lunatic has trampled all over international law and she get’s to spend a few days prepping with lawyers an giving interviews before making her own way to court? Seriously? She should be sitting in a jail cell right now.

    • Pinky says:

      No U.S. Court has jurisdiction over the custody case, so there was no one to make an immediate ruling, or declare her in contempt, or suggest she’s violated anything. The only thing that would initiate any legal action is a filing from Giersch, whose attorney made a motion yesterday. Had they done nothing, smelly (autocorrect stays) would have been free to keep the kids indefinitely.

  36. Greenieweenie says:

    Maybe when they get older, these children of a German businessman (?) will give up their U.S. passports so they don’t have to be double taxed. Wouldn’t that be fun.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Ha! As someone who has to file 2 returns a year, I thank you for the levity. Actually though – they wouldn’t be double taxed, due to tax treaties (which I presume Germany has signed with the USA), but they would have to file returns in both countries. It’s a huge pain in the arse and requires specialized accountants who know the rules on both sides.

      Wishing those children well. It’s unfortunate that their mother’s behavior may have given them reason in later life to renounce a lot of things.

    • Sixer says:

      My cousin’s oldest child (dual citizen) is just coming up to the age where he’s going to have to decide whether to accept double taxation or renounce his US citizenship.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        It’s a tough decision. He’ll have to look at the burden of paperwork (not necessarily double taxes, but definitely double filing) VS the opportunities created by US citizenship in terms of work, education etc. For someone coming of age, it may still be worth it to hold onto it. Similar situation for us, but we’re in Canada and it’s more of a slam-dunk about holding onto both.

      • Sixer says:

        Yes. It’s a tricky one because the family is so international also. Parents currently living in Hong Kong (but could well be somewhere else at some point as the father is a big earner and in demand and basically goes where the money is), older brother very settled in the UK, older sister also peripatetic but currently in the Netherlands. He was born in the US, but has lived around the globe. Only one of the older siblings had dual citizenship, but he renounced it.

        Too many choices!

      • GreenieWeenie says:

        honestly, you only need to pay the US taxes if you’re worried about accessing retirement accounts, social security and other financial assets in the US. If you’re not, no one will have reason to slap you with a bill.

        I’ve lived outside the US for 8 years now, pretty sure I probably haven’t made enough to file taxes there but wouldn’t have bothered anyway. It’s so annoying because it makes it harder for you to get work on a US passport because companies then know you’ll want some sort of compensation for the extra tax. Just don’t keep more than $50k in the US (for some reason, I remember that number).

        Incidentally, Germans also get the best deal ALWAYS in their dealings with the Chinese.

      • morc says:

        @GReenieWeenie

        Can you expand on that? Do you mean German Expats in working China?

      • Becks says:

        @ GreenieWeenie:
        Yes, please elaborate. I am Chinese and I am interested by what you mean.

        Thanks.

      • Greenieweenie says:

        Well I hope I hit the right reply button because this thread is miserable on the thumbs. Re: Germans in China, I worked there for four years (in China) and the German expats always seemed to have the best arrangements. Cheaper visas, longer visas, lower taxes (?)…I can’t remember all the details now as I left the mainland 3 years ago but at every turn, It always seemed the German passport made out the best (that was before the 10 year reciprocal visas between China and US/Canada made within the past year)

      • morc says:

        @GreenieWeenie

        Ah, now that you explained it I think Germany had expansive bilateral agreements with that effect to China.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Not a … I don’t know! Depends on the amount of foreign tax credit provided for in the treaty. Regrettably, am not rich enough to learn what this might be in my situation. : ) Double filing regardless of income, either way. Most people complain about the paperwork & the general principle of it.

      Apparently US started this during the Civil War (given that the South declared itself a sovereign nation) and, given the potential fruits/ability to track citizens/political inertia, never stopped.

      • GreenieWeenie says:

        no, it’s quite recent where I live (Asia). Just a few years ago–maybe 3. Congress passed a law basically to recoup some of those income acquired overseas. But it’s bulls*t because the same Congress can’t be bothered to actually go after corporations earning bajillions abroad.

        Anyway, it was a big deal where I live because there are a lot of dual citizens with local/North American passports and also a lot of wealth, so everyone was casting their US ones aside.

    • Neonscream says:

      I am a citizen of three nations. I only pay tax in the 2 I earn in, one that I live in and work and the other where I have an investment property on which I only pay property taxes not income taxes. Don’t know if this is the same for other countries but I assume even the US doesn’t require full income tax to be paid for non residents, otherwise you wouldn’t have rich people officially living in tax shelters as there would be no benefit.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Hello Neon! The USA does NOT require full tax paid for non residents.

        The point is that it still requires citizens to file tax RETURNS.

        The confusion between filing returns (with or without a check, or with a tiny check) and paying taxes is common.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Greenie, you may have info that’s more up to date than what I have. Maybe the IRS has lightened up (I wish) — here’s some 2014 info that I found, Canadian perspective of course. http://www.dwpv.com/en/Resources/Publications/2014/IRS-Significantly-Improves-Amnesty-for-US-Citizens-Abroad

      The thing is, if you’re expected to file (not pay…file) and don’t, the penalties can be pretty bad. And if you return and start filing again, the IRS may have questions about the missing years.

      http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/U.S.-Citizens-and-Resident-Aliens-Abroad

      It’s so unfair to have to file if resident outside the US. Every other sovereign nation (except Eritrea, I think?) taxes (worldwide income) on residence, not citizenship.

      And now, back to our regularly scheduled Kelly Channel programming!

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        And here’s more than anyone wants to know, but, you know, taxes…

        https://americansabroad.org/issues/taxation/us-taxes-while-living-abroad-faq/

      • GreenieWeenie says:

        haha, this is aspirational. I know you’re supposed to file, but I also know that I was in a developing country wherein English wasn’t used, my competency in their language was limited, and there wasn’t the equivalent of a W2. It’s just not possible and if the IRS has the time to prosecute people for making unreported pennies abroad in developing countries, then my solution is to simply not return in the US.

        Following rules only works when you live in countries where rules can be followed. If I lived in Canada and held a US passport, I’d file too!

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        And if I lived in China I’d probably do what you do!

  37. Jess says:

    I’m really angry about her telling people the children said disturbing things that concerned her and that’s why she’s not sending them home, that is some twisted sh*t to lie about, and no doubt she’s lying and probably telling them to lie as well. She’s sick and is only hurting her children at this point.

  38. BearcatLawyer says:

    A lawyer had to draft and file the writ of habeas corpus yesterday in NY and serve her and her attorneys in person or electronically at a minimum.

    Note to Daniel: never book a return transAtlantic flight for the kids on a weekend day again. Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday flights ONLY. And watch out for U.S. government holidays too.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Too right. It’s so hard to have to live defensively.

    • kai says:

      Does anyone know how this works, sending the kids back and forth? I assume they don’t fly by themselves, so does Daniel send a nanny with them and the nanny stays with them? Did Kelly kidnap the nanny, too?

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        They probably pay for an in-flight escort service. I would be surprised if they used family members or nannies given the contentious nature of this dispute.

      • LNG says:

        His mother is at court for the hearing today, so I’m wondering if she usually flies to the US to bring them home.

      • Becks says:

        It’s called an “Unaccompanied Minor”. You pay extra and the kids get lanyards with a huge “UM” designation. They get to sit up front with a flight attendant assigned to them.

        If you travel during the summer months when school is out, you will see this a lot. It’s a sign of the times, divorce being so commonplace, parents living in different countries, even different Continents.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        @Becks – I think they may be too young to travel internationally as UMs. Most airlines likely would demand they have an escort of some kind. Policies vary by airline though.

      • Becks says:

        I’m willing to stand corrected. I only sent mine across Canada and to the U.S.

      • Samtha says:

        It depends. If you’re five, you can travel internationally with Delta as part of the program. My nephews are eight and twelve and visited their father in France this summer on a Delta flight. They have a partnership with Air France.

        Not sure about any other airlines, though.

      • Becks says:

        I see now they don’t allow UA for children aged younger than 8. When we did it, the age limit was 5. For the flight date, my child would have been days away from turning 5, so we went ahead and booked it. This was before 9/11 so air travel was much more relaxed.

        Anyway, for days before the flight, she went around telling people, “I’m 4, but I’m supposed to say I’m 5″.

      • anne_000 says:

        I wonder if the grandmother accompanies them. She lives with them and probably doesn’t have a flight ban put on her.

        She was at the court today, so I’m wondering if she was here since at least last Thursday to pick up the kids.

        Also, maybe she does the drop-off and pick-up for these summer visits.

  39. Crumpet says:

    Three months is a long time for a child. It would be natural for them to be slightly anxious about returning to Daniel, simply because they have been gone so long. Her daughter especially as she is still so young. When my daughter was 3 and gone from me for a month, I could see she was terrified to be reunited with me until she saw me and remember/recognized me. She told me just a few months ago (she is now 11) that she had thought her stepmother was her mother. Plus it doesn’t help that Kelly has no doubt been actively seeking to alienate them from Daniel for the past 3 months. If the court has any brains, the children will be removed from her custody entirely, and she will have supervised visits. Supervised visits are damaging to children yes, but I believe her brand of crazy is more damaging that that.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      So true. When my brother and his first wife divorced, they saw a child psychologist to determine the best custody arrangement. She told them that my brother needed to see his youngest child (2) every other day to maintain a steady memory for the child and make it less traumatic for him. Also, when I was 3, my mother left me with her sister for two weeks. I don’t remember it, but I have been told that my mother was very upset because I clung to my aunt when my mother returned and didn’t recognize my mother for a bit. So, I think if Kelly really cared about them, she would get a place in Monaco and see them frequently. This arrangement can’t be comfortable for those children.

    • Meatball says:

      The kids have only been with Kelly since July, when their school term was over.

    • jwoolman says:

      It’s very common for children to have trouble dealing with transitions/handovers. It doesn’t reflect badly on the parents. For young children, certainly the way their memory works is a big part of it. That’s why video chat is such a wonderful thing in these situations today- it’s a way to keep the child’s memory fresh. The 2013 Decision mentioned that Kelly refused to have pictures of Daniel in her home, and that seemed to be a negative thing. Pictures can help young children maintain their memories also. A friend’s daughter was distraught when she realized she couldn’t remember the face of her best friend where they had lived for the past few years. She was about five years old and this was just a few months after they left. He was able to help her by showing her all the pictures he had taken of her together with her best friend.

  40. Katherine says:

    Shades of Halle, just saying. ;) Another crazy woman who thought she could use her ex as a sperm donor and that he’d just disappear quietly from his kids’ lives afterwards. God, what is wrong with these men? The audacity of them to actually want to be good fathers to their children after the mother is finished with them. Kelly is unraveling her cause here, she’s making her ex-husband seem far more stable. She should be arrested for disobeying a court order and basically holding her kids captive from their father. What she’s doing to those kids is reprehensible.

    • Mia4S says:

      Absolutely. If you want to be a single mother, fine, go to a clinic or adopt! Otherwise the father has rights!! She’s disgusting and needs to go to jail for contempt.

      • lucy2 says:

        I always wondered that myself. They want the kids but then want to cut the father out. Just have a kid on your own! There are other options available to them, especially when they are wealthy/famous like Halle.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Yup. I had someone react in shock when I said Kelly was the white Halle but um…crazy obsessive parenting is one thing these ladies do well. Seriously, their acting careers haven’t been as good as their ability to torture other male humans that they share parenting with.

      Kelly really upped the ante in a way that has now made her public enemy #1 in the courts though.

  41. NorthernGirl_20 says:

    According to TMZ Kelly has shown up to court – without the kids .. surprise surprise..

    • Kinta says:

      Oh, fuck no!

    • Morse0412 says:

      well this is taking a scary turn

    • anne_000 says:

      There’s a photo of her on DM as she arrives to court. She’s wearing white again….

      TMZ says Daniel’s mother is there. It’s been reported that she lives with him and the kids, so she should be a familiar face to the kids for the pick-up, but then again, Kelly refused to bring the kids to court.

    • Samtha says:

      She’s shameless. Throw her in jail for contempt.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      Let’s hope the judge holds her in contempt and throws her ass in jail this morning.

      I suspect that whoever is watching the kids for her or helping her hide them is at risk of being charged as an accessory to kidnapping.

      • Morse0412 says:

        what could possibly be her end plan? because if she doesnt turn them over shes on the run with them and can never act or be seen by the paparazzi.

        As dark as it sounds, would people still be kelly supporters if this turned into a murder/suicide situation? I highly doubt it, so why are people saying on tmz etc that her not bringing kids is the right move

      • notasugarhere says:

        If it is the Gucci boyfriend, what happens if he uses any Gucci assets to hide them? He’s only the Men’s Department manager at the NYC store so he probably doesn’t have access to much. Hotel suite paid by the company? Does that by default make Gucci Group an accessory to kidnapping?

      • NUTBALLS says:

        There is no good way this can end for her. Either she’s thrown in jail until she surrenders her kids, which means no contact with her kids or judge lets her go and she goes into hiding, always looking over her shoulder and living on the run, or God forbid, she murders them in an act of desperation to keep Daniel from ever seeing them again. If she had surrendered them this morning, there’s still a chance she’d get supervised visits at least. She’s really has put herself in a bad place where she’s made everything worse for herself, her kids and her ex.

      • SNKatasha says:

        Actually the judge may put her in jail right away for being in contempt of court which will prevent her from seeing the children and running with them. It doesn’t mean she hasn’t hidden them away but if the judge feels like it she can throw Kelly in jail and hold her there until the children are produced.

      • jessiebes says:

        Is there a chance that the kids are with a safe neutral party?

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Smh…I hope they’re safe.

    • morc says:

      Lock her up.

  42. Daffy says:

    Kelly Rutherford Shows Up for Court … But Without the Kids (tmz)

  43. Sparkly says:

    I can’t believe how many people are commenting on all these stories, “Good for her! Those kids need their momma! I’d do the same thing!” Then they jump my sh!t when I post the court docs (even telling them what page/sections to read to verify that she’s LYING). I’m astounded that people who are apparently following this story are so *willfully* ignorant. Those kids did nothing to deserve this, and neither did Daniel. I hope she’s arrested and all her parental rights revoked.

  44. anne_000 says:

    Daniel’s lawyer said that it was court-ordered that Kelly turn over the passports to a neutral party, so maybe Murphy shouldn’t be saying the opposite if it’s untrue…

    Here’s what Daniel’s lawyer said back in May:

    ‘Daniel is requesting per the terms of the California judgment that a neutral party hold the children’s passports while mother (Rutherford) has custody of the children abroad,” she added, “and that is simply carrying out the terms of the California order, and is also a very neutral thing because of the very deep concern given the [TMZ] statement that she made.’

    http://www.celebitchy.com/428932/kelly_rutherfords_ex_blocks_her_from_their_kids_concerned_they_are_in_imminent_danger_/

    The things Kelly and her lawyer have said in this article are not entirely true. They can’t keep claiming that Daniel didn’t fix his visa and US travel ban issues at the same time saying he is eligible to come to the US with his German passport. That makes no sense.

    I think Kelly doesn’t want him back in the US anyways. This was her plan years ago, and she seems to be sticking to it. . She might think that keeping him out of the country makes it easier for her to take and keep the kids, like what she’s doing now. And she might think she would get into legal trouble if she admits that those accusations her side made were confessed to be false.

    Is Kelly insinuating that Daniel is not a ‘present parent?’

    She’s slandering him by saying the kids told her some super secret scary stuff about living in Monaco. It’s like some of the other instances in which she’s made insinuations or outright accusations. Like when she said that the nanny thought Daniel had murderous tendencies or suggested that he and his mother have an unnaturally [aka unhealthy] close relationship, or implied that various foreigners in a restaurant conspired to pressure her to be with Daniel, etc.

    I can’t believe her lawyer is supporting Kelly’s claim that she can arbitrarily decide when to end a court order. ‘Temporary’ is up to the judge to decide, not Kelly and her lawyer.

    Btw, this is the same lawyer who was with Kelly in that TMZ interview in which Kelly said a hero for America is needed to take the kids away from the father and that if mistakes are made, she won’t be bothered.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Well if she needs a hero, she can consult Donald Trump. He has strong ideas about what makes a hero. : (

  45. Patricia says:

    UCCJEA can be complicated but CA as Home State issuing Orders is Primary!
    NYS is right to step out and allow CA to enforce their Temporary & Custody
    Order based on The Father’s Non-Compliance to renew his Visa-abandoning
    Home State jurisdiction’s what is a complication-Kelly needs to still reside in
    CA for them to maintain jurisdiction but working in NY now confused court’s
    validity-She should’ve transferred CA Order to NY for a U.S. state to maintain
    American jurisdiction-So at this point-preventing the kids from further stress
    would be to keep them in U.S. while regaining rights of residency-what he did!

  46. Andrea says:

    She got her ex-husband deported by saying he was a terrorist, when there has been no proof he was/is one and is therefore in this custody battle in the first place because she got him deported. If she wrote a letter to the state department, they would reinstate his passport, but until then, this will continue.

  47. Jessiebes says:

    Im on pins and needles. So hope the kids are ok.

  48. Jess says:

    I hope she gets arrested, what an idiot to not bring them to court as she was ordered. You’d think she would’ve learned her lesson playing dirty since that’s what got her into this mess in the first place! What a selfish as*hole.

    • Liberty says:

      I think the narcissism and sociopathy are flying easy-to-see flags at this point.

      More than anything, I hope the kids are ok. I also hope that the person minding them now realizes they are in violation of a court order, too. What a needless sad ugly mess.

      • Saywhatwhen says:

        @Liberty: Also, don’t forget she is an actress and she loves the attention, the camera, the role of a lifetime, some next level “Not Without My Children” crap she gets to bring to this…she used to be on Days of Our Lives I believe…she prolly misses the drama and being on TV everyday.

        Too, she is a sociopath as you say.

      • Liberty says:

        @say what, a good point. You’re probably right, she is probably eating this up, and hoping she can get a Lifetime deal or something.

        At least the kids are on the way home to their father.

  49. lisa says:

    how scary

    if the genders were reversed, the media reports would be concerned for the childrens safety

    dan abrams cant read, is a bad lawyer or they are friends with benefits

  50. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    Man I hope they eventually find those kids/someone comes forward to apologize and give them up. This is disgusting and pitiful.

    • Peanutbuttr says:

      Oh now she wants them to avoid the media but it’s ok to bring them to red carpet events

    • Peanutbuttr says:

      BTW, in NYC, 10 minutes away is not close by.

    • InvaderTak says:

      That outfit is not court appropriate. I just can’t believe this woman.

    • Betti says:

      The white only outfits is creepy and just promotes the crazy train she’s on and she’s clearly made sure the press was there to use that an excuse not to bring the kids and am quite sure she is willing to go to prison for contempt of court in order to continue with the ‘victim/martyr’ narrative that she’s got going.

      She has no intention of allow those kids to leave the country – they are with someone who is likely going to be caring for them while’s she’s locked up for kidnapping.

  51. SNKatasha says:

    Looks like the judge is angry that Kelly has refused to bring the children to court. Kelly told the court that the children were close by she just wanted to avoid the media circus.

    Additionally, Kelly requested the media go away. I guess it’s easier to lie to the public when you don’t have cameras that document the messed up things that you have done.

    • Morse0412 says:

      if she had asked, im sure the courts had a solution for bringing the children into the court while avoiding the media circus instead of her hiding them

    • pleaseicu says:

      I don’t think Kelly requested that the media go away. Unless she requested it outside the courtroom.

      From the People article, in the courtroom it was actually Daniel’s attorneys who requested that the press be removed and the proceedings closed.

      • SNKatasha says:

        You are correct. For some reason I read it as her team. But you are absolutely correct about it being Daniel’s team.

        Thanks.

      • LNG says:

        Yes, it was Daniel’s counsel who requested that the media be excluded from the courtroom. Once again, he is doing what is in the best interests of the children and again to the detriment of his own position in the media, as it is likely that the judge is going to give Kelly a good smack and perhaps that would spur some of the mainstream media to actually do some real reporting and not just spout whatever BS she feeds them). He refuses to fight this war in the media and I have a lot of respect for him because of it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The judge needs to take away the cell phones of Rutherford and her lawyer immediately. If the judge orders her to let officers of the court go get the kids, all Rutherford has to do is send a quick text to whomever has the kids, and that person goes on the run with them.

      Based on her previous behavior, I’d assume she has a plan to have a third party get them out of NYC or the country (maybe with someone like Trump’s help).

    • L says:

      What media circus? Looking at the shots of the crowd outside, there were 6-7 cameras TOPS.

      There were more than that at the event she took them to-AND she didn’t have a problem with the media when lying to GMA.

    • LNG says:

      Wrong spot – ignore!

    • Sam says:

      That’s BS. A law school classmate of mine was actually part of the NYPD in Manhattan for a while. He would always say that the courts in NYC are very used to dealing with high profile people (celebrities, businesspeople, politicians, etc.). The courts can easily accommodate those who request extra security for any reason, including a media crush. They do it all the time. All she had to do was request it. She didn’t bring the children because she knew what would happen – they’d immediately be handed over to the grandmother and on a plane. That’s it.

      If the judge were so inclined, she could opt to send court officers to collect the children with the grandmother and not even let Kelly see them off. And frankly, she’s be totally right to do it.

    • anne_000 says:

      Yeah, she didn’t mind the ‘media circus’ when she was parading them in front of the media and paps throughout the summer.

    • holly hobby says:

      God I want to get my hands on that court transcript! Just to read the Judge throw the book at this nut job!

  52. belle de jour says:

    There is a creepy ‘dressing in innocent or martyrdom white’ thing going on here with her… I noticed it in the earlier photos… and she’s done a version of it with the kids, too…

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      If you look up Sally Field in “Not Without My Daughter,” there’s a hint of what she’s going for with that scarfy wrap over white.

      • belle de jour says:

        Exactly! And you’re dead right about the soft ‘motherly’ shawl.

        I had noticed the religious-white overtones before, but today was over the top.

        It is a costume for a role she is shamelessly playing with other people’s lives… on the PR stage of what she must see as the court of public opinion.

      • anne_000 says:

        +1

  53. Jenny says:

    This woman is pure evil. She makes me sick. She is damaging those kids for life with her insane and criminal actions. I sincerely hope they get to return home to their father asap and that Rutherford is incarcerated and brought to trial for the kidnapping.

  54. Freddy Spaghetti says:

    I hope the kids are okay. I hope she gets thrown in jail.

  55. Sam H x says:

    Just read an article, Judge Ellen Gesmer is furious!! Kelly tried to address her but got shutdown. She is going to regret incurring the wrath of this judge. Neither is she going to take any shiz off Kelly.

    Link: http://www.people.com/article/kelly-rutherford-court-appearance-post-keeping-children

    Kelly has some real cajones to pee off a judge like she has today. I’m glad to see the childrens’ grandmother is here as Totally Biased and Anne suggested. I hope they can return those children with their grandmother ASAP. I think Kelly nor Wendy will not like what Judge Gesmer decides.

    I think in light of the situation, the judge won’t let her slide away easily with the kids into the sunset. As someone else has said above they may throw her in contempt til those kids show up.

    • belle de jour says:

      Go, SuperGranny. Can you imagine what her trip here must have been like? Flying over on MamaBear airlines, fighting for both her child and her grandchildren… NYC is intimidating enough to visitors, not to mention the no-nonsense Family Court set up down there + NY paps.

      I hope they all are safely rescued and returned to a healthy environment.

  56. DEB says:

    Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!! Holy …

  57. Miss Jupitero says:

    Here comes the trainwreck…. I just hope they can make this as painless as possible for the kids.

  58. Michelle says:

    Wow. Her media circus excuse for NOT bringing the children to court as ordered, was created once again only by her! She loves the attention since the media helps her spin her case. Anyone else I would have a bit of sympathy for but she creates all of her problems. If she would only cooperate instead of fighting every ruling she would probably get further.

    • anne_000 says:

      She’s so ridiculous.

      She had the kids go to various media events, get their pics taken by paps, even had them pose for many of them, and now she decides it’s bad for them? Just when she has to take them to court?

  59. SNKatasha says:

    Dan Abrahms just tweeted that no matter what Kelly always loses. I wonder if he is in the courtroom today and knows what is happening?

    • L says:

      His tweets make NO sense. And for someone who went to law school he’s a idiot. ‘how can they enforce custody if they don’t have jurisdiction?’. It’s like family law 101. Is kelly sleeping with him?

      • pleaseicu says:

        It’s most likely deliberate misinformation on his part. He knows. It just helps his buddy better if he pretends he doesn’t understand the legal reasoning behind the moves of these judges.

        Or he’s an idiot.

      • cr says:

        This has to be personal to him, but why ABC hasn’t noticed that in his comments over these years is interesting. His statements are wrong and biased.

      • Sam says:

        Dan Abrams is committing the biggest sin of lawyering – letting personal feelings cloud his legal judgment. He knows perfectly well that there are multiple forms of jurisdiction. The NYC court is not exercising its own jurisdiction. It is acting as a surrogate for the Monaco court, which DOES have jurisdiction. I can see how people without legal training can get this case wrong, but Abrams is a lawyer. He has no excuse. It’s slightly appalling that he is a chief legal correspondent.

      • Michelle says:

        I wish the press was actually allowed in the courtroom this time because Kelly’s side will once again spin this as soon as it is over. The truth will be in the documents only and the press will report whatever Kelly says.

      • Katherine says:

        lol I’m not even a lawyer and I know this.

      • Izzy says:

        I’m embarrassed that he and I have the same type of degree. And thankful that he didn’t go to my law school. What a tool.

      • Izzy says:

        ABC: Always Biased Commentary

        Starring Dan Abrams.

    • LNG says:

      Oh man, I just went to his twitter and my head about exploded. He is an idiot and is voluntarily participating in a circus that is hurting those poor children beyond measure when he knows that he is absolutely full of shit. If they think that trying to sway public opinion is going to make any difference in the outcome of this case they are completely ignorant of how the legal process works. Judges do not give a shit what the general public thinks, and will without a doubt be incredibly pissed that they are spreading this BS in the media. The most important strategy in family law is to always have the moral high ground. Every time Kelly goes to the media and Daniel keeps his mouth shut and refuses to engage she loses a little bit more and he looks like the only sane person in this whole mess. She may have been able to gain some sympathy from the Court by simply being the devastated mother who got some bad legal advice (it was, after all, her lawyer who made the call that got the visa revoked) and does not deserve to have her kids living across the world because of it, but every one of her actions since that time has completely undermined that.

      • jwoolman says:

        Kelly was right there when her lawyer threatened Daniel in the courthouse, demanding that he sign away his visitation rights or else his visa would be revoked, and she was right there when Daniel refused and her lawyer made the phone call to carry out the threat. The judge included it all in the 2013 decision. Don’t think the innocent excuse would fly.

    • lucy2 says:

      Well sure – because she’s always in the wrong! You can’t call it “losing” if you willfully violate court orders and get called on it.

    • Linn says:

      For the sake of the children Kelly SHOULD lose. She has brought this situation on herself, done everything to make it worse and now she hopefully has to deal with the consequences.

    • Wonderbunny says:

      That’s stupid. It’s like saying “no matter how much I keep defying the commonly accepted rules, it’s not working in my favour”. I’m imagining a person repeatedly punching a button that says “don’t push” and yelling “Why isn’t this working? Why am I not getting what I want?!”

      I’m not a huge fan of calling people stupid, because it’s a bit cheap, but for goodness sake. To not have even a tiny bit of self-awareness at a certain age has to be because of choice.

    • holly hobby says:

      Dan Abrams is on a roll in his twitter. He’s actually responding back to people who pointed out the facts. Ugh he’s another nutjob who should be fired. ABC, do you hear this?

  60. Cali says:

    Those children need to be SAVED!

  61. anne_000 says:

    Regarding the People update, SEE? Daniel’s side is doing this as privately as possible. They’re the ones who are trying to avoid a media circus. Meanwhile, Kelly and her lawyer have been making public statements and going to GMA and whatever else.

    I’m glad the grandmother is there. That will be good for the kids. Unlike Kelly, who left her kids with god knows who.

    I hope whomever was left with the kids will get into legal trouble too. Sorry, but if the kids are abducted, then you can’t be their babysitter.

    • Samtha says:

      Probably the nanny, in which case I hope she doesn’t get into legal trouble, because she wouldn’t have too much of a choice.

    • grumpy bird says:

      I do wonder if the person watching the kids was fully informed of the situation and had heard the whole truth or just Kelly’s version of it.

  62. BearcatLawyer says:

    TMZ just reported that the children are in court. Thank God.

    • mm says:

      So glad they’re alive and hope they get to home with their grandmother!

    • Giddy says:

      Absolutely agree. But I am angry that she has orchestrated things so that the children are bound to be confused and frightened. What an incredibly selfish woman.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      I’m hoping the judge has ripped her such a new one that her face really matches her clothes. What a despicable act.

    • Insomniac says:

      That’s a relief. This woman was really starting to make me scared for their safety.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      It’s not hard to imagine that the judge’s opening salvo was something like, “If those kids are not here in 15 minutes you will lose your share of custody forever.”

      • Becks says:

        I agree that was likely the scenario.

        Like a child who’s never been taught consequences, she has just said and done what she wanted, disregarding the harm to others. She badly needed someone of authority to give her a good scare. For that reason, I would have loved to have seen her face.

    • Tammy says:

      While I think Kelly is incredibly stupid for defying a court order, I doubt she would have harmed her kids as some posters are suggesting. It doesn’t benefit her in any way to harm her kids. She’s playing on sympathy, remember? How would she keep whatever sympathy she has left if she harmed her kids?

      • Katherine says:

        Sadly, her crazy behavior removes any sense of giving her the benefit of the doubt. If she’s crazy enough to do everything she has so far, it’s not a stretch to assume she would go to drastic measures to keep Daniel from his kids.

      • Samtha says:

        I don’t think she would either. She likes the press too much, and having the kids sent back to their father gives her just as much–maybe more–press than before.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think her inability to co-parent is harming the children.

        I also think her capable of kidnapping and hiding them for years if she doesn’t what she wants (sole custody on US soil).

      • anne_000 says:

        She said to GMA that her kids have said some ‘alarming’ things about their time in Monaco, so much so that she was scared to send them back.

        How would she have proved this? By someone putting physical marks on the kids? Who knows?

        I hope Daniel has the kids thoroughly checked out by doctors when they get back home.

        Also, he might have to get a therapist for them too, because god knows what Kelly has been saying and put them through.

      • Tammy says:

        @notasugarhere, I don’t disagree but I meant physical harm. Like killing them as some were suggesting she was going to do. If she did that, there would be no going back for her whatsoever. No one would give her any sympathy. So I highly doubt that she would physically harm them.

      • Lady D says:

        It’s not about the children with her, it’s all about winning at any cost.

      • Bread and Circuses says:

        I dunno… This is a woman who quasi-openly invited strangers to kidnap her children and return them to her.

        I would not trust any random person willing to kidnap two cute blond kids to treat them well while they had them. Therefore, I do not trust Kelly to put her children’s physical well-being high on her list of priorities.

        She’s a narcissist. She considers herself to be the only important person in the world.

      • Norman Bates' Mother says:

        @Tammy – There was a custody case in my country earlier this year, where the mother committed murder-suicide and left the note that if she can’t have the children, her ex won’t either and it sadly happens quite regularly. But I agree with you that in this case it’s rather unlikely. Kelly is all about fame and despite losing the battle for her children, she actually wins this situation in a way. Look at the number of comments under this post – now it’s almost 600 and counting. She is now more talked about than the Kardashians and just a few years ago barely anyone knew her name. Even if she loses the custody, she will find a way to spin this in her favor by playing the victim in the media.

      • Tammy says:

        I’m sorry. I agree she’s a narcissist, that she’s tried to alienate Daniel and failed, that she lies, that she openly defies court orders, says incredibly stupid and dangerous things etc but it’s a very big leap (for me) to assume she’s going to kill her kids so she can win at all costs. Her kids are her only means of staying in the press.. she physically endangers or kills them, she will not longer have her photo taken, followed by paps, etc. Now her openly defying court orders and her having to face the consequences feeds into her need to be in the press. She’s not going to take the one thing away from her that feeds into her ego, that validates her. I envision a press conference in 3, 2, 1……

      • DIANE says:

        This makes me wonder if her next career move will be to Lifetime to sell her story. A movie of the week. With her starring and producing. Think of the dolts who’ll flock to support her.

  63. morc says:

    Why does she always dress like a dentist’s assistant/ Greek Eurovision Song Contest entry?

  64. cannibell says:

    Shame on her. There are family situations in which the children really are in danger, and antics like hers make it so much harder for them.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      You pinpointed one of the many upsetting aspects of this. Her actions have trivialized the real dangers that beset many thousands of children who don’t have the kinds of protections hers would otherwise enjoy. (And now that they’re on the way to the airport, are soon to enjoy again.)

    • Katherine says:

      Exactly. It’s like “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Same goes for women who make false accusations of rape or sexual assault, it makes it harder for the women who actually ARE victims of it to be believed.

  65. InvaderTak says:

    Apparently she just lost big and the kids are on the way to the airport. See TMZ.

  66. anne_000 says:

    TMZ reported that the kids are now on their way to the airport back to Monaco.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Yes! I can only imagine what she filled their heads with though…

    • notasugarhere says:

      That would be very good news. TMZ is still supplying inaccurate info.

      “A judge just enforced a court order giving Daniel the right to keep the 2 children in Monaco, while he works out his residency issues with the U.S.”

      From what I understand, there are no longer visa issues since January 2014. The immigration issue no longer exists. He doesn’t have to reapply for a US visa and he doesn’t have to make any plans to move to the US. Is that right?

      September 3 in Monaco is going to be very interesting.

      • LAK says:

        TMZ is saying the kids arrived in court, handed over to grandmother and are on their way to the airport, back to Monaco.

        No wonder Dan Abrams just tweeted that Kelly always loses.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Losers gotta lose…

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      That’s a relief, she is back in court in Monaco on the 3rd September I believe, she just handed him his ace card with all this foolishness.

      • notasugarhere says:

        What’s her next move? Trying to get NY to fight to take jurisdiction from Monaco? She has to know a Monacan court isn’t going to look favorably on this stunt. Monaco is the court that now has jurisdiction. Does that mean changes to the original custody agreement can now be entertained?

        We might see a big change in custody and travel restrictions. If Monacan court documents aren’t open like US ones, we may never know the extent of the changes.

      • Zapp Brannigan says:

        @ Nota who knows what she is capable of, I think she should do jail time for contempt but that is not going to happen, maybe she will call on Donald Trump and The A-Team to act of her behalf (I am only partly joking because with her it’s always new levels of crazy) maybe she can rally them to rescue Prince Albert who is an American also!

      • LNG says:

        Monaco can definitely change the order if they take jurisdiction – all Daniel will have to show is a material change in circumstances (unless Monaco has a different standard – I have no idea). I’d say kidnapping fills that requirement pretty nicely!!

        I bet that even if Monaco’s courts are closed, Kelly will be screaming from the rooftops about her children being deported blah blah blah. If I was the judge I would say that any access rights (because it will be access – I cannot imagine her not losing custody over this) are contingent on her keeping her damn mouth shut as is in the best interests of the children.

    • anne_000 says:

      I imagine:

      Her next move will be to try to visit the kids before the September 3rd hearing.

      She’ll have the kids’ passports taped across her forehead and dare Daniel to touch them.

      Then she and her lawyer will go to the media and complain that Daniel is not letting her see them because he’s kidnapped them.

      Before all this, they’re going to complain 24/7 that no American child is safe anymore.

      • Betti says:

        Yes – thou i think she’ll try and take the case to the international courts. Cue her rolling up to the Hague in her all white ‘outfits’.

        The woman is certifiable – she has not only ruined her marriage and kids emotional wellbeing, she’s also ruined her acting career (such as it was). NO ONE will hire her now and am sure she isn’t getting that much from Gossip Girl royalties. WHO is financially supporting her and paying her legal fees – am sure its not the ex husband. Money could also be part of the reason she is desperate to keep the kids, she needs the alimony.

      • jwoolman says:

        Fortunately, grandma now has the kids’ US passports and poor Kelly won’t have anything to tape to her forehead…

      • Lady D says:

        jwoolman, are you sure grandma has the passports? That would be wonderful news.

      • jwoolman says:

        Lady – the People article says Rutherford gave their U.S. Passports to the grandmother. It sounds like the kids were fine, happy to see grandma and it was a drama-free goodbye with their mom. So I don’t think they knew about all the ruckus.

  67. ERM says:

    OMG, I actually want to smack this woman. She is such a manipulative shrew !

  68. Pat says:

    I went back and looked at the court documents. I admit I didn’t get through everything, but what I did read made me a little sympathetic towards Kelly.

    The lawyer that contacted the state department regarding Daniel’s visa, is not her current lawyer- it was her former lawyer. This makes me think that she was advised (wrongly) that this would be a good legal strategy. As a lay person, who is she to disagree with advice she is getting from her legal expert.

    Reading the documents also made it clear to me that the issue is that from the outset, (and maybe this started with the previous lawyer Matthew G(something))…from the outset, she has been gunning for full custody (like many parents do). If she had a reasonable lawyer who sat her down and said look, in this day and age with an involved father like Daniel, the best you are going to do in a Divorce is Joint custody, maybe with primary physical custody in one location (I don’t even know if that is possible). But if her lawyer had sat her down and reasonable explained that to her I don’t think she would be in this situation.

    I think she was devastated at the thought of sharing her children (as most mothers would be) and wanted full custody (as most mothers would- at least I would), and instead of talking her down her lawyers conceded to the feelings she would naturally have as a parent.

    This case is legal mishandling. Her current lawyer is an idiot as well. I don’t know how she finds these hacks but her legal team is inept.

    I don’t know what little can be done at this stage, but if I were her I would apologize, file whatever paper work I needed to file for Daniel’s visa. Make peace with him, make peace with the court. Accept joint custody and work like hell to get his Visa reinstated so he could come back to the states and they can co-parent like millions of other divorced parents.

    As a mother, I would be so heartbroken, if I couldn’t see my children everyday. I would rather stay in a bad marriage and have access to them daily, than split up only see them 3 times a week. I look at divorced parents and think they must be so strong to handle that (moms especially). I know it may not be a popular opinion, but that is what I think.- so from that perspective I feel for her and even understand her crazy (to some extent).

    But right now, she needs to stop, take stock, put the breaks on and try and start over.

    • Valois says:

      She still refuses to admit she lied in order to get his visa revoked. Her admitting she lied would help Daniel getting his visa back.
      She’s no innocent in this situation and she’s not a child. I agree she needs a better lawyer, but this woman is no saint.

    • Becks says:

      From your lips to God’s ear to Kelly’s pea-sized brain.

      The time to make amends is loooong past. That ship has sailed. Probably half-way to Fiji by now.

      And if I was Daniel or his family, any attempt by Kelly to make nice now would get a huge skeptical side-eye from me. If there’s one thing we’ve learned about her, is that you should not trust anything that comes out of her mouth. She is the very definition of a manipulative liar.

    • cr says:

      She is in this situation of her own making. Period.
      She’s had literally years to come to her senses and deal with it in a rational manner, to put her children’s interests first, not hers. She has chosen not to.
      I wouldn’t be surprised if she lawyer shopped, looking for those who would tell her what she wanted to hear.
      She won’t do the right thing because she’s a narcissist.

    • Katherine says:

      Honestly, I do not feel sorry for her one bit. She brought this all on herself with her lies and manipulations. She has been deliberately vindictive. Kelly is incredibly unstable and those children are better off with Daniel. He’s proven to be far more stable and a much more fit parent.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Pat

      So if the father wants to have joint custody in the US, then the strategy you should go for is to have the dad be banned from the US?

      Even with being a layperson, who thinks that’s a good idea? Even if the lawyer suggested it (and we don’t know if it was actually her idea or not), is she not a fully capable, intelligent, grown up woman who has a mind of her own? Or are you saying she’s so stupid that she’ll cut off her own nose to spite her face just because somebody told her it would be a good idea?

      If, as you say, she requires somebody to explain to her that joint custody is a good thing, then is she mentally incapable of rational judgment all by her lonesome? If she isn’t and does depend solely on having people explain these types of concepts to her, then maybe it’s best that Daniel has physical custody.

      She has visited them over 70 times. Daniel always flies them to the US for the summer. He pays for six of her visits per year, including air fare, car service, and residence. He has the kids Skype her when she’s not in Monaco. He writes her letters to keep her up-to-date on the kids. He’s said repeatedly that he believes that the kids need both parents in their lives. After all the stuff she’s put him through, he refuses to talk bad about her to the kids, which is the opposite of what she’s done.

      For all the money she spent on lawyers and experts and whatever else, she could have stayed in Monaco for most of the previous years.

      But then again, if she hadn’t had him banned from the US and had shared custody here in the US, none of this would have happened.

      She keeps sabotaging herself not because there weren’t other people around explaining things to her like she’s a dimwit, but because she chose her actions as a grown, but cruel woman.

    • Artemis says:

      Nah, she clearly used her ex as a sperm donor and to her surprise, he did not only view himself as a father but he is acting like one. A damn good one.
      It didn’t start with the custody case, she tried to leave his name of their daughter’s birth certificate. She really created her own problems from day 1, nothing to do with an inept legal team.

    • Samtha says:

      I’m kind of mystified at being devastated by joint custody. Surely what’s best for the children–having two involved parents as part of their lives–is the most important thing.

      • Katherine says:

        I had the same reaction.

      • littlestar says:

        Yeah, same. Why wouldn’t a person want their ex in their children’s lives? Being “devastated” over joint custody sounds melodramatic and selfish.

      • Samtha says:

        That’s how it sounded to me, too, littlestar: like putting your (general your) own emotions and desires ahead of the best interests of your kids.

      • K says:

        As a mother, I would welcome it. Because if your kids don’t have a relationship with their father, that creates a wound that is lifelong.

        Kelly, it would seem, does not give an airborne fornication.

      • cannibell says:

        Everything you said, K, but especially “airborne fornication.” Sheer brilliance!

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      “The thought of sharing her children”

      Well unless their husband is abusive any woman who’s horrified she’ll have to share custody with the person who helped make the child isn’t logical by half. Women don’t produce sperm, you will always need another person to help you and even if you two don’t stay together or even like each other that person has every equivalent right to their own children just as you do.

      Women like Kelly and Halle should honestly just adopt. No pesky custody and they can make sure to be the only person in their children’s lives forever.

      • dagdag says:

        Pat, I had full custody of our children, that was just the case during the time in my country. But I have never had the thought of „sharing“ our children with my ex-partner. In fact, I expected him to be a full parent of our children, as much as possible, since the children lived with me. Our son was very attached to his father and I welcomed and encouraged any type of activity from my ex, whom I really despised the first years after the divorce.

        I truly believe that joint custody with a responsible partner makes life easier for all of the parties concerned.

      • dagdag says:

        I want to add that I always contacted my ex when important situations like school etc occurred . His lack of engagement has always been hurtful to me. But that was me and our children found their own terms of dealing with their father.

      • Ennie says:

        … and the children have a right to see and share time with their father.
        I am mystified by the “I’d be devastated as a mother” , what about the children? if they have a good father that is great!!!

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Right. To Pat – CHILDREN ARE NOT PROPERTY. They are human beings and they are not YOURS to SHARE with their own father. Good grief, these posts today are just outrageous.

    • kay says:

      why would any decent mother be bothered by “sharing” her children with their father? i hope you worded that poorly, rather than how it actually sounds.
      if my husband and i split up and were sharing custody, i would be heart broken over the times they weren’t with me JUST LIKE HE WOULD BE when they were with me…and neither of us would stand in the way of it because we put our kids first.
      she was not badly advised, she lied and cheated and stole.

      • LNG says:

        I’d go even further and say I would not only not be bothered by sharing custody, but be damn happy that my kids have two loving and engaged parents committed to giving them the best possible childhood and upbringing despite their feelings for each other.

        The fact that she has had so many sets of lawyers of the years and has still made the choices that she has tells me that she actually has gotten good advice, and has fired every lawyer that gave it to her until she found someone willing to enable her crazy.

      • Pat says:

        I think my comment was misconstrued. I only meant that I can understand as a parent how hard it must be to be separated from your kids because of a divorce. My husband is a present, engaged and great dad, but that doesn’t change the fact that if we divorced, it would be super hard on me! I would want my kids to have a relationship with him of course. I wouldn’t want to break their bond with him, but I get how it can be difficult to let go of your kids for half the time. And I know he would feel the same way.

        I agree, she brought the situation on herself. I am just saying that I kind of understand the feeling of wanting to have your kids full time. I understand the feeling as a primal need- but rationally- she should obviously have done what is best for the kids.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        @Pat
        Your last sentence – “she obviously should have done what’s best for the kids” – is why I have no sympathy for her. Regardless of your feelings, you should put your children first, and she has not done this a single time. Feelings don’t make you a bad mother. Actions do. And she’s a terrible mother.

    • Neah23 says:

      Why do you feel a mother feels more for kids then fathers dose? When it comes down it a father or a mother would lay their life down for their child in a heartbeat and please let’s not try to minimize fathers feeling for their kids to make a mothers feeling more important.

    • holly hobby says:

      She was standing right there when her former attorney threatened to have her ex deported. She did not interject so she is completely to blame for this current boondoggle.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Agree. If she cared two cents about her children having a father she wouldn’t have gone along with it, regardless of the advice she got. My lawyer wanted me to subpoena my ex’s best friends because they knew he cheated on me. I refused, and I hated my ex, because I thought that was below the belt to put them in that position. You don’t have to do crummy things just because your lawyer tells you to.

  69. msw says:

    Those poor children. My husband was dragged through custody crap like this (not across continents, but across the country) and it was such a disaster. Both of his parents were 100% convinced the other was not just an unfit parent, but a terrible person, and they both went broke suing each other over and over again. Guess what he thinks about his childhood now.

  70. Giddy says:

    I hope that the first thing Daniel does, after hugging the kids, is to let them put on bright colors!

  71. Jas says:

    I’m so glad they’re safely on the way home. Thankfully the judge refused to indulge her histrionics. I really hope that Daniel gets sole custody now and that all future contact with Kelly is supervised by a children’s advocate. I can only imagine the emotional damage she has created by saying all sorts of awful things to them.

  72. NUTBALLS says:

    Wow. I go for a run and come back and find the kids on their way to the airport to fly home. Glad to see this standoff ended so quickly.

    I can’t imagine that a Monaco Court will allow the kids to come back to the US unsupervised after what she pulled this weekend.

    • Katherine says:

      I can’t either, they’d have to be stupid or nuts. Or both.

    • grumpy bird says:

      I agree, I can’t imagine this won’t impact the custody arrangement – I hope the three extra days were worth it. Seriously, what did she think would happen??

  73. Betti says:

    And what of Kelly – what is going to happen to her after she broke a court order? Guess the self entitled twit is going to get away with it – she should have at least been slung in the slammer overnight for what she did.

    She shouldn’t be getting away with kidnapping her own kids.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The court could decide whether or not to charge her with contempt, but it doesn’t look like they did. Giersch didn’t press criminal charges to have her arrested for kidnapping. He filed an order for her to appear in court. Again, showing restraint.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ notasugarhere

        Yes, he’s yet again shown considerable restraint.

        I have to admire his strength and patience. I’m sure if the situation were reversed, she’d have been imprisoned, and take the kids on a media tour having them .

      • grumpy bird says:

        Like superhuman levels of restraint. I think most parents’ instincts would be to call in the cavalry but having their mother arrested would probably be traumatizing for the kids.

      • anne_000 says:

        I mean, if the situation were reversed, she’d have HIM imprisoned…

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Giersch does not have to file a complaint for criminal charges to be lodged against Kelly. The prosecutor’s office could take the case to a grand jury with or without his consent and use Kelly’s and her lawyer’s statements to the media as well as the records from today’s habeas corpus proceedings to build a case for custodial interference or abduction or any other NY state offenses she might have committed. It might not be a bad strategy for a prosecutor just to bring charges against her now – even if they are later dropped – as a way of letting Kelly and her attorney know that NY state does NOT mess around and her antics in their state will have criminal consequences.

        Judge Gesmer could also hold her in contempt of court for her antics today and seek to jail or fine her for wasting the court’s time. But since the kids were delivered within a reasonable time after the hearing was called and are now (hopefully) safely on their way back to Monaco, I doubt Judge Gesmer will make a civil contempt case against Kelly.

        I believe the feds could bring charges against her too for international child abduction or if she took the kids across state lines over the weekend. But more likely they will cede jurisdiction to the NY criminal justice system rather than waste any time on Kelly.

        The burning questions for me are these: can Monaco press charges against her for custodial interference? Will she be arrested if/when she goes to court there on September 3rd? I am not a French or EU legal expert, but apparently France has a law that allows French authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes in its court system when those crimes occur in other countries to its citizens. I remember hearing about a case a few years ago in which a dual U.S.-French citizen was murdered. The French version of the FBI was able to get permission to come to the U.S. and conduct a parallel investigation along with the local police. I believe the alleged murderer was eventually charged and extradited to France for trial too, although I do not remember what ultimately happened.

        Admittedly, these children are German citizens habitually resident in Monaco, but they are EU citizens. I imagine there is a case to be made that this French extraterritorial prosecution law could apply in this situation even though they do not hold French passports. Or perhaps Germany or the EU has a similar extraterritorial prosecution law for its citizens. Anyone in Europe know?

      • notasugarhere says:

        I will second someone’s earlier post and say, Thank you for posting here and explaining these things so well.

        I hope all involved authorities file all appropriate charges against her. She’s gotten away with these criminal games for far too long.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Chiming in with NOTA… thank you BearcatLawyer for shedding light on this case for the rest of us.

      • Liberty says:

        +1 with Nota and Nutballs…thank you for the clarifying explanations.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        @notasugarhere, Nutballs, and Liberty – I appreciate your kind words. One reason I keep posting when I probably should be doing other things is that there is so much misinformation on the web – especially about my specialty, U.S. immigration law. While sometimes I feel like my posts sound too professor-y (which I was), I think it is critical that people who are genuinely trying to understand all the issues and learn more get FACTS, not media BS or random opinions. Hence, I will sometimes cite to the exact provisions of US law even though I know full well the average nonlawyer will not read it, or if they do, they likely will not understand all the nuances. But at least then people can see why I write what I write.

        And I also like to encourage people to think about the slippery slopes, potential pitfalls, and interesting aspects of legal problems (e.g., whether Kelly could face criminal charges in the EU for refusing to return the children even though the crime arguably occurred solely on US soil). As we have seen, members of the media and thousands of online commenters have reduced this complex, heartbreaking situation to stupid sound bites: “An activist judge deported/exiled U.S. citizen kids! The kids have been abducted internationally by court order! The father is a terrorist who should never be allowed to see his kids ever again!” But this case is not that simple, and similar situations happen to non-celebrities every day (as we have seen on this site more than once). At the very least a case like this is an excellent cautionary tale for all of us. So be careful whom you marry and with whom you reproduce. Immigration laws can be draconian and affect your life forever. Just because a lawyer wants to help you does not mean s/he will give you good advice or act ethically, and their acts and omissions can have serious consequences for you. Fighting a case in the court of public opinion is rarely a good strategy. Watch what you say and how you say it. I could go on and on…

        Despite what I do for a living – which frequently results in very tangible and life-altering results for my clients (a visa, a green card, a court order preventing their deportation, etc.) – you might be surprised to learn that relatively few of my clients are genuinely appreciative of my work. In fact, it seems the more miracles that I perform for a client, the LESS likely they are to express any kind of gratitude even though I have been in the trenches with them all along. Some days it feels like all I hear is “It’s taking too long. You charge too much. The government charges too much. What the government is doing to me isn’t fair. Why aren’t you making them do what I want? Why won’t you at least try to do what I want [even after I have explained countless times that what the client wants is illegal/unethical/an incorrect or impermissible procedure/unlikely to achieve the stated goal]?” So it is nice to be thanked for a change!!!

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        @Bearcatlawyer, “Or perhaps Germany or the EU has a similar extraterritorial prosecution law for its citizens. Anyone in Europe know? ” I do know investigation can ocurr within european countries, Scotland Yard investigated the disappearance of the McCann girl in Portugal, but I have no idea if that can happen in US soil… But I know any European country can extradite from the US, as
        well as the opposite…

        PS: found online an answer to the quetsion? Prosecuting crimes committed in another country does make some sense, especially for countries that never extradite their own citizens as a matter of policy. For example, France will happily prosecute crimes committed by French people everywhere in the world and the law also allows prosecuting crimes whose victims are French citizens. Neither are very common because in practice it’s kind of difficult to investigate but the law does allow it. French judges even occasionally go abroad to hear witnesses, collect material evidence, etc. (as you can see, the procedure is very different than in the US and judges take an active role in many inquiries)

  74. minx says:

    She. Is. NUTS.

  75. Talie says:

    I wonder how her kids are feeling. I mean, from their perspective, they were just torn away from their mother in a rather dramatic way. Messy…

    • anne_000 says:

      How was that done?

      Their grandma, who lives with them, flew in all the way from Monaco to go pick them up.

      Of course, it would have been easier if Kelly had just peacefully put them on the plane last week like she was supposed to do.

    • cr says:

      From the children’s perspective, or from Kelly’s perspective? Because those are different things, despite what Kelly may wish.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They weren’t “torn away from their mother”. They knew they were supposed to fly back HOME to their father last week. They were probably terribly confused and upset that they weren’t allowed to go home. And upset because their mother most likely didn’t let them talk to him on the phone or via skype for the past few days either.

      They are now with their grandmother, on a plane, flying HOME to their father.

      • cr says:

        Yes, but home isn’t AMERICA, and that’s very traumatic for them!! They’ll be going back to the hellhole that is Monaco (NOT AMERICA!), they won’t even being speaking American English (God’s greatest language) all the time.
        Also, they won’t be with their mother, who is the greatest nurturer of all nurturers, as all mothers are. Especially American mothers.

      • Skipper says:

        Your comment is so purely speculative, when quite the opposite could be true. Perhaps they are upset to have to leave their mother and would wish to spend more time with her. Just because the public hates Kelly doesn’t mean her kids do too. You know have no way of knowing the truth about the children’s feelings towards her; none of us do.

      • Jen says:

        regardless of whether they “knew they were supposed to fly back home” it still would have been traumatic for them. I speak from personal experience. My mother and father divorced when I was 10 and my sister was 9. My mother is British and my dad American. Until they divorced we all lived in America. My mum took as back to England with her and my dad fought custody on the same grounds of kidnapping and won. I will NEVER forget being TORN from my mothers arms and being put into a police car to go back to my father. It was the SINGLE most tragic thing that has happened to me and still haunts me to this day (even at 30 years old). The courts had asked my sister and I who we wanted to live with and we both said our mother. That didn’t seem to matter though.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m not assuming THEIR kids hate her, nor am I assuming that THEIR kids hate their father. The kids might prefer to have both parents around. Their father allows and works towards that, their mother doesn’t.

        Why assume that this smart judge allowed a scene to happen? Kids could have been taken through the side door into another room where grandmother is waiting. Happy reunion. Grandma says, “We’re going back home to see Daddy. Time to get ready for the new school year just like we do every year. We’ll call your mommy tonight as usual.”

        Court documents have shown that from a young age, their son has shown anxiety being away from his FATHER, who was his main care giver. As BearCatLawyer explained in another thread, there is most likely a neutral third party (ex. guardian ad litem) who is there advocating for the kids’ best interest. Asking children this age to choose one or the other, and the risk that one parent could be poisoning the kids against the other parent, is somewhat mitigated.

      • LNG says:

        I’m sorry that you had to go through that – it sounds terrible. But I guarantee that these kids were not torn from their mother’s arms and put into a police car. Courts are generally a lot better at this sort of thing than they used to be (hence, if you read the 2012 decision, there are strict requirements in place for the hand overs, down to what each child could be carrying,to cause the least amount of distress to the kids as possible). They were likely given the opportunity to say goodbye to Mom, who was given strict instructions not to be hysterical, and were taken to the airport by grandma.

        People need to realize when they’re having kids with someone in a country that is foreign to them the kids are most often ordered to stay in that country if the family breaks up, as that is where they were born and where their community is. This case is very much the exception to the rule, and Daniel would not have been allowed to move those kids out of the USA had Kelly not pulled the stunt that she pulled with his visa.

      • Neah23 says:

        @ Jen and Taile

        Do you not think it was traumatic for them to be torn away from their father and be forced to spend months away from him .

      • Jen says:

        @ LNG yes thankfully I imagine the courts are much better than what they were 18 years ago. What I meant earlier about this being traumatic for them is the fact that she created all this drama and HAS made it traumatic for them by allowing the courts to get involved to send them home. I imagine it was upsetting and confusing for them.

        @ Neah23 I don’t think i’ve made myself very clear but i’m not on Kelly’s side. She is the one who created this whole mess in the first place. To answer your question no I don’t think it was traumatic for them spending the summer holidays with their mum and away from dad. I used to spend 6 weeks every summer in America with my dad once he let us move back with my mum. It was always something to look forward to.

      • LNG says:

        Jen, I agree. The outcome of her actions was pretty much guaranteed – no question they were being sent back to their father. Instead of sending her kids home last week as peacefully as possible she has definitely made this needlessly difficult for them. And who knows what she was telling them in the meantime about what was happening. Hopefully the courts impose a solution that will prevent this from happening to them again in the future.

      • Jess says:

        @jen, sorry I couldn’t respond directly to you, but that story made me tear up, how awful for you and your sister! Please tell me you guys were reunited not long after?

      • Jen says:

        @ Jess it was two years before my dad allowed us to move to England and back with our mum. During those two years we only saw her twice. It definitely left attachment issues. Even to the point that i put off going to college because I couldn’t bare to be away from my mother.

        Reading stories like this does bring back those awful memories. I think that’s partly why it makes me angry that she would pull a stunt like this. I don’t think she understands the repercussions this will have on her children later on in life. I’m glad the reports all say they were happy when they went odd with their grandmother.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      The reports all say the children were happy to see their grandmother, who they know very well, kissed their mother goodbye and were smiling when they left. Hardly “torn away” from their mother. They have been living with their father for awhile now, and I’m sure they are looking forward to seeing him. Honestly, the melodramatic bias towards mothers over fathers on some of these posts is just mind-boggling. Were they “torn away” from their father when they came here?

      @Jen, what happened to you was terrible, and I am truly sorry for it. I can see why it would put you back in a bad place emotionally and how hard it would be to imagine a child feeling differently than you did when you had to endure such an insensitive handling of an awful situation. It must have been terrifying and heartbreaking. But you were used to being with your mother. These children have lived primarily with their father, and I don’t believe they went through anything like the trauma that you experienced. They weren’t crying or protesting. They were smiling and waving goodbye.

      • jwoolman says:

        They also knew they would see her in early September again in Monaco, and would be able to video chat with her every day. I think this arrangement works pretty well for them. Kelly could make it even better if she cut the histrionics and focused on as many long visits as possible or relocation. She speaks both French and English, that actually gives her some job options over there.

  76. claire says:

    I can’t imagine how stressful that must have been for Daniel and his family to hear she hadn’t brought the kids. Those immediate thoughts, the horror, the worry of what she might have done. F**k her for using these kids this way. So glad they are on their way to the airport. May they achieve some normalcy finally after such a long summer with this nutjob.

  77. InvaderTak says:

    So what happens next law type people? Is this judge going to make decisions about anything else or does Monaco get to do that next month? Fine for being in violation of the court order?

    • LB says:

      I don’t handle family or criminal law so grain of salt, please.

      The violation of a court order – she could be cited for contempt but I doubt she will be if the judge didn’t say anything today. As for child kidnapping, abduction charges, I have doubts anyone will pursue that either if Daniel doesn’t press the matter, which he hasn’t beyond a statement from his lawyer.

      Custody hearing back in Monaco in September – I wouldn’t be surprised if Daniel pursued sole custody more vigorously at this point. Or more supervision. He can cite how problematic she is every time she has to return the kids.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m going to guess he’ll act with restraint. Request that the Monaco court make statements about why their jurisdiction will stand. Does anyone know the nature of the September 3 custody hearing? Is it jurisdiction-based or was it meant as a meeting to re-examine custody overall?

        My guess? He’ll ask Monaco to make the guts of existing CA ruling stand, 50/50 custody, him as residential parent. Not a mirror order of the CA ruling, but a formal Monaco ruling if that is required. Reiterate the requirement that children not be used in the media. Some type of travel restrictions, involving a third party holding the passports. Any requirement for him to try to return to the US has already been removed I think.

        I don’t think he’ll go for sole custody at this point. She isn’t done pitching her fit about jurisdiction and American Children Without American Representation. That is what he has to get settled first, that Monaco has jurisdiction and both the US and Monaco courts agree to that. Once that is established, she’ll have a Sad ‘Murican Mom PR Tour. IF she ever accepts Monaco’s jurisdiction, then she’ll start tearing the custody agreement apart again.

      • pleaseicu says:

        Would the NY court have grounds to cite her for contempt for violation of the custody order or would it be up to the Monaco court to cite her for contempt when they meet in September? Weren’t the NY courts just acting as a surrogate and enforcing the Monaco court’s order?

      • LNG says:

        Any court can enforce a custody order, and one of the means they have to do that is by issuing a contempt order. It is unlikely that any court will do that now, as the kids have been returned. Had she refused to bring the kids to court today the court likely would have issued a contempt order and taken her into custody until the kids were brought to the court. She could be ordered to pay costs.

        I think her options are becoming very limited in the jurisdiction argument (legally that is, she will fight it out in the media and try to get politicians on board until the end of time). The American courts have said that they don’t have jurisdiction over the custody fight anymore. California was supposed to keep jurisdiction over the kids after they moved to Monaco, but that only works if Kelly continues to live in California. One of the parties has to have a connection to the state in order for the court to have jurisdiction. When she moved to NY she needed to set up a mirror order within a certain amount of time if she wanted the NY courts to have the ability to actually change (versus simply enforce) the custody order. She didn’t do it, so now NY’s hands are tied – the kids never had any “real and substantial connection” to NY.

        Nota, I think it is hard to say what Daniel will do next. He has been so moderate and facilitated the relationship so well thus far, but I cannot see him not attempting to change the custody order because it allows her to take the kids out of Monaco, and she’s shown that she has no problem violating the order. He must be so terrified that she will disappear with the kids.

      • kai says:

        Why didn’t she set up this mirror order in NYC then? what was her thinking there? Just plain dumbassness?

      • Michelle says:

        @kai— I think she wanted it overturned, even though she agreed to it. She still wanted to get sole custody so she didn’t file the Mirror Order in NY.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ LNG

        Thanks LNG and thanks for all your informative posts.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I doubt he will push for sole custody right away, but I do believe that he will push for Monaco to assume jurisdiction over the custody case and to seek additional restrictions on her visitation and travel with the children. For example, I find it difficult to believe that he will ever allow Kelly to have unsupervised access to the children’s U.S. or E.U. passports again.

      Eventually, after Kelly and her nutjob attorneys have hoisted themselves on their own petards a few more times (especially if she keeps up doing pap walks with the kids and making incendiary, unfounded accusations during interviews), then I think he and his attorneys will quietly move for sole custody with more limited rights and visitation for Kelly. If he goes after her tooth and nail now (despite the fact that it seems like he has every reason to want to nail her to a wall), it will only add fuel to her fire. Better for him to do everything to tamp down her nonsense and come across as the only calm, reasonable parent who actually wants what is best for the children.

      • notasugarhere says:

        BCL, that’s what I think too. He has to keep playing the long game. Any moves for sole custody now will make her scream even more loudly. Monacan jurisdiction has to be firmly established and be uncontested, then they can move forward.

        I’m already feeling sorry for the poor lawyer who will be assigned to be her European law expert.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        @notasugarhere, isn’t Amal the Unicorn International Lawyer in Como right now? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and true and holy, PLEASE Monaco court system, appoint Amal as Kelly’s EU law expert!

      • NUTBALLS says:

        It seems reasonable that in addition to asking Monaco to assume jurisdiction over the case that Daniel ask that all future visits be supervised and that the children’s passports held by a third party. I’ll be astonished if she’s allowed to have custody of their passports or be alone with them going forward after two separate violations of the law this past week.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Oh my word, dueling fashion shows in the court room from the same side of the aisle. Angelic Mommy All-White vs. whatever strangely-juvenile couture the unicorn charged to George’s Black AmEx today. Think she’d give up the rumored Celebrity Apprentice appearance for this?

        Sometimes I swear she’s the thirstiest woman he’s ever partnered with.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Oh Nutballs, you had me at Binkley. “Bloom County” is the best, and I am so glad they are back!

        Notasugarhere, Amal has no business trying to host “Celebrity Apprentice.” She hasn’t been a CEO or founded her own business or anything like that. Besides, since she is an international criminal lawyer who loves the cameras and attention, repping Kelly in Monaco should be right up her alley!

  78. Pat says:

    It was also Daniel’s proposal that the kids live with him in France. He has played this very smart and calmly from day one. Kelly has been driven by emotion (irrational at times), perhaps caused by the fear of loosing her kids.

    • anne_000 says:

      Actually, he wanted to share custody in the US.

      He never asked Kelly to have him banned from coming to the US.

  79. Lurker says:

    She really made her bed now. There’s no way those kids are coming back to the US without strict supervision ever again. And when she goes there, forget about it.

    She is so delusional that it’s scary.

  80. funcakes says:

    What a selfish witch! Cats take better care of their offspring.
    Its strange how none of her family members have never come to her defense or is she all alone in the world?

    • Becks says:

      She has at least one younger brother. He was seen to accompany her when she made her very first visit to Monaco to visit the children after they moved there with Giersch.

  81. Samtha says:

    How long now until we get a tear-filled appearance by Kelly on some talk show or an “I’ll never give up fighting!” press release to People? Anyone taking bets?

    • cr says:

      Dan Abrams and People are her go-to’s. I’d really like an actual journalist to investigate why Abrams is so very, very Team Kelly, to the point he actually has to ignore facts in order to do so.

      • K says:

        I suspect it’s fairly simple: as Daniel isn’t talking (because to do so is to invade the children’s privacy and he actually, you know, loves his kids) Kelly is the celebrity cash cow.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Its all about the clicks and viewers (i.e. money), not the truth. Abrams won’t be taken seriously as a lawyer after this.

        I’d love to see someone at NYT or WSJ do an op-ed on his unprofessional behavior.

    • Katherine says:

      lol Bingo.

    • Giddy says:

      I really wish that the judge had issued a gag order. Kelly’s self-serving statements, lies, and innuendos are going to be awful.

  82. Miss M says:

    Giersch had shown time and time again that he puts the kids FIRST. His lawyer requested her appearance in the court and they didn’t release place and time to protect their kids against the media circus. I wonder who called the media…
    He also put his kids FIRST when his lawyer wanted her to show up in court before he requested her arrest.

  83. K says:

    So much money spent and so much hurt caused by this woman, and who ends up without her kids by her side most of the time? She does. For all her hysterical claims of devotion, she couldn’t be working much harder to ensure restricted and sporadic in-person contact if she tried.

    • LNG says:

      +1 Her behavior is so bizarre because it virtually ensures that she won’t get what she wants. I cannot imagine that her lawyer did not tell her this. She may be advocating for her as best she can now, but it would be completely negligent for her not to tell Kelly the almost certain legal outcome of her actions. It isn’t like the law on this point is complicated.

  84. Sam says:

    Man, Dan Abrams is burning up twitter in her defense. I love this one in particular:

    Dan Abrams ‏@danabrams · 21m21 minutes ago
    Amazing to me that those opposed to @KellyRutherford don’t seem to care what her ex did to lose his Visa. . .

    Um, Dan? You’re a lawyer. That means you were taught at some point that mere allegation cannot be used as the basis for a ruling. Lawyers generally concern ourselves with a certain word…uh, starts with an “e”…um, EVIDENCE. Was there ever any evidence that he actually did any of things she alleged? And why did a court previously find her allegations to be without merit?

    And also, if these things were really true and her ex is arms dealing, supporting terrorism and the like, then personally – why is she handing her kids back to him? If my ex was so awful that he was placing my kids in physical danger, I’d be a fugitive before I’d give them back. And also, presumably, if he’s that bad and she can substantiate the allegations, why hasn’t the State Department taken any action? As far as I know, Giersch hasn’t had any action taken against him by any government – so if he is an arms dealer, he is the luckiest arms dealer in the world.

    He needs to step off-line for a while. His personal relationship with her is clouding his judgment and making him look foolish.

    • Down and Out says:

      +1. Not just foolish as a lawyer, but tremendously irresponsible as a journalist.

    • Saywhatwhen says:

      Defamatory at some point? Does ABC News care about that?

    • NUTBALLS says:

      His credibility has been shot in this whole affair. ABC needs to sack him.

    • jwoolman says:

      Also, if any of her claims were true – why did he refuse to sign away his visitation rights when she and her lawyer threatened him, as detailed in the 2013 Decision? They told him the visa troubles would vanish if he signed. He still refused. Does that sound like a man worried about the U.S. government? If her claims were true, he was risking prison.

  85. Jen says:

    The children are the ones I really feel sorry for. It is hard living in a different country to one of your parents. I speak from personal experience. My mother and father divorced when I was 10 and my sister was 9. My mother is British and my dad American. Until they divorced we all lived in America. My mum took as back to England with her and my dad fought custody on the same grounds of kidnapping and won. I will NEVER forget being TORN from my mothers arms and being put into a police car to go back to my father. It was the SINGLE most tragic thing that has happened to me and still haunts me to this day (even at 30 years old). The courts had asked my sister and I who we wanted to live with and we both said our mother. That didn’t seem to matter though. At the end of the day these poor kids are going to always have traumatic memories of being apart from their mother. I’m not saying she is in the right or he is in the right, It’s just a very sad situation for the kids all around :(

    • Ennie says:

      … and wouldn’t they be haunted if they’d been cut out from ever seeing their father, like Kelly wanted?
      And they still saw her, see her ,and will probably see her if she does not let her crazy come before her.

      • Jen says:

        Yes, which is why the situation is sad for the kids all around like I said above. Also they might see her 6 times a year but let me tell you AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN THROUGH THIS it is never enough. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors. Also until you have experienced something like this yourself you will never fully understand what it must feel like for the children. Neither of my parents were bad parents but the memories still scarred my sister and I. I ended up having therapy and my sister still can’t talk about it to this day. Kelly is clearly an emotional person who has made very bad judgement calls. I’m not condoning her behaviour. If anything she is the one to blame for all of this. The children will most likely end up having a lot of resentment towards her like I did my father.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Jen

        She’s visited them 70 times, with six of the visits per year paid for by Daniel, including air fare, car service, and residence.

        Then he sends them to the US every summer to be with Kelly.

        She’s the only one of the two allowed to get on a plane and go see them and Daniel hasn’t stopped her from seeing them more than 6 times per year.

        If the kids were with Kelly, his US travel ban wouldn’t allow him in the country to see the kids.

        Keeping in mind that it was her side that helped get him that travel ban and his visa getting revoked.

        She was supposed to send an affidavit to help correct his visa issues, but according to the court documents, she hasn’t.

        Is it because she thinks it’ll be to her advantage to try to keep the kids in the US if he stays banned?

      • Jen says:

        And that’s exactly why they will end up resenting her. She could change all of this if she wanted to. Whether she has seen them 70 times or 6 times it still must be hard for them to not be able to see her all the time. I don’t think she will ever understand the lasting damage she has put these children through. Especially when they are at a young age like that.

        I’ve never said i’m on her side and think the children should be with her. I think it’s an absolute tragedy the children are being put through all of this. She’s going to end up alienating her own children.

      • Ennie says:

        I agree w/you. It is terrible. The judge has said that they both are good parents (I take it as they are good to the children , around them, but she’s just not willing to share, and already created a huge mistrust about her parenting actions.
        I bet that if she was the main caretaker she would be finding excuses not to sent the children to him. I hope that she is not brainwashing/speaking badly of him and his family when they are with her.

    • Neah23 says:

      “I’m not saying she is in the right or he is in the right, It’s just a very sad situation for the kids all around ”

      All the while say she is right and please to sugarcoat it just come out and say that you think the kids should be with mom.😩😩😩😩😪😪

      • Jen says:

        I NEVER said they should be with her. I’m saying that I feel sorry for the poor children because I have been through this exact situation and I know the lasting damage this will have on them, just like it did myself.

      • Neah23 says:

        I have a question was your mother forced to leave the country or did she just decide to move back to England?

        You keep talking about them being torn away from their mother but not about them being torn way from their father and being forced to be away from him for months.

      • Jen says:

        It was very complicated. She decided to leave because my father was having affairs. She couldn’t stay in the United States because she didn’t have any financial support or family support. I also have a half brother (different dad) who was older and chose to live in England with my grandparents so it swayed her decision. The reason I haven’t mentioned about the effect of them being torn from their father is because they know they are going back to him and therefore its not the same (if that makes sense). After two years my dad decided to let us live in England with my mum permanently and we only saw him during the summer holidays for 2 months. We never missed mum during that time because we enjoyed being with Dad. I hope this makes sense to you now.

    • morc says:

      Okay, but your traumatic experiences are only anecdotal evidence and can’t be projected on theirs.

      • chaser says:

        Dude seriously. Its called empathy. Look it up and get some.

        While you’re at it, re-read Jens original comment. At no time does she take sides, she is just talking about how devastating it is to be in that position and that no matter what happens (right or wrong) the kids lose out.

        I think Kelly is a she-devil. Doesn’t stop me agreeing with Jen. I think the courts will do the ‘right’ thing but doesn’t mean that these kids won’t bare the scars of a separated and ‘unstable family for the rest of their lives.

      • Katherine says:

        @chaser Except, there was no scene of them being upset at being supposedly “torn” from their mother. It was a very drama-free goodbye, they’re used to being with their father and most likely were wondering why they couldn’t just go home last week as planned. If those children are scarred, it’s not from going home with their grandmother like always. It’s due to Kelly’s psychosis, her lies and manipulations will scar them more than being taken home by their grandmother to finally be with their father. Not every situation is the same, you can’t paint them all with the same brush. It has nothing to do with empathy, morc made a simple statement that is quite valid. It’s not like people here don’t have any empathy for Jen’s situation, they’re just pointing out that her experience is HER experience, not anyone else’s.

      • chaser says:

        You aren’t getting it. Jen was never comparing her traumatic story to Kelly’s kids story. She was telling her story and then just commenting that having a split unstable family that lives apart can really suck.

        We both agree with you that the kids shouldn’t be with Kelly. It can still be a sad outcome. Things being ‘right’ and ‘sad’ aren’t mutually exclusive – life just isn’t that black and white.

        ANYWAY, my comment was reflecting the complete lack of empathy in morc’s response. Your response shows that you don’t get what empathy is either. It is a really special and necessary trait to have. Try it sometime.

  86. anne_000 says:

    Sorry if this was mentioned upthread…

    From People:

    “Basically nothing has changed. The court order in California that was then entered in Monaco remains consistent, the children primarily reside with Mr. Giersch in Monaco,” Ira Garr, an attorney for Rutherford’s ex-husband Daniel Giersch, told reporters after the hearing Tuesday.

    “Rutherford is free to visit anytime she wants and she has certain specified times under the agreement, but she had indicated at one point that she would like to come at the end of the summer so they can take the children to school together. He has been perfectly accommodating to whatever request she has made. He just wanted to make sure the children were coming back as they were supposed to.”

    Garr and Giersch’s other lawyer, Robert Michaels, said Rutherford also gave Giersch’s mother the children’s U.S. passports.”
    …………………………….

    So…. Daniel still isn’t prohibiting from seeing the kids in Monaco even after all she’s done over these years. He’s still trying to deal amicably with her no matter what.

    She’s planning to come go see them before the September hearing and it looks like he’s willing to comply.

    Again, if the situation was reversed, I believe she would not be so accommodating. Rather, she’d have him arrested and ensure that he never got to see them during their minor years.

    • Aren says:

      After this I don’t think it’s such a great idea that he’s trying to be so reasonable. She’s crazy, out of control, and dangerous; and yes, I do believe she’s capable of harming the kids more severely than what she has done already.

      Just the act of trying to kidnap them will give those kids this bizarre memory of going to court and taking a plane without any previous notice. Who does that? Who traumatizes her own kids just to spite an ex?

    • anne_000 says:

      I’m glad she turned over the passports. Finally.

      I wonder if the reason why Kelly turned the passports over was because the judge forced her to or because there was an agreement with Daniel’s lawyer that in exchange for the passports, they won’t file charges against her or sue her in civil court.

      (By the way, Daniel’s lawyer said Kelly was supposed to have turned them over to a neutral third party by a previous court order.)

      But now that she can’t use the passport issue to claim that Daniel won’t allow her to see the kids, what new sticking point is she going to come up with to use against him?

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think she’ll fight Monacan jurisdiction. She can’t dump the ‘Murica argument at this point. It is what gained her so many of her nutty supporters.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Punishment for violating a court order contemptuously is up to the judge and only the judge. The parties can’t agree that the judge won’t hold a party in contempt.

  87. Whitney says:

    I’m so glad the kids are on their way home to their father. I was genuinely concerned, like a lot of others on here, that this was going to end tragically.

    And if Kelly loves America so much, I bet she’ll just love experiencing real American prison life! No, seriously, she needs to receive some sort of legal/criminal punishment for this.

    I also think this little stunt is going to cost her every sort of rights she had to her kids, as it should. She is just a vile, vile person.

    • Aren says:

      Seriously, why is nobody holding her accountable for her actions? The judges are creating a monster, she has been getting away with violating the law for years. I hope one day the system doesn’t regret not stopping her.

      • Saywhatwhen says:

        @Aren: Agreed. I have a terrible feeling about this level of restraint being exercised towards a woman who has demonstrated to the world at large that she plays fast and loose with the wellbeing of her children…please someone kidnap my American children and bring them to me!!!. Woman, you could be courting pedophiles, international slave traders and serial killers!!! The restraint and reasonableness on the ex-husband’s part is understandable; but a judge needs to teach her a lesson…she is far too entitled and reckless! She endangers her children’s lives and at this stage only a Court can nip her sociopathy in the bud…it is extremely serious at this stage!

        The judge should have held her in contempt the minute she saw that the children were not at Rutherford’s side! Is she so powerful in NYC that no one realizes that she needs a good slap down!

    • jojo says:

      i hate to say it, but if the situation was reversed, and the father withheld the kids, he would have been thrown in jail. The courts in the US favor women so much is ridiculous.

      • Katherine says:

        And therein, lies the problem. I understand why the mother is favored most of the time in American courts. But, it also tends to be problematic when she’s not the more fit parent. These custody situations need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Blanket judgments that basically say the mother is ALWAYS the better parent are really dangerous. A lot of times, the father is the more stable and fit parent. There are horrible mothers and horrible fathers on both sides of the aisle. In this case, the father is far more stable and more fit to parent than the mother.

      • Becks says:

        It’s only a slight hyperbole to say that the children would be better off being raised by Wolves than by Kelly.

  88. morc says:

    Personally, I don’t understand why Giersch didn’t move to the Bahamas, where it’s easy to get residents permits if you invest, or even easier, the British Virgin Islands, I believe as an EU citizen he’d be allowed to live/reside there as in Monaco.

    Not dealing any blame, just considering logistics.

    • anne_000 says:

      Considering that it seems as if Kelly doesn’t want to share custody, I don’t think it would have mattered even if he lived right next door to her in the US.

      Also, why should he move to a country in which he has no connections?

      The Judge already considered the Bahama issue during the 2013 decision. He said it wouldn’t be fair for the kids.

    • Saywhatwhen says:

      But the man has no family, friends or support network in the Bahamas. And he stills has to make a living and conduct his business even as he deals with Madame Narcissist. Exactly just how far is a father to bend over for a mother who got him deported? Monaco versus Bahamas? For business, EU protection, protection against crazy lady across the Atlantic, good schools for my children, family support, hell…decent roads? Sorry people of Bahamas and India Hicks. But Monaco any day.

      • Boo says:

        Whoa. Bahamas are not safe and not good for those kids. I’m half bahamian. Healthcare is bad, education is no comparison to developed countries. Monaco is way better for those children.

      • morc says:

        I was under the (apparently false) impression that the Bahamas as a tax haven for corporations were wealthy and developed.

    • Becks says:

      Actually, Daniel gave an interview about a travel App he invented inspired by Hermes and Helena, whereby he talked about how great Monaco is for entrepreneurs and business people. He mentioned he founded his first company at 18, and moved to Monaco when he was 25.

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

      • morc says:

        I didn’t know he’s been living there that long.

      • Becks says:

        Yeah. He really does have significant ties to Monaco, not least of which is that his own mother also resides there. In fact, when he returned to Monaco after having to leave the U.S. he moved in with his mother and her partner. His ties to Monaco also puts paid to the people who bemoan that the kids have been banished to a foreign country.

        Did you read the article? I very much enjoyed what he said about both children being the inspiration for him in creating the App, and how he involved them in designing it.

        He seems like such an intelligent, creative, reasonable man. A father who wants to be a part of his children’s lives, and understands that kids need healthy relationships with both parents to flourish . Most mothers would love to have such a motivated father in the kids’ lives. And yet she was so “devastated” by the idea of joint custody, that she started the chain of events that is now being played out to everyone’s detriment.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        I thought two things in this interview revealed what many on this site have sensed all along about Mr. Giersch: that he is a committed, caring father who wants his kids to have a positive relationship with their mother even while she seeks to destroy him.

        1) His son Hermes wanted to send a postcard to his MOTHER. Daniel then creates an app so Hermes and his sister Helena can send postcards to her whenever and from wherever. Does this sound like a man who wants to alienate his kids from their mother?!?

        2) He says he hopes to visit California again “soon” despite apparently not having received a new U.S. visa yet. That suggests to me that he has at a minimum been considering ways to eventually obtain a new U.S. visa and he is not forever and unequivocally opposed to traveling to or moving back to the U.S. in the future. This also leads me to believe he genuinely wants his children to be comfortable in both the U.S. and Europe and will attempt to facilitate co-parenting with Kelly as the kids grow up.

        But even if this interview is the musings of some random PR person and not him at all, I must tip my hat to Mr. Giersch. He knows how to play the game much better than his ex-wife and her attorneys.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Becks

        Thanks for the link.

      • Becks says:

        I’ve long been impressed by this man.

        Anybody else who’s been put through the emotional and financial wringers as he’s been ….to have still maintained such a positive attitude speaks very well of him.

        Others have mentioned his restraint. When someone spews outright lies about you, and do it incessantly, almost like they are baiting you, how many of us can restrain ourselves from snapping back?

        Can you imagine the Stress he is under? Since before 2009, so it’s been 6 years with Kelly watching like a hawk for any small infraction.

        The reality of this breakup is that, for the rest of his life, he can never relax his guard.

  89. LNG says:

    TMZ has a video of her leaving the court – she talks a bit about how she “has no words”, but the most telling part of the video is when they get to the car. She gestures for all of the people that she is with to get in the car first allowing the paps to continue to take pictures of her and ask her questions. She just no doubt listened to a judge lecture on her terrible behavior, had her kids removed from her, and is still all about the media attention. That is clearly what this is about for her.

    • notasugarhere says:

      If Giersch allows her to accompany the kids for their first day back at school, I hope she is banned from bringing her paps with her. I wonder what Monaco’s laws are about photography in public. I can bet there are lots of people who live there who do not want to be photographed.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Quick research shows, it can be difficult to get permission to take photographs in Monaco. You must apply in advance for a Permit to Shoot. They are firmly anti-paparazzi. All the more reason for these kids to stay there imo, because their mother cannot pap them out.

      • jwoolman says:

        Their school is actually in France- Monaco is tiny and a hop and a skip (no jump needed) away. France has strict laws about picture taking of children without permission. Don’t know if it would apply since Kelly would give permission and the paps can skirt around the law by selling only outside France. Kim Kardashian’s little prop star Nori gets her pictures plastered all over the tabloids regularly when they’re in France. But the court order says to keep the kids out of the media. I can’t remember ever seeing pics of the kids with their dad since he’s had them in France and Monaco.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      I noticed that too and she made sure to stare directly into the camera while doing it. She also did not seem as upset as most parents are when they lose custody of their kids or are threatened by a judge with contempt charges, which had to happen in that courtroom in the closed part of the hearing.

    • Katherine says:

      Famewhore is a famewhore. lol

  90. Ella says:

    My thoughts are that the kids probably haven’t said anything bad about their father, that Kelly is just using this to shine a bad light on her ex husband by insinuating something is wrong. It’s the oldest trick in the book when you have parents that dislike, even hate each other. I don’t doubt that she loves her kids but the problem with custody battles like these, are that parents lose sight as to what’s in the best interest of the child, by making it an “I win, you lose” scenario. Sadly it’s the children that always lose in the end regardless who they end up with. Unfortunately with her pulling this latest stunt and not returning the children, it’s added additional fuel to the fire and could significantly help her ex-husband’s custody case. I hate to say it, but what goes around, comes around. Everyone involved needs to play by the rules.

  91. Pandy says:

    Note to self: no dual citizenship for any children.

    • Cee says:

      A better advise would be not to break any laws or make false accusations. Dual citizenship is extremely useful.

      • Saywhatwhen says:

        @Cee: Yup, my little bambina has 3 passports and garbles in 3 languages. At 18 she will have to choose 2 or 1 but in this here Global Village do not deprive your children of the little advantages that can help them get ahead…competition is fierce now and will be epic in the next coming years…

    • lunchcoma says:

      If you really don’t want the involvement of another parent in your child’s life, then I’d strongly suggest a sperm donor or adopting as a single parent. If you want to have kids with another person, you’re probably going to have to deal with them, and even within the US people can end up geographically separated from their children after a divorce.

  92. Liz says:

    There had to be a valid reason for why his Visa was revoked. It doesn’t matter if she turned him in. Unless she was declared an unfit mother, I can’t understand why the kids were allowed to live with him in a different country. It’s not enough that she talked shit about him.

    • morc says:

      Liz, please, do some research my little seal!

      Under the patriot act the accusation is enough, the US deals with this on a “better to be safe than sorry” basis, whether or not there is evidence or not.

    • Ennie says:

      Sealion clap.
      If you really do not understand, read this:
      http://harris-ginsberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Statement-of-Decision.pdf

    • Betti says:

      She accused him of being a gun running terrorist for South America with NO EVIDENCE to support her claim. A mere accusation is enough for a visa to be revoked. I understand that when the State Dept/Homeland Security looked into the claims they found NO EVIDENCE against him. She was ordered by a judge to write to the state department recanting her accusation but she has so far refused to do so. Again, i repeat there is no evidence that he’s a criminal. Given her recent actions she is.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      Actually, it only takes an allegation of alleged wrongdoing for a visa to be revoked. It does not matter if the allegation is true or later proven false, much less if the person in question is ever charged or convicted. Even when allegations are later shown to be utterly false, getting a new U.S. visa or being allowed to enter the U.S. on a new visa is never guaranteed.

      If you had read the 2012 CA custody order you would know that Kelly and her attorney threatened Daniel that they would make false accusations against him to the U.S. Department of State to get his O-1 visa revoked unless he voluntarily signed away his custodial rights then and there. The judge’s description of what Kelly and her attorney did to him is appalling and is a very good example of Kelly’s despicable behaviour in these proceedings.

      The children were allowed to live with him in Monaco because she created the problems in this case. She got his U.S. work visa revoked so he could not live legally in the U.S. and has refused to recant her prior accusations against him (likely because then the federal government could charge her with multiple crimes including lying to a U.S. government official, making false accusations of terrorism/criminal activity, conspiring with her attorney to defraud the U.S. government, etc., etc.). The CA family court judge found that over and over again Kelly refused to co-parent with Daniel and actively sought to alienate the children from him.

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      Unfortunately, it is enough. The US has been very touchy about terrorism for the last fourteen years or so, and they haven’t been rigorous about requiring evidence to lock someone down.

      What’s so weird about the kids living in another country? Their parents divorced; they live with one of their parents. They even have citizenship and fluently speak the language. And Monaco is darned nice; it’s arguably a better place to live than most parts of the US.

    • vauvert says:

      Lots has already been said by legal folks on multiple threads, but essentially yes, at this point in time, being reported as an arms dealer with terrorist connections, albeit not in any way proven, IS sufficient to get you on a no visa list for a good long time. It is probably easier and cheeper and more efficient for the US government to play it safe that way than to conduct a full blown investigation that would require a global effort. I mean how do you prove yourself innocent of such an accusation? No, there was never the slightest shred of evidence that he was any of the things she claimed, and the policy is perhaps stupid but it’s the law. She – or rather her lawyer at the time – knew this, they asked Daniel to give up custody and they would withdraw the accusation, he refused and didn’t back down. hence the mess.
      A US court declared that since the parents split custody and he could no longer live in the country due to her machinations, he would assume primary physical custody with Kelly having 6 annual visits (paid by him) and summer vacations. So yes, the fact that she talked sh*t about him TO THE GOVERNMENT resulting in him losing his ability to reside in the US is why the kids live with him in Monaco. And as German/American citizens the kids are automatically able to live with their dad anywhere in Europe.

    • Cee says:

      PLEASE – my mother has a very common name she probably shares with millions of women in the world, and one of these women is in some blacklist. Every time she sets foot in the US, she is taken away to a room while officers check her information, without ever giving her a reason. She recently found out at MIA, because she was alone, confused and scared, and an officer took pity on her and actually explained what was going on. She will forever be delayed and be target of suspicion until this other woman is detained.

      My mother has been travelling since forever, has been granted visas since our country lucked out of the Waiver program some 10 years ago, and been in and out of the US since at least the 70s. And she is always delayed and suspected. Imagine what happens when someone screams TERRORIST and ARM DEALER at a foreginer with a resident visa.

      • InvaderTak says:

        Lucked out of the Waiver program? What does that mean? I’ve never been out of the US so I know nothing of international travel.

      • morc says:

        I think she menat their country dropped out as they didn’t meet the criteria or didn’t want to give US reciprocity.

      • Cee says:

        I dont really know why we were dropped, maybe due to our massive economic meltdown in ’01 (although most migrated back to Europe where their grandparents where from, thanks to dual citizenships, ironically…)

        The first time I entered the US I was 1 year old and didnt have any kind of Visa or special passport. By the time I was 18 and we were dropped and needed Visas to get in, I applied for a work/tourist Visa and got granted one for 10 years. I recently renewed it. I also got my J1 Visa. Because we have to pay in order to apply for a Visa without actually knowing if its going to be granted, we charge the same amount to american citizens entering our country. Not the same as a Visa in terms of safety LOL

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        The main reason why certain countries are allowed to participate in ESTA (formerly known as the Visa Waiver Program or if you are an old fart like me, you remember when it started as the Visa Waiver Pilot Program) is that their citizens historically have low rates of immigration violations in the U.S. Thus, the risk that the citizens of these countries will overstay or work illegally or smuggle people in or commit crimes is low, especially in proportion to the total number of visitors to the U.S. from these countries every year. Reciprocity also plays a role, but the sad reality is that many countries who will never be allowed to participate in ESTA have far more favorable visa/entrance requirements for U.S. citizens, largely because they want U.S. tourist and investment dollars.

        Countries can get dropped from the ESTA program though if circumstances change. The economic crisis likely caused a sudden influx of your country’s citizens to the U.S., and the number of immigration and/or criminal violations in the U.S. probably increased to an intolerable number. So basically now your entire country pays for the past sins of a few. But as you have seen, people who have good track records of obeying the law and significant ties to their countries can still get and renew long-term nonimmigrant U.S. visas. It is not as convenient as ESTA to be sure, but it is better than a complete travel ban.

    • Katherine says:

      Kelly, you lost. Move on.

    • GreenieWeenie says:

      You make so many assumptions. Many years ago, before 9/11, my mother was flagged crossing the US border (she’s American). She had brought her Romanian friend who lived with us in Canada and was helping us move over the border. The border guard flagged her as trying to smuggle in an illegal immigrant to work illegally. I guess that was one interpretation of events.
      My mom was flagged for TEN YEARS. She had to petition Washington multiple times to get the flag removed. Being flagged means your vehicle is stopped and searched EVERY TIME you cross the border. We lived six km from the border and crossed frequently.
      So, visa being revoked for legitimate reasons? ID being flagged for legitimate reasons? BS. You’re flagged because someone feels like it, on a whim, for no reason. And my mom was an actual US citizen who had the right to enter/exit freely.

  93. DEB says:

    I just came across this … I surely hope this isn’t all actually true!!

    For those people who don’t know this case. Here is a summary of Kelly actions from the court documents:
    1.She had her lawyer call immigration on him to get his visa revoked, because the guy wouldn’t sign a paper saying he wouldn’t visit the kids.
    2. She didn’t notify the father his daughter was born.
    3.She didn’t put the father’s name on the birth certificate for /three/ years in violation of a judge’s order.
    4.Lying while under oath.
    5.Keeping the kids from him for over a month.
    6.Telling the kids he’s a criminal and drug dealer, messing with their son so much he’s in therapy with anxiety from not seeing his father.
    7.Instructing their son that if he was ever in an airport with his dad, to scream and call the police.
    8. Violating custody agreement that states the kids are to be out of the media spotlight. (You can always see her taking kids to red carpet events.)

    • morc says:

      9. Sued Giersch over potty training their son.

      • DEB says:

        I find that just … there are no words. I only hope that she continues to shoot herself in the foot and then loses custody. All visitation from now on hopefully will be supervised. Gawd, what the kids must think with this unstable mother. I even find the photo ops just too “desperate” and over the top. And I think she overdoes it on the touching/handling. It’s all for the media … the media she claims she tried to avoid. Where will it end?

      • morc says:

        Free Willy!

    • Becks says:

      As true as the nose in your face.

      And #1 should be revised to say: Kelly and her lawyer blackmailed Daniel with a prepared document, threatening him by saying if he signed away his custodial rights, right there and then, they would make his Visa “problem go away”.

      It was not just to “not visit the kids”. She was going for full on never-again-will-you-ever-see-your-children.

      The Harris-Ginsberg ruling devotes 4 pages (pages 21 through to 24 inclusive) to the subject and includes quotes such as Kelly’s lawyer, standing in the hallway of the court, next to a seated Kelly, and in front of Daniel and his Counsel, speaking on the phone to the State Department, “He’s lied and said he has a valid Visa, he’s about to kidnap the kids. Why aren’t you arresting him? Giersch is here now for you to arrest him right now. Come and arrest him right now.”

      Those are actual quotes that are immortalized in the court document that was never disputed by either Mr.Rich, the lawyer, or by Kelly.

      Apparently, Daniel refused to fold, refused to sign away his rights, setting the table for all of this.

      Page 23 states:

      “When Mr.Rich contacted the Immigration authorities and then used the threat of immigration trouble as leverage to try to convince Daniel to sign a stipulation agreeing to not see his children, he did damage to not only Daniel, but also to Kelly, if not more so to her. Earlier in this case, when the Court was pondering what seemed to be Kelly’s efforts to “fine-tune” the then-existing, well-functioning parenting plan, this Court cautioned her that trials can lead to the unexpected. However, this Court never imagined that anything like what Mr. Rich did would occur on this or any other case.”

      • Ennie says:

        Interesting how the father refused to let go of the custody of the children even if it meant to lose his residency and imagine how inconvenient, his home business, etc. in the US, while Kelly cannot go for a few months to stay in Italy or France to be near her children.

      • Michelle says:

        @Becks—- WOW. I’m surprised Mr. Rich still has his law license.

  94. MSat says:

    I don’t know what to think about all of this. This site seems to be firmly anti-Kelly, but I have to wonder about what could have happened to make a pregnant woman leave her husband before their baby is born and not even tell him that the child has been born. You know who else did that? Denise Richards – and at the time, and for a long time after that, the media and gossip mags crucified her. Now we know what she was dealing with in Charlie Sheen. There is a lot more to this story and while Kelly has certainly made some mistakes, I’m not ready to chalk it up to her being entitled or crazy.

    • JaneFR says:

      Because every sane mother sue her ex for potty training a three year old child ? Sometimes, people are acting crazy because, well, they are crazy.
      Just a reminder :
      https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/omg-goddess/judge-orders-gossip-girl-actress-kelly-rutherford-co-005118775.html

    • morc says:

      She admitted it was out of resentment. At no point has she pressed charges against him for any kind of violence. at no point has she handed over evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

    • Ninks says:

      Kelly has never made any accusation or hint of abuse about her ex. With all the stunts she’s pulled and every attempt she’s made for public sympathy, she has never implied any kind of abuse (until today when said she’d been told something worrying, but refused to elaborate on it and if she mentioned it in court, it wasn’t sufficient to worry the judge.). The worst accusation she made against him was the terrorist thing. I feel that if there had been any abuse or anything damaging that she could have used against him, anything at all, she would have used it by now. The fact that she hasn’t is telling.

      Denise Richards’ circumstances were very different. I don’t think you’re comparing like with like.

    • claire says:

      I don’t know. What type of person leaves their new husband right after he’s diagnosed with cancer? Kelly Rutherford, that’s who.

      Don’t try to fill in the blanks and blame others when the qualities of her character have been laid out for all of us to see many times.

      • Samtha says:

        And goes on to do a wedding photoshoot for a magazine, despite the husband asking her not to, since she’d already left him!

    • Katherine says:

      Sometimes, a crazy person is just that – crazy. Also, comparing Denise Richards’ situation to Kelly’s is like comparing apples and oranges.

    • jwoolman says:

      The judge in the 2013 decision mentioned that Kelly and Daniel have very different parenting styles although both are excellent parents. The word “controlling” was used in describing Kelly’s approach. She might just be a super control freak (like Halle) and really doesn’t want to deal with another person in parental matters unless they agree totally with everything she wants to do. It could be that simple. She probably knew she was carrying a girl so she would have “one of each”, no more need for the sperm donor. She has said in public that she doesn’t think her kids need a father. I don’t know her background, but Halle’s father walked out on her family so her sense that fathers are unimportant and undesirable might stem from that. Maybe Kelly has something similar in her background to explain it. Or maybe it really is all about money – child support could be huge if she has sole custody, since he has so much money. Although if he never has the kids, maybe that doesn’t matter.

  95. Anon says:

    Rutherford is damaging her children and is probably more interested in destroying her ex than actually mothering her kids. The kids seem like dolls to be displayed in front of the cameras…..and pose they must. (which she is not suppose to be doing according to court orders) It is quite easy to see through her manipulations if you read the court papers. I hope Daniel will be going for sole custody with visitation in Monaco for her till the kids are older. Maybe till they are 18.
    And you can be bet…if the judge wasn’t there at the hand-off with gma and the cameras were….Rutherford would have put on a crying-sobbing show. It is what narcissistic sociopaths do. If she were a man, what would Dan Abrams say then?

    • pam says:

      Thanks for pointing out how the kids are like dolls she puts on display for the cameras. Instead of spending quality time with her kids, letting them do the simple things that kids like to do – play ball at the park, go to the zoo, play with friends – all she seems to do with the precious time she has with them is take them to events like red carpets in order to get publicity for herself. What a selfish, misguided woman she is.

  96. Lurker says:

    One more thing, thank God she’s 46 and more than likely unable to have any more kids. And, that just googling her name should prevent her from adopting anyone. And how crazy must the Gucci guy she’s dating be?

    WOW.

  97. Sara says:

    Wow, I must have totally missed the boat on something here. I am assuming at least some on here are mothers and I am appalled that these children were taken away from their mothe regardless of what she did or did not say about her husband. Makes me wonder about her husband and who the hell he is and what he has over some people in some high places. For a CA judge to rule in favor of him makes me think either she was unfit in some way or he has people in high places. So not right. I would probably kill myself if my husband took my son from me.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      The option you didn’t mention is she’s demonstrated such a lack of responsibility and maturity that the judge has decided she can’t be trusted to have the children primarily.

    • jwoolman says:

      If he had people in high places, he wouldn’t have lost his visa when Kelly and her lawyer made false accusations.

      Read the 2013 Decision, it’s very clear about what went into the current custody agreement and why. Both parents were rich at the time.

    • Crumpet says:

      You’re looking at someone who had her daughter taken away from her by an ex-husband, and I still KNOW by reading the court documents. that those children are better off with their father than with her.

    • Scarlet Vixen says:

      Oh. My. God. Read. The. Comments. There’s only 600 to choose from (!) explaining why the courts have ruled what they have over the last SEVERAL YEARS. *hint* It ain’t cuz the dad paid someone off.

    • Neah23 says:

      There so much wrong with your post. You like some other mothers think of their child is not your possession a thing that they and only they own alone.

    • claire says:

      Yes. She has acted unfit. End of story.

    • JaneS says:

      Cos killing yourself would be good for your son.

      I can see why you like Kelly tho.

    • Katherine says:

      Have you even read the court documents? Seriously, educate yourself before making such nonsensical statements. And honestly, it’s disturbing that you’d become suicidal if you lost custody of your son to your husband. Daniel doesn’t have any pull except for the fact that he is the only stable party here who has obeyed court orders, while Kelly has done everything possible to defy court orders and alienate him from her kids’ lives by making up lies. If he had any financial leverage over people in high places the way you claim, then she wouldn’t have been able to have his visa revoked by lying to the State Department. The court documents have proven Kelly is an unfit parent. Women aren’t automatically better parents than men. There are plenty of mothers who don’t deserve children and never should have become parents. And, there are plenty of fathers who fight tooth and nail for their children and are the best parent their child could ever have. Just because a woman gives birth, it does not mean that automatically grants her the right to be considered a superior parent over the man when she’s clearly not. Children are not possessions you are entitled to and allowed to use as pawns to emotionally manipulate people when you don’t get your way. That’s emotionally abusive and it’s reprehensible. Please do some research first, before making yourself look silly. Reading really is fundamental.

  98. Fluff says:

    She’s incredibly lucky she’s not facing criminal charges right now. And that her ex hasn’t sued her for making false allegations against him (that he’s a terrorist and a gun runner) – with the legal involvement, could she be sued for fraud?

    I honestly would not be surprised if she decided to kill the kids and herself to protect them from being parted from her.

  99. Ann says:

    I don’t know how can you live without your child for a week. For a mother is destroying. A child love his parents even if they are criminals. Only a person how don’t have kids can speak only about law. She is acting from love not reason. Love, Family, Forgiveness are not just words and concepts. It means that 2 people must come together to find the best thing for they and the children. The child is part of you, part of your mind, body, thoughts, a unity of 2 people FOREVER. It transcends law, bouth parents must be part of their children lives.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      Sea lion alert…nothing to see here, kids!

      • Sixer says:

        BearcatLawyer – you’ve really adopted this one, haven’t you? Go BearcatLawyer!

      • jwoolman says:

        Also sounds like these folks are using a list of Talking Points and are coming via a link at another site, since they don’t sound like the usual motley crew of commenters here. I’ve seen that happen elsewhere on other issues. That can also explain the hit-and-run tendency. But be kindly, they may truly believe what they say and feel they’re doing A Good Thing.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        I’m sorry…I just LOVE the image of barking sea lions. So apropos.

        As noted upthread, I am keeping a close eye on posts regarding this case because of the sheer volume of ridiculous misinformation about the law, especially the immigration laws of the U.S. Sad to say, but a lot of people believe everything they read on the Internet. This is my public service to combat ignorance and possibly prevent others from doing/saying stupid things because Kelly Rutherford and her attorneys did it and seemingly got away with it.

        I am only one person though so I am devoting my time to stop stupid on CB and not other sites likes Jezebel, the Daily Mail, or People.com. Their commenters will just have to fend for themselves!

        Oh and Kelly…quit paying idiots to post random word salad BS here for you. You. Are. NOT. Helping. Your. Case. Go cry on Dan Abrams’ shoulder instead.

      • Sixer says:

        BearcatLawyer – agreed. I have most recently seen a lot of people saying that he can come in on his German passport. I’m assuming that these people are sealioning, but on the off chance that they aren’t – this is a misunderstanding of ESTA, right? You can come in on a German passport under ESTA, but not if you’ve ever had a visa revoked before – or at least until you’ve got a waiver. And without a waiver, it’s 5 or 10 years for most people? Have I got that right?

        Even ESTA and general visa granting seems to have been tightened up post 9/11. I have many anecdotal examples in the UK of people being denied entry under ESTA or the granting of a visa for non-violent arrests (with no charges laid) or for police cautions (an official telling off by a police officer for a minor offences with no charges laid). These are for people in their 30s or 40s or 50s, whose arrest or caution dates back more than twenty years. You could have been arrested for obstruction at an anti-apartheid demo against South Africa in the 1980s, been a model citizen ever since, and it could get you denied entry, it seems! A drink driving conviction seems to be a very common reason for denial of even a visa for a package holiday.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        He is not eligible to use ESTA due to his visa revocation. He will likely never be able to use it again unless the law changes.

        Some grounds of inadmissibility are waivable, but there are no waivers available for the allegations made against him (terrorism, gun running, money laundering, etc.). How long one must wait outside the U.S. varies based on the reason for inadmissibility too. But in general the longer one stays outside the U.S. being a good person and not a threat to the U.S., the better one’s chances of getting a waiver and/or visa eventually. Resolving ESTA problems is a COLOSSAL pain too. Many people just give up and avoid the U.S., and I cannot say I blame them.

        As the anecdotal evidence proves too, ESTA is a double-edged sword. You might get approved to participate in the program, but that does not mean U.S. Customs and Border Protection has to let you in upon arrival. They don’t have to let people who have valid visas and waivers in either, but usually they are more lenient when someone has already been vetted by a U.S. consulate.

      • Sixer says:

        Thanks. Incredibly helpful, as ever.

    • Ann says:

      Really? Mr. omgwhatawonderfulresourcefullawyer? In my country was a similar case : lots of lawyers, lots of media (they didn’t split the child in half but almost)…..and now after 2 years the parents communicate and find a balance (without court order). But it takes time, especially for a woman. Hurt revengeful woman…..

      • Tara says:

        Kelly is the one resisting peaceful co-parenting, not Daniel. Yes, Bearcar Lawyer is a wonderful resource. S/he sheds the light of information and reason into a morass of emotional manipulation and lies. What you describe is not parental love, but a maniacal, grasping dependency. And yes I’m a mother, co-parenting with my son’s dad. We haven’t always gotten along, but focus on the health and happiness of the little guy. It is all consuming, that desire to protect and nurture a growing little being that depends on you, loves both of you, and benefits from both of you. Kelly focuses only on herself and how she feels, and seems to be willing to manipulate, vilify and distort the truth ad nauseum. That’s why the good celebitches on this board loathe her.

      • Katherine says:

        Revenge is not an excuse to lie, manipulate and emotionally abuse people. Which is exactly what Kelly has been doing all along. If you actually READ the court documents (I realize it’s too much work to do actual research), they state that Daniel has obeyed court orders while Kelly has pretty much done everything she can to obstruct court orders. So, your weak nonsense doesn’t fly.

    • Katherine says:

      Kelly, I think you should be preparing for your court hearing in September. Stop pretending like you care about what’s best for your kids, because we all know that’s a load of BS.

  100. Shelley says:

    For all the judgemental people, wait until your kids have been taken away from you before you start casting stones. I can only imagine the heartache. It’s so easy for us to be making her out to be a crazy woman simply because of how we perceive her as a celebrity and half baked facts.

    • jessiebes says:

      Read. the. court. documents. hardly half baked facts.

    • jwoolman says:

      The current arrangement lets the kids have at least 50/50 contact with both parents. Kelly can visit any time she wants for as long as she wants. She just doesn’t want their dad to even exist. Wait until you have to share custody with someone like that.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I can’t speak for everyone here, but I feel pretty comfortable casting the first stone. Kelly has brought all of this on herself. She and her attorneys continue to make ludicrous legal arguments and statements that consist of outright lies and bizarre misrepresentations. She has violated numerous court orders on multiple occasions. She and/or her attorney lied to US government officials. I cannot even keep track of all the state and federal crimes which incontrovertible, unbiased evidence in this case shows she has committed.

      And for what really? Because she “loves” her kids? If she truly loves and cares about her children, she would put aside her personal animosity for her ex-husband and the court system and work hard to co-parent and raise functional human beings despite the existing challenges. She has not done this in the past and shows every sign of continuing to be a recalcitrant, whiny, vindictive idiot in these proceedings.

    • Tara says:

      Lay down the script, take your pieces of silver, and slowly back away from the board…

    • Katherine says:

      lol They’re not half-baked facts. I realize doing actual research is rather time-consuming. But seriously, you should try it sometime. READ. THE. COURT. DOCUMENTS. Seriously, educate yourself so you don’t sound so stupid.

    • Grace says:

      For the hundredth time, the kids are NOT taken away from her. She’s supposed to return them as per agreement.

  101. tay says:

    whoever wrote this article must be on the father’s payroll