Kelly Rutherford’s ex’s lawyer: he will continue to promote Kelly’s time with kids

Kelly Rutherford arrives to a Manhattan court in New York without her children
These are photos of Kelly Rutherford outside court in New York City yesterday, where she was ordered to surrender her two children to be flown to Monaco with their grandmother, who was waiting for them in court. This was a predictable outcome to a ridiculous situation she created, which caused needless stress and drama in her children’s lives. Kelly will likely do another interview soon where she cries and moans to the media about ‘Murica and how her children were deported. (I’m not going to treat whatever she says as breaking news, just FYI.) Meanwhile her ex, Daniel Giersch, has been nothing but a class act throughout this entire custody battle, despite how frustrating it must be to deal with this woman. (Thanks to Becks for commenting with this interview that Giersch did last year about an app he developed with the help of his kids. I’ve read it before but I wouldn’t have remembered it. He comes across very well.)

It’s worth noting that we only have the details from the first few minutes inside the courtroom because Giersch’s lawyers requested that the media not be present, in order to protect his children’s privacy. We could have heard the judge absolutely owning Kelly, but she surely wanted the press there anyway because narcissists want attention, good or bad. Instead we only know that she was told by the judge not to directly address her, and that the judge was angry that Kelly didn’t bring the children with her as ordered. Kelly’s lawyer claimed that this was to avoid the “media circus,” but really it was just another tactic by Kelly in this game she’s playing. At least it ended well, no one was hurt physically, and the children got to go home with their oma as they should have done several days ago.

In statements to the press following the ruling, Giersch’s lawyers said that the children’s transition went well and that they seemed fine. He also said that Giersch has not changed his stance on Kelly spending time with the children. Think about that for a moment. Kelly just kidnapped her own kids and has done interview after interview smearing her ex. She’s repeatedly tried to cut her children’s father out of their lives and she talks as if their life in Monaco doesn’t count, but he’s still saying that he’s going to let her see the kids. Here are some statements from various lawyers. Pay attention to the mild shade thrown by one of Kelly’s former lawyers.

How the children seemed in the courtroom
“Kelly’s failure to deliver the children on Thursday likely bought them a one-way ticket to Monaco,” Michael Stutman, head of the family group at Mishcon de Reya New York and a lawyer not involved in the case, tells PEOPLE. “Given Kelly’s initial failure to send the children back, showing up without them was probably the nail in her coffin.”

The children were later brought to the courthouse through a side entrance to say goodbye to their mom and head to the airport with Giersch’s mother.

“The kids didn’t seem to look like they missed a beat. They were happy, they kissed their mother goodbye, they were happy to see their grandmother, they had smiles on their face. And by the way, they’re two beautiful little kids,” Giersch’s attorney Ira Garr told reporters. “The only complaint they had is they really wanted to get back to playing; it was boring in the courtroom.”

“They just hugged and said goodbye, and she said she’d see them soon, and they were very, very easily transitioned to their grandmother, who they know very well,” said Robert Michaels, another lawyer on Giersch’s team.

“It was done very civilly,” Garr added. “Ms. Rutherford said, ‘Oh, you’re going to see Papa, and you’re going to go with Oma.’ And the kids seemed fine…”

There will probably be safeguards in place so Kelly doesn’t pull this again
“After this episode, we will be speaking with our client and his attorney in Monaco and maybe considering taking different measures about future visits to the United States, how the passports are held or whether the visits need to be supervised, because we don’t want a reoccurrence of this a year from now,” Garr said.

Kelly’s former lawyer shades her
“It’s really unfortunate that it came to this, and that Hermes and Helena were forced to say goodbye to their mother in a courthouse, rather than having a natural transition,” Robert Wallack, a lawyer who represented Rutherford in federal court last year, tells PEOPLE. “However, today’s proceedings played out exactly as expected, and it now appears the next chapter of this story will be written in Monaco.”

Daniel’s lawyer says he’ll continue to let Kelly see the kids
“We are pleased that the American judicial system has prevailed,” Giersch’s attorney Fahi Takesh Hallin told ABC News in a statement. “Daniel’s request to exclude the press today from the courtroom was granted, to protect the children’s privacy. In addition, his stance of promoting Kelly’s time with the children has not changed.”

[From People and ABC News]

As of now, Rutherford hasn’t issued a statement but she did speak briefly with the paparazzi outside the courtroom. TMZ has video of her leaving court. She was wearing sunglasses and looked like she might have been crying but she was smiling at the paparazzi and seemed to relish the attention. She said “I have no words at this moment” but when asked how she felt, she said “like any parent that lost their kids.

The next hearing for this case is scheduled for September 3rd in Monaco. Daniel is likely to get sole custody and Kelly will be lucky to have supervised visits, I think.

Dan Abrams, ABC chief legal correspondent and Kelly’s close friend, has responded to this latest development with a mini rant about how it doesn’t make sense. You can read that on People.

Kelly is shown after court wearing sunglasses and with her mom behind her. What kind of court outfit is that? She’s got sneakers on. Photo credit: Pacific Coast News and WENN

Kelly Rutherford and her mom Ann Edwards seen leaving a Manhattan court in NYC

Kelly Rutherford and her mom Ann Edwards seen leaving a Manhattan court in NYC

Kelly Rutherford arrives to a Manhattan court in New York without her children

Related stories

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

336 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford’s ex’s lawyer: he will continue to promote Kelly’s time with kids”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Snazzy says:

    That Abrams fellow really doesn’t seem to know much about the law, does he?
    We need some celebitches to educate him.

    Other than that, I’m glad the kids are being sent back to their father, who seems like the stable parent in this circus (that she has created), and hopefully they aren’t too scarred by their mother’s stupid behaviour.

    • Kristen says:

      It bothers me how Abrams and others are spinning this case. I would go so far as to call it unethical at their total disregard of the facts in this case. Is anyone doing even the tiniest bit of digging for information, or are they too lazy to bother?

      I am thankful to CB for their accurate and unbiased reporting of this debacle. And the commenters who have also been informative. Y’all put the MSM media to shame. Lol

      • Insomniac says:

        Yeah, it’s infuriating how not one of these “experts” has bothered to address just why the US courts keep ruling in Giersch’s favor. If it weren’t for my gossip sites, I wouldn’t know either.

      • Savannah says:

        Good job, Dan! Way to get both sides of the story!

      • Belle Epoch says:

        Twitter is full of comments like “prayers for Kelly” and “stop the insanity” from people who obviously don’t read CELEBITCHY. It’s infuriating that her media campaign of misinformation is going so well. Jezebel did a “timeline” that left out all kinds of incriminating info about this AWFUL HORRID WOMAN. Someone please throw coffee on her stupid white outfit. She belongs in jail for child abduction.

      • L says:

        Yea that jezebel timeline was awful. It seems like most people called them out on it in the comments though.

      • mayamae says:

        I did not know Dan Abrams was a good friend, but it makes more sense now. I watched ABC World News last night, and the story was completely out of Kelly’s camp. How disappointing. I used to love Dan Abrams when he had his show on MSNBC. I remember when he finally acknowledged on air he had cancer, because so many viewers were telling him to “eat a cheeseburger”. It shows how difficult it is to be impartial when you’re too close to the issue.

      • Sassy says:

        The husband has bent over backward to be accommodating, including paying for Rutherford’s round trip air to Monaco, supplying lodging and a car for her. She is the one who is causing all the uproar. If you have some time read the actual court proceedings and why the CA judge ruled the way he did. Fascinating reading.

      • reddy says:

        Even the german gossip outlets are all going with the “poor Kelly” reporting. I don’t think they should “side” with him just because he is german, but it is so disgustingly a$$licking to Kelly, it’s hard to even read an article… And I usually LOVE cheap gossip for a light after-work read. She also gave several exclusive interviews for a german gossip TV show some time ago. It was unwatchable.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      He and other legal “experts” who are parroting only Kelly’s version of events and not examining all sides of the case as well as what the law actually says are only interested in page views and click throughs. The more outlandish and controversial they sound, the more likely they are to attract attention and make money for their employers.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Professor BearCat, I think you should count all of your time explaining these issues as pro bono work. I’m serious. No one else is out there trying to educate a (sometimes) rabid US public about how the law actually works. Few will seek that knowledge out for themselves, they’re going to have to be lucky-enough to accidentally learn it somewhere like CB.

        Otherwise, the situation you described with ungrateful clients can only get worse, right? “Fix it, you’re not fixing it fast enough!” because so many of us have no experience of how things like constitutional law and immigration law really work.

      • claire says:

        It’s working. The amount of misinformation people are parroting is staggering! It’s also just a sad commentary, another example, of how people are perfectly happy to repeat untruthful soundbytes, rather than read the readily available truth in the court documents. They don’t care about the truth. They care about being outraged! I swear, outrage high, justice boners…all that stuff…is so creepy and killing the art of critical thinking.

      • Lurker says:

        Most of the comments I have read on People, ABC News and DM seem to show her campaign isn’t working. Most can tell she is crazy, and her story is full of lies. At least that’s what I have seen.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        Oh @BearCatLawyer.. you’ve asked something on the previous post from CB.. I found some answers online: France prosecutes any French person who has commited a crime elsewhere around the world but also foreign people who have committed crimes against french citizens, even if such crimes are commited outside France. and french judges can also go to other countries to hear witnesses..Though this is mostly with major crimes: terrorism, human trafficking.. though kidnapping is quite serious, even if a parent is the “kidnapper”..

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        But just one question? Why is everyone talking about French courthouses and French Law? Monaco has its own courts and judicial system… independent from France,

        Judicial system: Judicial power is invested in the Prince, who delegates judicial procedures to the various courts, which dispense justice in his name. The independence of the judges is guaranteed by the constitution. The Supreme Court of Monaco is composed of five chief members and two assistant judges named by the Prince on the basis of nominations by the National Council and other government bodies. The Supreme Court is the highest court for judicial appeals and also interprets the constitution when necessary. Monaco’s legal system, closely related to that of France, is patterned after the Napoleonic Code.

    • missy says:

      All I know is her eyes are WEIRD! SHe is not attractive and she has almost the same cat ate the canary grin that Ben’s nanny is using.. GIves me the heebie jeebies. Lots of stupid women use their kids as pawns I know some that do it. One got so bad I had to drop the friendship. Using a child to further your own wants without even considering these are people even if they are young just sucks. Makes me crazy as those of us who put our own wants aside for our kids. Its as if she is using them as a shield and a way to get attention. Your inside is making the outside even uglier Kelly Rutherford!

    • Montréalaise says:

      As an attorney, I am extremely disappointed in Dan Abrams – ABC viewers rely on him for his legal expertise, but all he is doing is regurgitating the nonsense that Kelly Rutherford has spewed forth. I remember he once referred to the CA decision as a 40 page document, when in fact it’s 52 pages long, making me wonder whether he has ever bothered reading it. I practice family law in Canada and I can tell you that she is a classic parental alienator. For anyone wondering whether she will ever change her mind and agree to co-parent with her kids’ father – sadly, from my experience, the answer is no.

    • holly hobby says:

      As a “journalist” Dan Abrams continues with an ethical lapse to report the news as it is. The omission of facts is not neutral reporting. His rants on Twitter is also hysterical. At one point he called people “haters” because they dare point out the facts. Yes folks, Dan Abrams is really MeAnn Rimes and Tay Tay Swift (not woman bashing but those 2 seem to act just like Danny).

    • ERM says:

      Sadly all I’m getting from this case (besides that woman’s instability) is that being the good guy really doesn’t pay. Daniel is obviously putting the welfare of his children first and skipping the media, courtroom, and PR stunts but that woman is getting the support of the uneducated masses.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The good guy appears to be winning in the legal courts. That counts for more than winning in the court of public opinion.

    • ol cranky says:

      Dan Abrams used to be an intelligent guy who put his experience as an attorney (and growing up with a dad who is an expert in constitutional law) ahead of the celebrity game. If he’s not screwing Rutherford the only thing I can think of to explain his completely illogical support of her is that she has blackmail material on him or he’s had some sort of traumatic brain injury or worse medical condition that is impacting his cognition.

  2. NewWester says:

    I guess her red/white/blue outfit was at the cleaners and the bald eagle was off getting its talons painted. This woman is too much

    • Sarah says:

      I looked at her outfit and thought “You wore that to court?”. Too casual and gives the impression of being disrespectful. Oh wait, she was refusing to comply with a court order to return the kids. Yeah, so maybe the outfit was perfect. :)

      • whipmyhair says:

        I generally don’t give a rats ar$e what I wear on a daily basis; but even I don’t leave the house wearing three different shades of white.

        Are we meant to think she looks innocent?

      • Liv says:

        This! I just saw her wearing white again and had to laugh. She really has mental problems if she thinks that white clothes would work in her favour.

      • meh says:

        This outfit is reminiscent of a hospital gown. Maybe she is trying to tell us that she needs to be institutionalized.

      • Liv says:

        Probably! ;-)

    • Dani2 says:

      LOL perfect comment

    • Triple Cardinal says:

      The casual clothing was well thought out. It’s simply more proof of how poor, or rather, how “poor” she is. We’re still in bankruptcy court, right?

    • sirsnarksalot says:

      The all white outfit and the one from the Hamptons event she had the kids at makes me think she is in a cult. Or is reeeeeaaalllly into that yoga that focuses on breathing. Either way its an outward manifestation of the inner diseased mind. Those kids need to be with their father full time and she should only get supervised visits in Monaco from here forward. And she should be thankful to get that.

      • missy says:

        Maybe she just really likes white. lol I do breathing yoga and I can assure you that my mind is not diseased.

    • holly hobby says:

      I was actually expecting her to wear widow weeds ala Alexis Carrington in Dynasty.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      The red / white / blue could be mistaken with the French flag too… ;) Maybe she didn’t want to confuse people and lead them to think she was on Daniel’s side??

  3. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I don’t think she ever thought this would end with her keeping the children here. Look at her. She just wanted the attention, and she looks like the cat who ate the canary. She got what she wanted out of this at her children’s expense. Despicable woman.

    • Snazzy says:

      She really is. And I mean, what the hell is she wearing? She’s an idiot, and a disrespectful one at that

      • Zapp Brannigan says:

        It’s looks like she was off to play tennis, after a bit of kidnapping and then cocktails. Just your average day really.

      • o_o_odesa says:

        Lol- just your average psychopath day…

        Seriously though, she looks crazy. This is a well planned out, f-you courts, white=innocent crazy person outfit. It wasn’t thrown together that morning. She’s legit crazy.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Lol, Zapp

      • Zapp Brannigan says:

        “It’s looks like she was off to play tennis, after a bit of kidnapping and then cocktails. Just your average day really.”

        Beyond hilarious!

    • K says:

      I sadly agree I think she realizes that the longer she has this fight the longer she stays relavant. And all she really wants is to be in the public eye. Poor kids this is a mess, glad they have a stable sounding father.

      • Sullivan says:

        I don’t think she ever wanted full-custody. Her case should be used as a ‘how to ensure that you will rarely see your children’.

    • bluhare says:

      I totally agree. She just wanted to promote and prolong the ongoing audition she’s doing for more work. I knew she was on Gossip Girl but other than this I had no idea who she is. Now I do.

    • Crumpet says:

      Totally agree. There is not one ounce of despair or sadness in her face. She looks totally serene, both before and after. Weird.

      • Mare says:

        She had to return her children to their father, she should be looking sad, instead she smiles for the cameras.

    • Liberty says:

      “Every time you hear a camera click, a fake angel’s tear dries up.”

    • (Original, not CDAN) Violet says:


      I wish she’d gotten jail time for this latest stunt.

      What angers me the most is that she turned their entire visit into one big pap stroll, often in the company of her new boyfriend of all of five minutes. There’s a very telling photo taken on what was supposed to be on the last night of their visit, where Kelly is totally ignoring her children, who trail behind her with a nanny.

      It’s very decent of her ex to want to continue her visitation with the kids, but I hope it’s supervised from here on it, only in Monaco and with passports held by a neutral third party. Kelly has proven time and time again that she cannot be trusted.

      I feel bad for the kids, having a crazy narcissist for a mother. Thank goodness, they are back with their dad.

  4. minx says:

    All you have to do is look at her eyes.
    Cray cray.

  5. Lilacflowers says:

    Are those sneakers on that jingoistic bigot’s feet? Could she be any more disrespectful to the laws of this nation and the forums in which we uphold them? This is no single mother living off a minimum wage job who can’t afford more than one pair of shoes. If any client of mine showed up dressed like that for a court appearance without a good excuse, like a cyclone hit my closet and this was all I had left, she would be sent home or to the nearest store to get a change of clothes pronto.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Can you imagine? Prisoners show up looking better. It looks like she dug around in her dirty laundry basket and the back of her closet for anything white. She has some complex about wearing all white. The shirt is crumpled and are those white jeans? And tennis shoes? What an idiot.

      • bluhare says:

        I think that she sees herself as having a very angelic look and she dresses to play it up. Especially while on camera.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Yes, I agree it has something to do with angelic, purity or something. She could at least iron it.

      • ursula says:

        No, no , no people magazine said it was a ‘ crisp white shirt’. Much better now, don’t you think?

      • 5minutes says:

        Perhaps her subconscious knows she belongs in a straight jacket.

    • Jayna says:

      I was thinking the same thing. It’s one thing for a person showing up to, say, traffic court with tennis shoes on and jeans, but for anyone, especially someone like her, to go to an important custody hearing before the Court in tennis shoes and white capris is mind-boggling to me. The parties show up dressed appropriately for court in appropriate shoes and not in what looks like white jean capris made of jean material. As a court reporter, I’ve never once seen it in all my years in divorce court, whether in smaller counties or living in a large city, when you show up for an involved court proceeding like that.

    • jwoolman says:

      I wonder if the way she was dressed means her decision to even show up was last-minute. Are those family with her? Maybe they had been trying to persuade her that morning. Who knows what she had planned to do, she couldn’t keep them indoors and out of sight forever. She might have intended to take them elsewhere.

      • meow says:

        This is exactly what I was thinking too. She wasn’t gonna show at all.
        Maybe her lawyer, Mom and friends talked her into going to court.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      I’ve heard judges ream people out for dressing inappropriately and disrespectfully in court. I hope this one let her have it for this disgraceful appearance, on top of all her other violations, during that closed session.

      • woodstock_schulz says:

        There used to be a judge in British Columbia (now retired, I think) who would refuse to hear counsel if they happened to be wearing brown shoes!

      • FingerBinger says:

        A friend of mine was reamed by a judge for showing up in court wearing jeans.

      • lunchcoma says:

        I have as well. In some of the cases, I’ve cringed, because people representing themselves in minor civil cases don’t necessarily own dress slacks or high heels.

        In this case, I don’t understand her choices at all, though. Surely she has other shoes than than those dirty cotton sneakers.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I think she dressed that way for a variety of reasons (mentioned herein and on the prior thread), but I personally feel she elected a super casual look because she doesn’t believe the NY state courts are respecting her or her rights or her kids’ rights. So her juvenile, vindictive way of getting back at them is to wear a wrinkled, untucked shirt, capri pants, and sneakers to convey how little respect she has in return.

      Good attorneys would never let their clients dress like that in court at all, but definitely not for a habeas corpus hearing in which you are being accused of abducting your kids. I had a client who was definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer and hardly good-looking, but he always showed up to court hearings dressed like a GQ model. Sometimes he even carried a hat in with him (he knew not to wear it indoors). Every single judge he interacted with just could not have been more impressed with him and treated him accordingly. One male judge even made an example of him one day, telling the spectators in the gallery, “This is how a man should dress for court.” Needless to say, we ended up winning his case.

      • Lotta says:

        I think it’s awful if you can win a case just by dressing “right” in court. You should but the outcome shouldn’t be based by it.

      • Izzy says:

        I’m going to take a guess that Bearcat’s point was that her client showed respect for the law in all aspects (not just wardrobe) – which is why they were able to win his case.

      • dagdag says:


        that`s the way it is. Clothes make the man or woman and fine feathers make fine birds.

        I have some experience with military courts and the biggest thug looks honourable with a clean hair cut, clean, pressed uniform and a preferable square face and straightforward eyes.

        And do not forfet a straightforward posture.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        My client had a really good case and we definitely won on the merits, not on his appearance. BUT the fact that my client dressed for every court hearing in a way that made it clear that he respected the seriousness of the proceedings enough to wear his Sunday best every single time registered with the judges involved. If a person makes that kind of effort for a ten minute status hearing, then he likely applies the same degree of care and concern in other aspects of his life. And when credibility is at issue, I want my clients looking like they should be trusted and believed – not like they just rolled out of bed and have no clue what they are doing there.

      • BlueNailsBetty says:

        I doubt he won because of the suit. However, a little respect goes a long way in the judicial systems. If a judge feels you are making a respectful effort during a legal situation, they are usually more willing to consider your position and more willing to work with the defendant to find a fair resolution. You still have to prove your case but the judge is also more open to how they interpret the laws and how the laws are applied.

    • Manjit says:

      I doubt she has white leather shoes, a bit too “Essex” for Ms Rutherford. I’m guessing the colour was more important to her than suitability.

    • Ennie says:

      I don’t doubt she slept in these clothes, and was late for court. She probably had to make the children’s luggage last minute. Like someone said before, she needs to paint some black stripes across her outfits…

    • Kate says:

      Seriously, Lilacflowers. I totally agree. While the outfit might be the least of her offenses, it would annoy me as her counsel. It’s one more indication of her contempt for this whole process. When I was in law school, I once showed up to court as part of a criminal trial clinic wearing a pants suit, and the judge breathed fire at me for ten minutes about the disrespect I demonstrated by appearing before him in something other than a skirt. A well-tailored pants suit is fine for most judges, but this guy couldn’t tolerate trousers on a woman in his courtroom. I’ve been extremely sensitive to the issue of how one dresses to court ever since. It seems trivial to most people, but this stuff does matter.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Ugh, what a douche. I know it’s your career so unfortunately you have to adapt to the demands of others and what will make your efforts to fight for your clients more successful but ugh to that particular judge.

    • drunkenjd says:

      Thank you for saying what I was thinking. I wish this site had a way to vote your comment up, but since it doesn’t, I am taking the time to write a comment as a thumbs up. No client of mine would ever appear in court in expensive sneakers. If they were homeless and those were the only shoes they had, fine (although I might take them shopping and buy them real shoes if I felt it necessary), but to choose sneakers from all of the hundreds of pairs she had? Such disrespect to the court.

  6. MonicaQ says:

    This guy has achieved a state of patience that I could never hope to achieve. This woman:

    • Gets your visa revoked
    • Smears your name all over the press
    • Kidnaps your kids

    And the man is STILL all, “Hey, she’s their mom, I’m going to keep supporting that.”

    I’m boon-doggled. Total mind coo-coo. If it was me, wrestling music would’ve started and my name be up on the titantron and it would be on. Kudos to this guy.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I think he is getting excellent advice and is smart enough to take it. I also think he truly cares about his children. She is digging her own grave and he is wise enough to let her.

      • Little Darling says:

        Exactly GNAT, he’s playing this out like he listens to his lawyers and probably a therapist or two. He is actually, wait for it, actually acting like a parent who cares for his children, and who understands that his children are a byproduct of both him and her, and to negate her side doesn’t do anything for his children. He gets this key piece of Parenting 101 and his kids will be better off.

        Can we also take a brief moment to discuss what a fantastic job he’s doing with his kids, BTW. He is five years younger than Loony, and has shown up like a champ throughout all of this. Not only is he protecting his role of the father, but he’s also protectinf her role of mother, by giving the kids presents on her behalf and giving her presents on their behalf, arranging Skype calls, refusing to bad mouth her etc.

        By all means, he’s essentially a single dad when it comes to the minutia of every day life for the children. And yes, while he does have his parents helping and I’m sure a staff as well, he is responsible for the children’s emotional and physical well being, and regardless of all the help in the world, that can be a lot for just one parent to manage well. Let alone that he has to deal with this narcisstic woman who smears him, litigates with him, kidnaps their kids, AND uses his money to visit the kids… I’m really impressed. By all accounts, and by all of the court people who are around the children, they are loveable, sweet, adjusted kids who are cultured and happy with their lives.

        Co parenting with him seems like a dream. If only every parent were so lucky to have an ex who so willingly takes the high road for his kids. That’s a GOOD FATHER. Just the mere fact that nothing has “leaked” from his camp is huge in a case where someone else has vomit of the mouth into the pot she keeps stirring.

      • missy says:

        I think he is just smart and playing the game. She thinks she is entitled. What a moron.

    • Sixer says:

      I know! I said similar below before I read this.

      If I EVER reach the state of zen this guy seems to have managed in the face of such provocation, I’ll consider mine a life well lived.

    • Starrywonder says:

      He’s a good guy because I would be done with her crazy butt.

    • nicole says:

      He is probably cursing her name behind closed doors but luckily he is also taking legal advice and not smearing he publicly. It’s pretty easy to appear reasonable in these situations if you just use common sense – even if you hate the person vehemently.

    • Ana A. says:

      He is so damn nice and calmly doing what is the best for the children. He kind of seems insane in doing so, but apparently it is the best. It’s like he has enough good karma to make up for every nasty blow she tries. I could never manage even half of it without exploding and being mean in return. I’m sure he could tell a lot about Kelly and her devious methods. He stays silent and only lets his lawyers talk if needed. Good for the children.

    • jwoolman says:

      She may be cray cray, but the kids still love her. If he cut her off, that would hurt the kids. Supervision seems reasonable, though. Maybe a team of Neutral Ninja Nannies could take shifts watching her and making sure the kids can video chat with their dad every day. Otherwise, she will keep trying stunts like this.

    • cannibell says:

      He’s no dummy. I had a very difficult relationship with my ex, who made no secret of his desire to see me crash and burn. Long story short, it never occurred to me to do anything to get between our childrens’ relationships with their father – and subsequently, their stepmother. My big fear, in fact, was that he – or I – might leave the planet before they were old enough to form a true enough picture of us both to be able to draw their own conclusions about both of us and why they were probably better off being raised by parents in separate households.

      Daniel Giersch gets it. Raising kids is all about making sure you do everything you can to turn out the healthiest, most productive adults you can, and laying the groundwork for your adult relationship with them – one that hopefully lasts longer than the one you have with them as kids.

      Oh, and one more thing – something I didn’t know until my ex died in 2007. By then, we were long past the point of wishing the other one would drop dead (although he, too, will get his wish one day even if he’s not here to see it!). I lost a dear old friend and the one person I knew was as fiercely devoted to my children as I was. But I also discovered something else that day. Had we still been in an openly hostile situation, and went to comfort them, I’m betting their reaction would have been variations on “You hated him and you’re happy now. Stay away from me.”

      If I’d gone first, I know they could have turned to him for solace, and will never stop being grateful that I was able to be there for them with a whole heart in the worst moment of their lives.

    • Tara says:

      MonicaQ, you made my morning with that image, perfectly conceived and hilariously conveyed :D

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        I can’t stop laughing over it too. What outfit would you wear, MonicaQ? Make it good because this is Celebitchy and fashion counts!!!

      • MonicaQ says:

        Oh I’d go full Chris Jericho–light up jacket, bad hair and all with light up moon boots like Naomi with Mark Henry’s “Somebody ’bout to get they a*s beat” titantron song by 3-6 mafia because it’d be so true.

      • Tara says:

        Oh we’d so be there cheering you on… with big bad sympathy mullets!

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        MonicaQ on the titantron about to whup @$$ has kept me giggling all day long. I just have this vision of her screaming, “It’s on like Donkey Kong!” in Kelly’s smug face.

    • tracking says:

      I completely agree. Am impressed with how he conducts himself, don’t see any evidence that he’s done anything but right by those kids. He is very smart though, knowing public sympathy is often with the mother. By continuing to behave in an exemplary manner, he keeps public support. I do think he’s sincere though.

      • jwoolman says:

        A major advantage is that he doesn’t care whether or not he has public support. He focuses on the kids and listens to the judge. He doesn’t play to the media.

        Kelly is very much focused on public perception of her. She doesn’t listen to the judge because that’s not important to her. She is playing a role and the kids are her props. She probably does love them to the extent that she can, but they are not her real focus. She may not realize how much of their love for her is due to their father’s efforts to keep promoting the best possible image for her with the kids. She will start running into trouble when they are older for two reasons: 1) she will have trouble relating to them as they become more and more independent people and less willing to go along with her control freakiness, and 2) they will become more aware of her serious deficiencies. She may be a decent mother for very young children, but she may have considerable problems being mother to older children and teens. I suspect their dad will weather the teenage storm relatively easily, though.

    • Cee says:

      The children are lucky to have a stable parent with common sense. I’m sure he knows she is her own worst enemy and needs to avoid his children becoming collateral damage.

    • Crumpet says:

      I agree! She found herself a really great guy, who made good money and is an excellent father. And she threw it all away God knows why (well, I can speculate that her narcissistic pd had something to do with it). Gobsmacked, I am (sorry I had to!:)).

    • paddyjr says:

      I agree. Daniel has shown better judgment in lawyers and he lets them talk. They have represented his position well. He has been the one to come up with a workable custody arrangement and has worked with lawyers and therapists to make it as easy as possible for everyone involved. He has offered to pay for her travel and housing in Monaco. If I were him, I would have demanded her arrest the moment she said she wasn’t returning the children. Instead, he files the necessary papers in court and sends his mother to accompany them home. Kelly shows up looking like a Connecticut housewife running errands.

      Kelly, sweetie, keep talking. Daniel doesn’t need to say anything; your words provide all the evidence he needs. And, just to be clear, when a judge “requests” that you do something, it is not really a request, it is an order.

  7. eowyn says:

    The more she does the more i believe she is a full on sociopath.
    She only thinks of herself and her needs. She is manipulating everyone and doesn’t seem to feel (what with her leaving her first husband six months after getting married because he found he had cancer but not saying it publicly so their marriage pics would still be published!!!)
    She should see a psy. One who will assess if she is mentally stable enough to see those kids and if there is a need for supervised visit.
    Even then, i am of the opinion, she might ended up killing them because if she can’t have them HE won’t have them as she sees those kids as an extension of HER body.

    • KAI says:

      Her first husband had a serious heart condition, not cancer, and died in 2004.

      • tracking says:

        I remember that. What extraordinarily callous behavior.

      • littlestar says:

        It’s terrible of me to say, but yesterday I was thinking of her dead ex-husband’s family and thinking they must be experiencing at least a little bit of schadenfreude at Kelly’s expense right now.

    • . says:

      i think it’s narcisstic personality disorder.
      her actions fit all the boxes, you can’t “help” somebody like her, bc. like psychopaths there are not curably, its part of the disorder, sadly.

      • missy says:

        So true and any attention is good! I am related to one and the lies just get worse and they don’t even see when they are shooting their own foot off… But would you if your head was that far up your own ass? She couldn’t see the truth if it fell and hit her on the head. He is really smart about silence… Silence is golden and hard to misconstrue!

  8. Wilma says:

    The smiling at the paparazzi confuses me.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Along with the making sure everybody else gets in the car first so she can continue to smile for the paps.

    • Samtha says:

      Yeah, I found that really strange. It’s exactly opposite of how she’s supposedly feeling, according to all her rants and press releases.

    • Cee says:

      ITA, I expected to see her heartbroken and sad. She can’t even act her way through it, can she? Or is she trying to channel Lady Di with her sad smiles? I can’t tell (not that Lady Di was anything like this woman, of course).

      • missy says:

        I would be a basket case. Of course my kids would come before me so I would be living in Monaco.

  9. Lara K says:

    The father is a saint and the kids are super lucky to have him. I dont know how he finds the patience to deal with this whackadoo.

    • swack says:

      As others have said, he leaves it to his lawyers to deal with this and follows their advice. When I divorced after 25 years I allowed my lawyer to deal with everything as I didn’t even want to be in the same room as my ex. Luckily there were no issues with children as my youngest was 21 at the time.

  10. Lucy2 says:

    I like that the subtext of the entire statement is “Kelly, you did this to yourself.”
    I imagine the kids’ time with her in the summers is stressful- when they’re not being shoved down the red carpet for photo ops, she’s probably saying terrible things to them about their father and life there.
    At least once they get home, they won’t have to deal with the circus for a while, and can hopefully just go back to their regular life.

    • Esmom says:

      I was going to say that she should get a little credit for the civil manner in which she handed off the kids. But you’re right, that was probably only for the cameras.

      Sounds like the kids were happy to leave, which says a lot, doesn’t it?

      • Lilacflowers says:

        She handed off the kids in a courthouse, which has armed law enforcement officers, after being ordered to do so by a judge in a closed hearing. She was likely warned that anything less than civil would put her in a cell.

      • Esmom says:

        True. I was actually referring to what she said to the kids, which sounded reassuringly reasonable vs a dig at their dad. That was surprising to me since she has seemed to care only about herself throughout all this.

      • Jess says:

        Esmom, she probably said civil things because she has to. I read in the statement of decision yesterday that she was busted talking negatively about him to the children and was trying to alienate him, multiple counselors intervened and monitored both children and she was told to stop doing that. I’m glad she was civil with them and didn’t make a big scene, they don’t deserve this BS.

      • Crumpet says:

        Jess, really? Ugh.

      • bluhare says:

        Yes, Crumpet. Things are so bad that the hand offs had to be scripted. It’s in that often quoted agreement and everything is specified down to the number of toys the kids can have and how she should not start crying. I think she turned those hand offs into melodramatic one-act plays.

    • Samtha says:

      I wonder if maybe their father prepared them for this–if the kids knew this might happen and were ready to deal with it.

    • Wonderbunny says:

      Even if she doesn’t say horrible things about their father to her children, she does come across as high maintenance. Having a mother full of drama is really draining. Trying to keep a mom like that happy is a full time job for a child.

      • reddy says:

        She gave a statement to a german gossip outlet that she “tried to comfort them as much as she could” since they were “very upset” they had to go home with their grandmother. So maybe no trash talk in the courtroom, but the silence did not last long once she left it.

      • jwoolman says:

        Kelly is such a liar. According to more reliable witnesses, the kids weren’t upset at all. They were happy to see the grandmother and happy to be going home and said goodbye to mom with no fuss. They really do seem like relatively mellow kids, maybe like their dad in that respect. He probably makes it easy for them to talk about their mom, which keeps it all normal. Kelly, on the other hand, probably gets stressed out at hearing the very word Papa… The kids are old enough to pick up on that stress.

  11. Talie says:

    I still don’t get why they can’t split the kids 6 months each? — that seems to be what most celeb parents do. I mean, her kids go to Lycee Francais which has the same curriculum worldwide to cater to jet-set parents.

    Granted, these two would probably still be in court, so I guess it’s a dumb point.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      That wouldn’t be very nice for the children to not even be able to complete the school year in one place, regardless of the curriculum. I don’t think your point was dumb, but I think it would be hard on the kids to have to go to a new school in the middle of the year.

    • CK says:

      I’d imagine it would be terrible having to make new friends and abandon old ones every 6 months. Not to mention the adjustment issues that GNAT brought up. Hell, I took a year off from college and finished up when most of the people that I was friends with were gone and that was pretty difficult socially. Seems like that would be even rougher on kids.

    • Jess says:

      That’s discussed in the statement of decision, Hermes experiences anxiety when he’s away from his father too long, and since Daniel isn’t able to travel here that wouldn’t work, plus I do think it would be difficult on kids to be uprooted every 6 months. Kelly really screwed herself multiple ways, especially by having him deported, they’d be splitting custody evenly in California right now if she hadn’t tried to get him to sign away his rights! I also think part of the reason he ended up with them is because she lied about her work schedule trying to keep them with her in the US and said she wouldn’t be able to travel much, but the courts turned it around and said well if you work that much for long stretches of time then the kids will have to be in someone else’s care anyway so they should go with Daniel. I’m paraphrasing and could be wrong on that, but it seemed to me whenever she submitted her plans for sole custody she contradicted herself left and right, she got what she deserves! He tried to co parent with her and she wasn’t having it.

    • lucy2 says:

      If they lived in the same area (if she hadn’t gotten him kicked out of the US or would move to be near the kids), I think a 50/50 split would make sense. However, with them living thousands of miles apart, I think the stability for them to have one home base, one school, etc, is probably best for them.
      I think that school system works well for families that HAVE to move around a lot, but being with the same teachers and friends for a whole school year is probably ideal.

    • lunchcoma says:

      This is fundamentally about the best interests of the children, not fairness to the parents. Letting them develop a relationship with both is generally in kids’ best interests, but making them split the school year in odd ways isn’t. Imagine being 8 and having to change classes in the middle of the school year every year. Kids generally prefer to spend the entire school year in one place if they can for social reasons, even if there aren’t academic adjustments.

  12. original kay says:

    I am just not sure. I understand why he is still promoting a relationship, but at the same time there haven’t been any real consequences to her behaviour.
    oh wait, maybe he knows the courts will legally stop her, so that he doesn’t have to, and that will mean it’s better for the kids- that their dad still tried to be the adult and allow kelly to see them? ?

    Also, people has offically lost the plot for me. on their page is a pic of Kim Kar saying something like “stars who refused to lose weight for hollywood” or some such nonsense. really!

    • MonicaQ says:

      I think it’s that too–the kids will grow up one day and will have access to google unless Skynet goes live.

      • original kay says:


        but if naked men come from the future to help us, how could that be a bad thing? lmao!

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I too am concerned about the lack of consequences, particularly when some could be initiated without Mr. Giersch’s consent or cooperation (e.g., civil contempt charges for not bringing her kids with her to court yesterday). In my experience though, much of what happens in family court is often minimized or dismissed as people not thinking clearly because of the stress and emotions involved. Sadly, many judges and prosecutors also expect parents to levy false abuse and neglect allegations against each other too. So I am not hugely shocked that Kelly keeps skating, nor I am I surprised that she keeps ramping up the ridiculousness when there are no meaningful and immediate consequences to her actions.

      That being said, I doubt someone like Kelly would moderate her behaviour even if every judge in the world were constantly throwing the book at her. She seems far too focused on winning whatever game she thinks she is playing rather than on what is best for her children and her relationship with them.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I’m surprised she wasn’t at least fined for defying the order to send the children back. Was that because she filed her pleading to be heard on the topic? (Sorry you get all the questions, it’s sort of not fair to you, but you’re so nice about it…tiptoes away…)

      • Bearcat Lawyer says:

        Judge Gesmer could seek to fine Kelly in a civil contempt proceeding, but yesterday’s hearing was solely on Daniel’s writ of habeas corpus. The judge was probably only authorized to seize and return the kids but nothing more.

        That being said, Daniel can probably sue her for all the extra expenses he incurred over the past few days. Even if he did sue her and win damages, collecting would be next to impossible since she is bankrupt.

        I don’t mind answering questions. I would rather combat ignorance than perpetuate it! 😛

    • lunchcoma says:

      I think there’s some wisdom in his approach. If the children don’t see her for long periods of time, there’s a danger of them glamorizing her as the sad, mistreated mother they’ve been kept away from. It’s easy for kids to attribute positive traits to someone they see very seldom and for that parent to seem more appealing than the dull everyday custodial parent who handles things like discipline.

      If the kids see her regularly, they’re a lot more likely to start to understand her flaws and limitations as they grow into teenagers. That seems like a better foundation for them having appropriate relationships with her in adulthood.

  13. DanaG says:

    I think she did it for attention her kids are just props that allow her to stay in the headlines. I don’t think she cares the way she claims if she did she wouldn’t have done all that she has too their father. I think he is very smart he is showing he is happy for the kids to see their mother or he would look as bad as her he is taking the high road. I do think she will be lucky to get much visitation and what she get’s willl no doubt be supervised she showed she can’t be trusted the courts look at kidnap and that is what she did very sternly. Sadly I doubt this is every going to go away while silly celebrities who have no idea what they are talking about blindly support a woman who is so disturbed.

  14. Sixer says:

    We really do need a new Bette Davis to play her in the biopic, don’t we?

    Honestly, I think Giersch must be a saint. I like to think I’m reasonably sanguine and emollient in my personal relationships, even when they go wrong. But I’m sure I would have broken by now and taken to the streets with a deadly weapon (and by streets, I mean streets where *she* is).

    Well, I wouldn’t. But you know what I mean.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Well, if not a deadly weapon, at least a spud gun. I’ve briefly considered hopping on Amtrak down to NYC to find her and tell her in no uncertain terms to stop wasting my tax money. Giersch must have the patience of a saint.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Lilacflowers, the fact that you know what a spud gun is tickles me to bits.

        I had a dream last night where I slapped Kelly R and screamed at her that she was a terrible mother. Too much time on here?

        And I agree, Sixer, I don’t know how he has kept his patience with this woman.

    • mimif says:

      Bonus points for sanguine and emollient usage. Goes together like cat pee & Liam Neeson.*

      *can’t even remember the context of that reference anymore but I’m sticking with it.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Liam Neeson smells like cat pee?

      • mimif says:

        A thousand years ago Sixer made a post on a Liam Neeson thread that somehow used cat litter and p0rn in the same sentence. I’m going to have to go dig thru the archives and find it now to rest my case.

    • Sixer says:

      Spud gun would be an alternative to barrel bomb, I suppose. Less chance of injuring passers-by!

      We do use cat’s wee A LOT around here, so I can’t remember either! It’s the go-to insult of choice, mostly because IIIIIIIIIII am the only resident chez Sixer who is allowed to swear. I got a special dispensation from Liam Neeson. Or something.

      I think I might develop an online crush for Daniel Giersch. It might be the light needed to balance the awful shade of Kelly’s malign bonkersness. And seriously, if I couldn’t have Mr Sixer to be a dad to my kids, I actually would hanker after him.

      • mimif says:

        I have no idea wth you are talking about but this passers-by loves it. KIDDO WHERE ARE YOU? Sixer is talking all Englishy again.

      • mimi says:

        Oh my god I thought I was the only one crushing on Mr Giersch a little bit. Very weird.

      • Sixer says:

        Mimi – haha. I get first dibs (if Mr Sixer ever comes to his senses and leaves me)!

        Mimif – I do remember you laughing because I said it on here at some point. But “you smell of cat’s wee” is honestly, honestly, honestly what we say to each other around here when we fall out. 1) it’s a stress-valve insult that doesn’t involve swearing and 2) it’s a bit Pythonesque and funny and so it generally diffuses the original row that made one of us want to issue an insult because we all start sniggering and forget to be cross.

        In short, to accuse someone of smelling of cat’s wee is A Good Thing chez Sixer.

        Yay me! I’m such a Britisher! Kelly would hate me.

      • Jess says:

        Ha!! I’m crushing on him as well, I commented on the people thread last night saying how lucky she is to have an ex like that who wants to see his children! He’s cute, rich, smart, and a good dad, hello😄 maybe that’s why she’s so angry? I wonder why they divorced, I don’t remember hearing a solid reason, but I’m gonna take a stab and say it had more to do with her. She did admit to keeping him off Helena’s birth certificate so long because she was “hurt”, interesting.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Most likely she’s angry because he didn’t go away like he was “supposed to.”

        Her expressions of emotion don’t match her actions; they’re not credible.

        And all her pathology gets in the way of realizing that despite all her ‘issues,’ she actually managed to pick a winner to be the father of her children.

      • Ennie says:

        She said she suspected he was cheating. (emphasis in suspected)
        Somewhere I read something about cellphone/texting, but also, no confirmation, no anything, she also called him “conflictive”, “litigious”, and that the environment in their marriage was “violent”.
        Contrast that with sentences about herself where she self-describes as a “peaceful”person (sue-happy, but “peaceful”.
        I took this from the Life&Style interview “Meet Helena Rutherford-Giersch”, and other interview that someone talked about where she says that Daniel and his mom have a “too close, weird” relationship (guess what she is implying there, SMH), and in general, smearing him. The interview is in the Dailybeast site, the title says that she “clears the air”.
        I hope that CB would read those one and briefed us about them, even if they are old. She is CRAY in them.
        As you said, I’d be needing Rocky or Pepsi Gladiator music (wrestling is not my thing) to deal with this woman who is far from a true good mom.

      • Ankhel says:

        I read that interview at Dailybeast too! Very interesting read. The journalist was doing some real sucking up, yet did say at one point how it didn’t sound as if Kelly ever loved Daniel. Kelly said she rushed into the relationship, never saw the bad signs, because she was 36 and very eager for kids…

        What I quickly noticed was the way Kelly described her and Daniels personalities and motivations – the polar opposite of reality in every way! Not just describing Daniel as combative and a potential kidnapper, but she actually said he was too fond of fame and pr! He wanted to be photographed with the kids all of the time! Jawdrop!

      • . says:

        @Ankhel this is exactly what people with a narcisstic personality disorder do.
        they are twisted, completely delusional, and compulsive liar.

        She thinks she did nothing wrong, in her twisted little brain.

      • Cran says:

        I am now going to text my brothers and inform them that while I am usually sanguine and emollient in my personal relationships today I feel less so and that they both smell of cat pee. 😈

        I am a bad sister👿😎

      • notasugarhere says:

        Does he remind anyone else of Andrew McCarthy?

    • Oh I love the Daily Beast interview! The one where Kelly pontificates on how looking back how strange it all was that a waitress from a restaurant she ate at was in cahoots with Daniel to get her to marry him so he could use her for her money. And that Daniel’s relationship with his mother was ‘weird’, you know because he had a mother who was caring and Daniel was shady in some way.

      Of course she mentions in court records how he wanted her to quit Gossip Girl to be a stay-at-home mom which is what a shady guy does who marries you for your money, makes you quit earning an income.

  15. nicole says:

    It’s bizarre that she describes her reaction as like any parent who has lost their kids when her sole purpose appears to be manipulating the system so that Daniel Giersch loses them permanently (unsuccessfully). I guess he’s not really a parent as…what? A dad? A non American living in Monaco? If she would just follow the order and try and co-parent as countless others do there wouldn’t be any “losing” of the kids.

    I’m a family lawyer. This attitude is so common – trying to ‘win’ as opposed to ensuring the kids interests and parental relationships come first. And it’s so sad.

    • Esmom says:

      That’s a really good point about her not considering his feelings/reaction to the possibility of losing them himself. But she clearly has never considered him an equal part of the parenting equation.

      • original kay says:

        I said yesterday that I don’t think she even considers him a person, let alone a father who might also be missing his children.
        really, I don’t know she considers anyone to be “real”, they are just props in the Kelly Show.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Agree about her viewing people as props. She didn’t have enough time to develop a real relationship with him (nor he with her) so it’s hard to imagine having had the depth of disappointment/betrayal etc. from a long term marriage gone bad. He simply foiled her plans; he refused to go away and let her live out her fantasy (cross reference: going ahead with publishing first-wedding photos after filing for divorce).

  16. Mia4S says:

    Well that went exactly as it always should have. Of course we can only know so much as an outsider but the father has handled this perfectly. Perfectly. She is out of her mind and doing everything you don’t do if you want to regain custody. I fully expect the Monoco court will (and should!) put additional restrictions on visits. I also fully expect she will be back in the media wailing about it as soon as they do.

  17. Betti says:

    Well as the adage goes ‘give someone enough rope…’.

    People who suffer from NPC (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) are extreme and chaotic people, the kids probably like going back to Monaco where it’s a calmer environment than when they are with their mother. She will have mood swings and the children are old enough now to understand what is happening around them. Sounds like they were glad to see their grandmother.

    Her whole game from from the moment she met him was to get married to a wealthy man, have a couple of children then divorce him and live in luxury on his money as a wealthy divorcee.

    • GingerCrunch says:

      That’s what I was thinking about him and his legal team. Patiently waiting for her to eff it up all on her own. And look! They must be very pleased, as they should be, that this all took place without any real detriment to the kids. Whew.

    • . says:

      100% she def. hit all the boxes with the NPD perfectly.

  18. blue marie says:

    She needs to stop, she’s only hurting her kids. If she keeps on when those kids are old enough to pick who they want to live with, it won’t be her..

  19. LAK says:

    I hope he wins sole custody. This type of drama will continue to be played out until the kids are 18. Kelly will always see herself as the victim and she will not stop her antics.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Aside: Did you see the Albert-related quote from Giersch in the article Becks posted?

      “DG: Monaco is still ruled by a prince with full power. Everybody loves the prince. His family has ruled this country since the 13th Century, and even through the Middle Ages and world wars has kept this country intact.”

      • LAK says:

        Nota: DG is clearly delusional about Prince Albert. Doesn’t he realise how much Prince Albert’s rights have been violated. It’s kidnapping I tell you.

        #freePrinceAlbertof Monacoamericancitizenwithamerican mother!!!

      • Becks says:

        It’s a running joke… do with Prince Albert being half-American. Someone needs to keep it running.

      • notasugarhere says:

        LAK made a joke in an earlier thread about Prince Albert, the Head of State in Monaco, being half-American. As LAK is a royal watcher, I thought she’d be interested in Daniel’s impressions of the royals in his adopted country.

        We read a lot of British people’s opinions on their royal family in these threads. A Danish poster often shares her opinions on Denmark’s royals here, but we rarely see opinions from residents in Monaco about their local royals.


  20. kri says:

    Sigh……..I say with genuine concern-is there something mentally wrong with her that she can’t see how damaging and scary this must be for her kids? I didn’t see anything anywhere about why she is so against this man. I understand that no mother wants her kids so far away, though. This push/pull is awful.

  21. platypus says:

    She’s dressing for the media, not the court.

    Casual clothes = There’s no need for me to impress the judge.
    All white = I’m innocent.
    Wrinkly shirt and sneakers = I’m such a busy mom, just like you.

  22. De says:

    One website said that she went out for lunch with friends after appearing at court. I understand needing comfort from loved ones, but going to a restaurant after that experience would be the last thing I’d do…another photo shoot opportunity, I guess.

    Glad the kids are going back to their dad.

    • LAK says:

      The DM has the restaurant pics. She’s so traumatised that a public restaurant was the place to be after such a traumatic outcome.

      • Giddy says:

        Right. I would have been curled up in misery with swollen eyes and a runny nose from crying so hard. It makes me think that she never believed she had a chance to keep them.

      • Lady D says:

        I mentioned this on the other thread about TMZ saying she was too distraught to speak after the court case. I read that to mean the judge reinforced the ‘keep the kids out of the media’ portion of the custody case. I guess we’ll see.

  23. funcakes says:

    Princess is obviously will to do anything but go to jail.
    Throw her in regular population and let the inmates teach her about manners and humility.
    She to pampered to even run off with them.
    That would mean keeping a low profile living in motel that are not five star. She needs her Hampton lifestyle,servants and assistant.
    This is how I know she would never kidnap them.

  24. Copycat says:

    How did she lose custody of her kids?

    • Linn says:

      She didn’t. The parents have joint custody and she is free to see them. The children just live with her ex in monaco most of the time because Kelly managed to have his Visa revoked by making wrong accusations.

      Unfortunately many sources are either purposely or unpurposely repeat the bullsh!t coming out of the mouths of Kelly and her lawyers.

  25. Jess says:

    Why does she keep saying she lost her kids? All the headlines say that as well, she still has joint custody and can see them almost anytime she wants! I wish she’d stop with the dramatics. I finally read the statement of decision yesterday and couldn’t believe how horrible she is, and Daniel comes off like a saint, not a single incident where he tried to alienate the children or keep her from them, he complied with every court order and went out of his way to help her. The only negative comment about him I saw was actually from him saying he could be passive aggressive toward her when they exchange the children but he was willing to work on it to get better, that’s it! In 52 pages of documents, after she had his ass deported and tried to get him to sign over rights, and kept him from his children on numerous occasions…I’d be a little passive aggressive as well, but this guy makes airport banners saying “welcome super mama” so his kids can warmly greet her when she arrives in Monaco!

    I think those children are exactly where they belong, and I almost hope nothing changes for her visitation because I think she’ll go off the deep end even more. Shes not getting what she wants and she’ll only get angrier!

    • Becks says:

      Yes, I saw the pictures of the “Welcome, Super-Mama” poster.

      It was a very large poster, done obviously involving the children as they had stickers and drawings all over it. The children were carrying Mylar balloons, with Helena carrying a pink “Hello Kitty” one. Both kids were well-groomed and dressed very nicely. Helena had a pink bow in her hair and they were both obviously happy and excited in anticipation of seeing their mother. They each had knapsacks and were obviously ready and willing to go to their mother to start their time with her.

      The occasion was Kelly’s very first time to visit them in Monaco, and she brought her younger brother with her. I am going to assume that Daniel prepared the children for the visit and helped them make the poster and select the balloons.

      In short, he faciltated the transfer by making it a happy occasion for the children, he wanted her to feel welcomed by the children, he wanted to allay her worries by showing her they’re well dressed, well-fed, well looked after.

      Do you know how she reacted? She accused him of manipulation. She said he set it all up to show her up. She cited the court stipulation that neither are to expose their children to the media and she accused him of deliberately calling in the paps.

      My experience is that when a person is so quick to throw a negative slant on an otherwise innocuous action, it often means that they themselves have thought of doing the very thing of which they are accusing you.

      • Wonderbunny says:

        “My experience is that when a person is so quick to throw a negative slant on an otherwise innocuous action, it often means that they themselves have thought of doing the very thing of which they are accusing you.”

        Very true.

      • Cran says:

        Daniel ability to maintain his focus on what keeps the children happy and engaged is admirable. He knows he has good legal representation which allows him to focus on his children and see the situation through their eyes as much as possible. In spite of Kelly’s drama it is clear to him that they love their mother and enjoy the time they spend with her.

        The monies spent on legal expenses to date from both sides would have made for a tidy little trust fund for the kids I imagine.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That money could have bought her a cute apartment in Nice, 30 minutes from their kids too.

    • Chinoiserie says:

      Daniel seems really to be the ideal father, I wonder how Kelly managed to find a guy like that. She probably was just looking for a rich foreing guy to get alimony and child suopport and keep him out of the country and instead managed to find a perfect guy apparently.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Jess

      @ Becks

      Thanks for pointing out the ‘Welcome Super Mama’ topic.

      Here are TMZ’s photos of it. It took place at the Nice, France airport.

      Kelly is smiling towards the photographer in at least two of the pics. Daniel is smiling but not towards the photographer. It looks like he’s smiling towards the gate where Kelly and her brother are to show up.

      Here is the TMZ article in which Kelly says she was “shocked” when photos of the arrival were put on the internet…(but she’s smiling towards the photographer) and says that if Daniel had set up the photo op, then he’s violated a court order exposing the kids to the media.

      Never mind that she’s had them pose for the paps herself, right?

      • Becks says:

        @anne_ooo, Thanks for posting the link.

        I must confess that I didn’t post the link because after I wrote my comment, I realized my description (posters being stickered and drawn on) was a bit off. I was a bit embarrassed, but it’s all good, as I think people should see these pictures.

        Some of us have mentioned that we’ve developed a small *crush* on DG, and I have to say, that when I first saw these pictures years ago, I felt a little something for him- hah!!

        Nothing gets me more than a man who likes animals and young children. Plus he’s just so ….sensitive….to her feelings. Empathetic is maybe the correct word. Based on those pictures, I ascribed to him qualities of empathy and understanding. That he understood that she needed to be reassured that her children still love her, they still remember her, they don’t look on her a stranger, on this very first reunion.

        Little did I know she’s not that nuanced.

      • Becks says:

        And yeah, about the airport pictures, could she *BE* more hypocritical? (Say it like Chandler Bing).

        She didn’t like it because it didn’t fit her narrative of the unfit father.

      • Michelle says:

        That is the first I’ve seen of the airport photos. A completely normal situation of children greeting a parent at the airport after not seeing them for a while. Daniel never once looks at the camera and is wearing a hat and sunglasses. It was a nice thing to do and the kids were probably beyond excited to do it. She has some nerve to criticize it. I would be happy to live half a world away from her if I was Daniel. Ironically her evil shenanigans seem to end up in his favor.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        @Michelle the ne with the sunglasses an a hat is Kelly’s brother, Daniel is wearing a black sweater coat and jeans, no hat… He’s holding the daughter..

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Becks

        I agree with you.

        It showed that Daniel is accommodating and is in favor of the kids being with Kelly. He went through all that trouble just to make the kids and Kelly happy.

        It’s the opposite of the ‘shady,’ ‘kidnapping,’ ‘selfish’ father image that Kelly seems to want to spread of him.

  26. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    “like any parent that lost their kids.” – She speaks as if the kids had died… It’s just her attitudes that are hurting her case. After his stunt, if Monaco’s court decides the kids can only have supervised visits, it’s just what she asked for…
    Their father is being really well advised and his attitudes only garn hi respect from the general public as well as the court…

  27. mimi says:

    OH MY GOD I cannot believe that the woman who played her mother on Gossip Girl is actually her mother and I always despised them both!! hahahhah that is so crazy you can see the cray cray in their eyes, seriously – youtube some scenes from GG, she used to play Lily (?) van der Woodsen and her mom was CC.

    And I am so glad the kids are home and with their dad and that they (apparently) did not seem to be too shaken.

    • kell says:

      Is that her mother with her in one of the photos — followed by a scruffy looking guy who seems out of place (photobomber??)?

    • Celebitchy says:

      Well the photo agency called the older woman her mom so I don’t know.

    • Morse0412 says:

      CC was played by Caroline Lagerfelt, who is not Kelly’s mother. Caroline has only 2 children-both sons

    • Fallon says:

      I looked up a picture of her mother (Ann Edwards) and the courthouse pictures look more like the actress that played CC and less like Kelly’s actual mother.

      I seriously think that Kelly believes she is actually Lily van der Woodsen from Gossip Girl and has more clout than she really does.

  28. Tara says:

    Becks and CB: I downloaded Blipcard and love it. It’ll come in so handy when we visit Dublin in the Fall. The actual app is free and super fun and easy to use. My first postcard cost $1.49 to print and mail. Thanks you guys for the link and to Daniel, family and co for such a fun, well-designed app!

    • Becks says:

      That’s great, Tara. I’m going to try it out, too. Your upcoming vacation sounds just awesome. I really dislike sunny, hot weather, so Ireland in autumn sounds just so cool and refreshing.

      • Tara says:

        Omg Becks, I’m right there with you. I moved to Seattle to get away from heat (and sun), so this summer hasn’t been fun. I’ve been huddling in a dark apartment, next to fans, looking at pics of cats in snow and watching the Lady Vanishes. Or jumping in any water I see. My ideal place to live would be a stormy Scottish cliff, in a stone cottage with a grass roof… And a goat on the roof. With a pub nearby.

        Re the Blipcard app, I should note the price is actually in euros, which is close to the dollar right now anyway. Also I’m kinda bummed it doesn’t seem to retain my cred card info… But that may be for security. Better safe than sorry these days.

  29. Tara says:

    It’s weird, but I get a Flowers in the Attic vibe from Kelly and her mom in the 2nd and 3rd pics. I wonder who would play her brother Chris?

  30. Izzy says:

    Hmmm, that last statement, by Giersch’s lawyer Fahi Hallin, is interesting in the way it’s worded, and I’m wondering what their next move is. Hallin purposefully left it quite vague. Visitation with their mother could mean anythin from another planned trip stateside, with careful supervision, or something more along the lines of ” if she wants to see them she’d better fly here to do it, and then it can only be under court-appointed supervision.”

    I know which one I’d be going for at this point. Daniel Giersch deserves a LOT of praise for his parenting, and his willingness to co-parent. I would not blame him one bit if he decided enough was enough, and tried to bar all contact until Kelly Rutherford could demonstrate she’s no longer a kidnapping risk (so, never).

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I wondered about his attorney’s choice of words as well. Mr. Giersch can logically continue to promote the fact that Kelly should get visitation time with the kids while simultaneously lobbying the Monegasque court for increased supervision of her visits, travel restrictions, and limits on her parental rights. Her attorneys could then not claim that he was trying to outright terminate her parental rights or bar her from all visitation with the kids (although that is what they would likely say to the press anyway) while his attorneys insist on reasonable conditions to prevent a repeat of the past few days.

      His attorneys are not dumb, and he sounds like a dream client too. Kelly would do well to watch and learn from them.

    • anne_000 says:

      Yesterday, I read Daniel’s lawyer’s statement in which he said that Kelly plans to visit the kids before the end of summer and that Kelly wants to take the kids to school together with Daniel…

      Kelly is acting like nothing happened.

      • Lady D says:

        Isn’t that a NPD trait?

      • Saywhatwhen says:

        Gah!!! You should read Kelly’s statements re yesterday’s court session:

        ““What the judge did yesterday was shocking, illegal, and abusive to my children. Without any legal authority, a judge from the lowest ranking court in the state court system violated the highest ranking federal constitutional rights of my American citizen children.

        Judge Ellen Gesmer effectively arrested my children, claiming she had authority under habeas corpus to take them into custody because of a foreign country’s court order,” she tells Us. “But the law is clear that a New York judge cannot enforce any order from a foreign country unless and until the foreign order is ‘registered’ in the United States. Not only was there no Monaco court order registered in New York, no government official from Monaco asked the New York judge to register an order, or take any action against me or my children.

        Oi!!! The crazy on that woman. Unbelievable:

        ““I will continue to fight for my children, and one day I will land in the courtroom of a decent judge. My children ask me all the time if I am still fighting for them, and I always tell them the day will never come when I say ‘no.’ As for Judge Gesmer, she has to live with herself, and if she has a conscience, I suspect she will not sleep well, ever again.””

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Judge Gesmer probably sleeps very well. That last sentence is way too personal and borderline threatening.

        Just keep digging that hole!

      • Becks says:

        Whoa, Nellie!

        For all the leniency the judge showed her yesterday, bet she wishes she could get Kelly in front of her again today.

        Having avoided fines, contempt charges, jail time, this trick really does not know when she has it good, does she?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Always with the “MY children” “MY children”. Never, “When I talk with OUR children.”

      • jwoolman says:

        If she tells the kids she’s still fighting for them, they might be assuming Mama is a wrestler… :)

        I imagine that all the talk about fighting for the kids is a violation of the custody agreement, though. Goes under the parental alienation column. Just one more thing to add to the dossier for the Monaco court.

        I hope they come up with a good supervision plan. I’m sure the kids enjoy time with their mom, but what she’s been doing is just too dangerous and she obviously has no intention of altering her behavior. She thinks this is just “fighting for her kids” and is likely to become more and more extreme in her actions. Her words seem to be more and more extreme, certainly. She desperately needs adult supervision.

    • Tara says:

      His attorney is the sh!zit, as the kids used to say. My favorite was the USA-positive law and order spin they opted for: “We are pleased that the American judicial system has prevailed.” THAT is well played, as well as true.

  31. Jazz says:

    B*tch you didn’t lose your kids, you have 50/50 custody! Well, up until yesterday anyway. I can’t with this Dan Abrams fool.

    • kaye says:

      what’s in it for him anyway, i wonder. seriously, he’s a busy guy what does he get besides additional publicity for himself – which he doesn’t need.

  32. Katherine says:

    Go ahead, but anyone with half a brain now thinks Kelly’s a psychologically unstable and potentially dangerous certifiable nutjob. lol Good luck convincing them otherwise with her latest stunt. She has proven she can’t be trusted to have any unsupervised visits.

  33. Grace says:

    I’ve been reading up on this case both here and on Dlisted. One narrative from commenters I don’t get – ‘he has plenty of money to throw around’ – somewhere down the line of the father being shady due to his wealth. Now if he didn’t have the means to provide, where would the kids end up? Considering how many times he’s been dragged through count, custody hearing, his visa revoked, and god-knows-what. Their kids are lucky to have at least one parent put their welfare first and is able to provide a healthy, stable environment – as stable as it can be, given the circumstances. If he’s just random guy without the means to do so, he’d probably be wiped out of their lives and the kids are left with their mother, become the poster children of ‘how I got my kids back from a foreigner ex’. Can you imagine what kind of life that is?

    • Linn says:

      Kelly is lucky that her Ex has “plenty of money to throw around”. After all he is the person who pays when she visits her children in Monaco.

      • Ferris says:

        Does anyone know what the child support agreement is between these two? Since they have 50/50 custody does either not have to pay?

      • lunchcoma says:

        I don’t believe that’s public, Ferris. That being said, she has had partial custody up until now and it seems as if his income exceeds hers considerably. I suspect he pays her some child support.

    • LAK says:

      AS IF kelly would date/marry a poor schlep..

      Girl has to support her Hermes hampton’s lifestyle.

      There is no scenerio in which Kelly would have ended up with a poor man. Not because she’s super lucky, but because she’s that type of woman.

    • Lady D says:

      What got me was the thought that Daniel would pay exorbitant child support to her after she kidnapped his kids. She really isn’t all there, is she?

      • Grace says:

        Don’t know their arrangement and doubt we ever will, seeing that the father is not speaking ill of the mother unless he has to. But I am assuming he’d have to pay child support and bankroll a lot of things since she’s filed bankruptcy. Classic borderline personality. I don’t think it crossed her mind how much money and time and energy had been wasted because of her action, her own money probably, definitely not his.

      • Linn says:

        I’m wondering who is paying all lawyers? Her new boyfriend?

  34. Blla says:
    Kelly Rutherford’s Custody Case: 11 Things to Consider

    Why is all the media so pro Kelly? Like she has done the right thing all along, she has done nothing wrog, but Daniel has done wrong since the beginning?
    Insted of show to the court documents, where there is evidence of Kellys behavior on this matter and also how Daniel has follow the Court order and has hadthe kids best interest in mind all along. But It’s just how naughty and shady Daniel’s. It’s annoying when the media deliberately writes misinformation to kellys advantage.

    • Grace says:

      Because she is wrapping herself and the case in a big star stripe flag. And plus she is THE mother. Generally speaking, if a custody arrangement or anything involving children goes south, people tend to sympathise the mother without question, unless she’s proven unfit – has she reached that point yet?

      I do wonder if and when the media tide will turn against Kelly. Good thing the justice system is not as blindsided.

    • Sam says:

      I’d presume a big part of it is because Kelly is in the entertainment realm while her ex is not. He was never involved in Hollywood or that kind of business. His business is very communications/technology focused. He was never a “Hollywood” type. Kelly knows a lot of people in the media. In addition, her ex never plays the case out in public. His statements are always through his attorneys, are very simple and to the point. He doesn’t engage in histrionics or public shaming, so he gives the media far, far less to cling to. They like Kelly because she feeds them drama, which is their bread and butter.

      • lunchcoma says:

        It seems like he doesn’t really seek any kind of celebrity. I mean, I suspect he could pull himself onto the E list if he wanted to as the attractive, rich former spouse of a D-lister who’s involved in a very public court battle. But it sounds like he’s not very interested in that world and/or realizes it’s to his benefit in the court case to be the more low key parent.

    • lunchcoma says:

      She’s somewhat recognizable. He’s obscure. She’s American. He’s German. She gives interviews and takes her kids to events. He makes statements through his attorneys and seems to raise the children quietly when they’re with him.

      She’s got the better media strategy, but I suspect his strategy is much better from a legal point of view.

      • Linn says:

        And she seems to have quite a few famous friends who support her without really knowing the facts and ask their own fans to support Kelly.

        E. g. quite a few of her old Gossip Girl Costars seem to support her and I can’t help wondering if they ever looked at the actual situation, it’s embarrassing to see.

  35. Blla says:
    Kelly Rutherford Calls Court Order Sending Kids Back to Monaco ‘Shocking, Illegal and Abusive to My Children’

    That din`t take long, before she once again did speak (use) to media. She needs to be protected from herself. Crazy woman.

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      Whoa. She sounds so unhinged. And I’m pretty sure the judge is sleeping just fine, Kelly.

      She really should just be arrested. There’s obviously no getting through to her, and she obviously has no respect for the legal system (or the truth.)

  36. Blla says:

    Kelly Rutherford Judge Was a Cruel Idiot Who …’Arrested’ My Children

    back to their father … who she claims lied to the court to get his way.

    Rutherford says Judge Ellen Gesmer’s ruling to send the kids back to Daniel Giersch was “shocking, illegal, and abusive to my children.”
    She adds that Gesmer “lacked sufficient knowledge of the law, or didn’t care that she was violating the law.”
    Kelly Rutherford didn’t get the answer she wanted when Judge Ellen Gesmer ordered her children back to Monaco, and now she and her lawyer, Wendy Murphy, are out for an explanation.

    In a statement from Rutherford and Murphy obtained by E! News Wednesday, the legal duo explain how Gesmer purportedly “violated” her children’s rights as American citizens. “Judge Ellen Gesmer effectively arrested my children, claiming she had authority under habeas corpus to take them into custody because of a foreign country’s court order. But the law is clear that a New York judge cannot enforce any order from a foreign country unless and until the foreign order is ‘registered’ in the United States,” the statement explains.

    “Not only was there no Monaco court order registered in New York, no government official from Monaco asked the New York judge to register an order, or take any action against me or my children.”
    Rutherford and Murphy claim Gesmer had “no right” to seize her children’s passports and order them back to Monaco, where her ex-husband, Daniel Giersch, resides. Neither her children, Hermes, 8, and Helena, 6, nor their father have citizenship in Monaco. The Gossip Girl alum believes Giersch should have been at the hearing, but slams his lack of appearance, claiming he had no interest.

    “The children’s father didn’t care enough about his children to be here himself. Contrary to his many false claims, he, like all German citizens, can come to this country anytime on his German passport. But he didn’t bother,” she writes in the statement. “I did my best to comfort the children, but there are no words to help children understand why a judge would be so cruel.”

    Rutherford was ordered to return her children to Monaco last Thursday, but refused. She appeared in court Tuesday to face the judge, who reportedly became angry with the actress for violating a mandate.

    At the time Gesmer’s ultimate decision, Giersch’s lawyer told E! News in a statement, “We are pleased that the American judicial system has prevailed. Daniel’s request to exclude the press today from the courtroom was granted, to protect the children’s privacy. In addition, his stance of promoting Kelly’s time with the children has not changed.”

    While Rutherford has lost this latest battle in an ongoing war, she writes that she will never give up the fight for custody and criticizes the judge along the way.

    “Judge Gesmer lacked the capacity, the will or the knowledge to do the right thing, but I will continue to fight for my children, and one day I will land in the courtroom of a decent judge,” she says. “My children ask me all the time if I am still fighting for them, and I always tell them the day will never come when I say ‘no.’

    “As for Judge Gesmer, she has to live with herself, and if she has a conscience, I suspect she will not sleep well, ever again.”

    Read more:

    • Wonderbunny says:


    • Jessiebes says:

      Just read that on Buzzfeed. Amazing really how Kelly can just lie and spin tales. Hope she gets arrested for kidnapping by judge Gesmer.

      • Blla says:

        wow, thanks, that long statmedt on buzzfeed was just crazy. When will she stop & when will People understan that she need to calm Down and do the right thing for the kids.

    • minx says:

      This woman is despicable.

    • . says:

      “like all German citizens, can come to this country anytime on his German passport” this is a bold lie from KR. We all needs Visa to travel to the US.

      she did false accusings against her ex he can’t enter the US, he NEEDS a Visa like all foreign visitors, after all she did against him, she is still lying again and again.
      Maybe he will never be able to travel to the US again, thanks Kelly.

      This is a very good example for a person with a highly NPD.

      • Linn says:

        Technically most German citizens can indeed travel to the USA without a Visa, that is what the Visa Waiver Program is for.

        Obviously that doesn’t help Daniel Giersch as somebody seen as a potential threat (thanks Kelly) would never be allowed in.

      • Salamander says:

        He can effing come and go as a tourist. He’s a snake.

      • Katherine says:

        @Salamander: Wrong, he can’t. Kelly made sure he had his visa revoked because she lied to the State Department. A simple accusation of terrorism (which is what she made, claiming he was a gun-running terrorist) is taken very seriously. She was ordered to write a letter to the State Department admitting she made false claims so he could reapply for a visa, but she refused to, because that would mean admitting to her criminal behavior which she would get into serious trouble for with the federal government. You need to really educate yourself on US immigration laws before commenting, then you won’t sound so uninformed. I mean, I realize research is hard work but it’s actually very valuable. Learning the facts is an amazing resource, although you don’t really seem interested in actual facts of the case.

      • LAK says:

        Salamander: he can’t. He is on a USA revoked list. That pretty much guarantees that he can’t enter any USA territory. No embassy will issue him with a visa. Even a tourist one.

        Germany is one of the countries with the USA visa waiver programme, but if your visa is revoked, you can’t participate in said program. So Kelly is lying by saying he can just rock up with his German passport because no USA port will let him enter.

        As someone pointed out yesterday, Kelly is relying on the fact that most Americans don’t travel and don’t have passports and are therefore uninformed about visa/passport issues. She’s telling outright lies, and she is being believed.

        She lies about something as basic as this and something in plain sight.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Even if he could get a visitor visa, which he cannot thanks to his ex, he doesn’t have to. As someone wrote yesterday, the immigration issue is off the table. As of January 2014, he is not required to try to visit or work in the US. She could have kept it on the table by following the directives of October 2013 and she didn’t.

    • Kinta says:

      She really is delusional. You can not make up your own truth just because you’re Kelly R. Reality does not work like that, Kelly.

    • Manjit says:

      Sixer will understand when I say that there are shades of ‘Violet-Elizabeth’ about this woman. The xenophobia contained in this “Official Statement” sickens me. Both Ms Rutherford and her legal team should be ashamed of themselves for being so blatantly jingoistic and openly trying to use the ignorance of others for her personal gain. The woman is shameless

      • Sixer says:

        She’s like this awful mix of Bette Davis in All About Eve and Violet-Elizabeth, I agree.

        “I’ll thcweam and thcweam ’till I’m thick”

        That’s her, alright.

    • Fallon says:

      She is batsh-t crazy.

    • Ennie says:

      In private, out of the ears of the press she must have been seriously scolded and warned of the consequences, and now the judge is now her new hateful enemy.

      • K says:

        Yeah, I think she was humiliated, and this is how she is coming to terms with that humiliation.

        I love her, “one day I will land in the courtroom of a decent judge!” which translates into, “every single judge has found against me, and this is because they are all just terrible and don’t know the law or have any morals! I mean, obviously it isn’t because I am in the wrong!”

    • Jan says:

      What an idiot! Why would she publically disrespect the judge? Maybe a psychiatic evaluation should be ordered for Kelly. Her spewing lies is insane. Doesn’t she realize that she could have gone to jail for kidnapping? Maybe this still needs to happen. She needs a reality check and that is her lawyer’s job. Her lawyer is seriously incompetent if she cannot muzzle her client. Media ban, anyone?. SMDH

      I’m afraid that even with her ex-husband being very civil and accommodating to her with regards to continuing contact with their children, Kelly just won’t stop. Her behavior could escalate into something even more desperate. Murder, perhaps? God forbid.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Jan

        People says that this was a joint statement with her lawyer, Murphy.

        Murphy and Kelly are both on the board of the Children’s Justice Campaign.

        She’s also the one who sat next to Kelly during that crazy TMZ interview about needing a ‘hero for America’ to go get the kids and that if mistakes are made, she (Kelly) won’t be bothered.

      • Tara says:

        She does need jail time. Absolutely. And anything else she has coming to her, eg fines and gag orders, for all her lying, manipulation and all round disrespect toward her family and the legal system that has actually done an admirable job navigating and trying to stay on a course that most benefits the children. I really admire everyone in this scenario except for Kelly, her criminally dishonest lawyers and her blind supporters. Sorry but this chick is standing right on my last nerve.

    • Lady D says:

      Breathtaking arrogance. almost awe inspiring. (and batshit crazy)

    • notasugarhere says:

      Like clockwork, out comes the crazy. The September 3rd hearing will now have to be about jurisdiction and removing her passport access. Giersch has to get US, Monaco, EU, and The Hague courts (anybody relevant) to agree Monaco has jurisdiction moving forward.

      As someone wrote yesterday, she’s very good at loopholes.

      She’s telling her kids she’s fighting for them every day? Because keeping the “fight” she created away from the kids doesn’t occur to her.

    • Katherine says:

      Good god, there are so many lies here it would take ages to sift through them all, Kelly’s such an arrogant piece of work. This woman is insane, she has so many deep-seeded issues it’s scary. The funniest part is her criticizing the judge as not knowing or understanding the law just because she didn’t get her way. No Kelly, it’s YOU who does not understand the law. You can’t seem to comprehend that you are not ABOVE the law. What was illegal and abusive to your children was abducting them in NY and holding them captive from their father, openly defying a court order. And actually, NY DOES have jurisdiction to enforce international laws. I can’t tell if Kelly’s a complete moron who’s getting horrible legal advice or if she’s actually getting good legal advice and is so self-important she actually thinks SHE knows the law better than a New York judge (i.e.. the New York Bar Exam is one of the toughest to pass in the nation). She is not “fighting” for her kids, she’s fighting for HERSELF because she is a cold, vindictive and seriously deranged woman. She’s become completely unhinged, she needs a full psychiatric evaluation. I honestly think Kelly could be dangerous to her kids.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Double wow. Well that’s provocative.

    • Tara says:

      I think my head just exploded. I want to see sanctions and gag orders against Kelly and her “attorney” NOW. And they need to be ENFORCED. Enough is f()€|<!ng enough. SHE was responsible for filing the mirror order in NY; now we know exactly why she didn't file it. And "the father doesn't care enough to be here" my @$$!! The unmitigated gall. Charges for all their infractions and crimes now. No more tax $s to fund little miss crazy's one woman burlesque of justice. Bleh. Cannot stand that wench.

  37. ReignbowGirl says:

    I’m surprised her legal counsel has never advised her, as mine did during a custody dispute with my ex, that judges will generally grant custody to the parent who will ensure access to the children for the other parent is maintained. Her absconding with the kids reinforces that she won’t ensure her kids’ father won’t have unfettered access; it’s only logical, therefore, that the judge decided against her. Giersch’s lawyer’s comments following the decision lead me to think he’s the one with the better legal advice.

    And can we talk about not just how blatant an attempt at appearing above her errors Rutherford is in wearing all white, but that her whites don’t match?! If you can’t match exactly, you contrast! *meow*

  38. Ennie says:

    I read someone’s comment at other site that it’s just the best:
    She now has the life she wanted for her ex.
    (I actually think her life is better, because I doubt she’d shared the children if she had sole custody).

    • lucy2 says:

      Great comment. Everything she tried to do to him, she’s done to herself.

    • K says:

      At the start, I’m pretty sure her ex would have gladly settled for what she has now – solid weeks on end caring for the kids, frequent visits, frequent calls and Skypes, involvement in education, healthcare, everything.

      Her rage is because she wasn’t allowed to treat him as the sperm donor.

  39. amp122076 says:


  40. anne_000 says:

    On that People article of her statement, there’s a link at the bottom to Kelly’s full two-page statement.

    Basically, Kelly says…

    - The Judge did this illegally without knowledge of the law or didn’t care about the law or didn’t know the case history.
    - The judge arrested her kids and her actions were abusive towards them
    - The Judge had no authority to send the kids to Monaco where the parents don’t have citizenship
    - Daniel didn’t care enough about the kids to show up to the NY court
    - Daniel could have traveled to the US on his German passport
    - Daniel lied about not knowing where the kids were. He knew they were in NY.
    - Daniel Skyped with the kids so he knew where they were and that they were safe
    - She didn’t have time to respond to a nearly 100 page filing because the lawyers gave them to her right before the 4:30 pm deadline to respond though she was supposed to be served by 3 pm
    - That it was the cruelest act against children she’d ever seen when the judge would not listen to her but instead demanded the kids be handed over.
    - The kids are ‘habitual residents’ of America
    - She filed under the Hague Convention rules

    She posted some case file references, kept up the American citizens meme, that it’s Daniel’s fault for not getting back his visa, and then said the judge will not ever sleep well again if she had a conscience.

    • Grace says:

      Bwahahahahahaha! A delusional soul is delusional. I am gonna curl in the corner and laugh for a bit before I can read her statement.

    • Katherine says:

      Her delusions are strong, aside from her laughable belief that she knows and understands the law and jurisdictions better than a New York judge. lol Yeah, o-k-a-y.

  41. holly2905 says:

    I have to ask WHO IS PAYING FOR ALL THIS???? These lawyers she’s engaged surely don’t come cheap and when was the last time she worked? I don’t understand how women like this behave like the rules don’t apply and then expect someone else (usually a male) to pay the freight.

  42. NellStar says:

    She really does herself no favours by bashing the judge. It will only get back to other judges that cross her path. The verbal diarrhea that comes from her mouth is unreal, constantly blaming others for her actions. Somewhere in Monaco, Daniel is hugging his kids and eating popcorn as she rambles and digs her grave.

  43. mayamae says:

    I’m not going to comment on court, because it’s all been said. This is a completely superficial comment, but her mother is striking.

    Just read upthread that the woman at court is not her mother. They look like carbon copies of each other.

  44. Sam H x says:

    LMAO. Her statement is a utter joke! I’m sure Judge Ellen Gesmer had a peaceful nights sleep and will continue to do so. You just know she got ripped a new one hence this statement she has put out today.

    I challenge a media outlet to poke holes in her statements, really put her on the spot & watch her squirm.

    Soon enough the Monaco courts will get wind of her antics and will be updated with her track record. Agree with BearCatLawyer I don’t think Daniel’s lawyers will go in guns blazing for sole custody. Like BCL said first they will establish jurisdiction then make amendments to the visitation to avoid this scenario again. They will cover their bases.

    Thing is with Narcissists they love you only when you go along with what they say, tell them what they want to hear and once you express your opinion/object, that’s it you are public enemy number one.

    Dan Abrams was going off on one on twitter yesterday. He will never be taken seriously again ever!!

  45. anne_000 says:

    ABC news has a quote from Daniel’s lawyer about Kelly’s claim that Daniel lied to the Court about not knowing where the kids were:

    Giersch’s attorney Fahi Takesh Hallin responded to these comments today, saying,

    “[Daniel] repeatedly asked her where the children were — multiple times per day and she refused to tell him. Finally, the judge forced her to reveal the children’s location while we were in court as she was concealing them.”

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      That’s truly scary. More power to him and his legal team for protecting those kids.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Who ARE these people?


        I can imagine how she may have taunted and toyed with him on the phone while he was trying to find out where the kids were.

        I guess she didn’t care how he felt scared about the situation. Is her emotions the only ones that count among the four of them?

        If the situation were reversed, she would have raised Holy Hell and complained to the media 24/7 how he taunted her on the phone while she balled her eyes out.

  46. Jayna says:

    With all of her histrionic behavior this past six months, especially, I think she’s killed any career she had left.

    • Grace says:

      As an actress, probably not. Unless it’s a reality show she’s just playing herself. But there are plenty of other things she could do. Book deals, for example, maybe one day we get a memoir about her emotional and difficult journey with international law. *eye roll*

    • Katherine says:

      Forget about her career. I’d be surprised if Kelly’s visitation rights were not amended after this latest stunt she pulled. She’ll be lucky if she ever gets to see her kids again without an entourage of minders and heavy security personnel from this point on. I’ve seen unmarried couples go through less contentious legal battles over custody arrangements than what she’s turned this into, what she’s doing to her kids is disgraceful, cruel and emotionally abusive.

  47. Salamander says:

    I don’t get it. Why is everyone on the husband’s side? The kids belong with their mother. The judges in this case seem to be real woman haters. I think the whole thing sucks. That baby daddy is obviously a snake. She loves her children and believes they belong with her. Why is she being vilified?

    • Katherine says:

      *rolls eyes* READ. THE. COURT. DOCUMENTS. Educate yourself before commenting, so you don’t sound so silly. Then again, facts don’t really seem to be your strong suit. She’s not being villified and her ex husband is not the snake, SHE IS. She brought this on herself with all her lies and manipulations. She has deliberately gone out of her way to obstruct court orders while her ex-husband has obeyed them. Spare me the “woman haters” comment, the judges are not against women. They are following the letter of the law, something Kelly doesn’t seem to think she should have to do. She seems to think she’s ABOVE the law, hence why she disregards court orders and breaks the law constantly with her criminal behavior. She should be in jail. Kids don’t automatically belong with their mother just because she gave birth. Kelly is unhinged, those kids are better off with their father, which is proven in the court documents. He is far more stable, reasonable and fit to parent. Seriously, being a woman does not automatically make you a superior parent. This isn’t the 1800′s.

      • Tara says:

        Well said Katherine.

      • Liberty says:

        well said.

        There’s also this, from eon line, January 3, 2009:

        “Rutherford cited the most cited “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for the split, which didn’t seem imminent last month when she was talking about how her spouse was helping her prepare their 2-year-old son, Hermes Gustaf Giersch, for the arrival of a little sibling. (View the documents)

        “My husband actually found some really cute books about explaining to your kid about the baby that’s coming and the mommy being pregnant and what goes on with the mommy and then what happens when you bring the baby home,” Rutherford told People.

    • Patty says:

      I think we are on the side of the facts. And the facts are that he is by all accounts the better parent for the children. Especially when it comes to making sure that they maintain a relationship with their mother. Their mother who by the way has been trying to cut their father out of their lives since before the youngest child was born. Read the original court decision, that will answer all of your questions. Although I’m guessing you aren’t really interested in the facts.

    • K says:

      Because women who emotionally abuse their kids because they are too self-involved to imagine anyone else has needs or feelings that may differ to their own, should not be the primary carer. That simple.

      • Katherine says:

        But “Yay, women!” What do you mean that’s not a valid argument? Women are clearly superior parents to men just by nature of the fact that they’re women, can carry a baby for nine months and then give birth to said baby like their bodies are naturally inclined to do. Clearly if the mother is a violent alcoholic and the father is a perfectly stable, reasonable and wonderful parent, that child should still be left with the mother. Because she’d be devastated if she were “torn” from her child, while he’d be just fine with being yanked away from his child. And besides, “Yay, women!”

    • Tara says:

      Arf. Catch fish. Be on way. Good sea lion.

  48. Ennie says:

    Last development:
    She is accusing Daniel, through a third party, that 3 years ago one of the children fell in a pool, the accuse that the kid almost drowned, but I don’t think so.
    Curiously, the woman who supposedly saw / saved the girl knew someone at Kelly’s building, and they contacted and her statement is part of Kelly’s lawsuit.
    Why is she leaking this old thing now? Children can and do have accidents with the best of parents around.

    • Maum says:

      The statement from that third party dates from 2012. Presumably that would have been taken into consideration back then and the judges still decided that the children were ‘safe’ living with their father.
      So why bring it up now?

      • Katherine says:

        I would think so. As for why she’s bringing it up now, it’s pretty obvious. Kelly’s getting desperate, since nothing she’s tried so far has worked in her favor. She doesn’t really have many (if any) options left at this point.

      • Peanutbuttr says:

        Wasn’t Daniel’s visa revoked before May 2012. Does he have a pool in Monaco?

    • Katherine says:

      Because, Kelly’s running out of options. That’s why she’s fabricated even more BS and conveniently found someone to back it up. The problem is that she’s like “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” When you lie over and over again, with no evidence ever found to support such unsubstantiated claims, people stop believing you. And by people I mean the court of law, since we’ve seen how easy it is for the irresponsible mainstream media to manipulate the court of public opinion. Her incessant lies and repeated attempts to alienate Daniel from his kids’ lives are already on record in numerous court documents. She’s so transparent, I am honestly dumbfounded there are still people who believe a word she says. What judge is going to believe any allegations she comes up with now, considering her track record? They’d really have to be a special kind of stupid not to see through her cruel, dastardly and emotionally abusive machinations.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Ennie

      That’s on page 25, starting on line 9 of the 2013 case document.

      - It says that before Helena was born, she filed against equal custody of Hermes claiming that Hermes was in danger due to Daniel’s pool.
      - That Kelly had a private investigator follow Daniel.
      - The then-judge of that case hired a minor’s counsel.
      - The minor’s counsel investigated Daniel’s home and found nothing to substantiate Kelly’s allegations.
      - The then-judge of that case continued equal custody of Hermes.

      • Ennie says:

        Anne, I think this is another time, I think in the Bermudas supposedly while he and the children were on holiday. It is on people’s site, which is becoming a mouthpiece for her.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Ennie

        Oh I see now. Thanks.

      • meow says:

        I wonder if she has plans to bring this affidavit with her to Monaco Sept 3.
        She is so desperate.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Ennie

        I wonder how extraordinarily coincidental this occurrence is.

        I don’t know if it happened the way this other woman said it did or if it did at all or whatever.

        But since Kelly has been known to hire people to spy on Daniel, I wonder if this woman was one of them?

        It’s interesting that this other woman just happened to be in the Bahamas at that time of the occurrence, just happened to be at the same hotel pool, just happened have a girlfriend who was on the same plane back to NY with Daniel and found out who his ex was, and just happened to know somebody who lived in Kelly’s building so that Kelly was able to contact her to get her affidavit.

        How did her girlfriend know who to look out for on the plane? And how did being on the same plane lead to finding out who his ex was? They don’t have the same last name.


        It’s interesting how each step of the way this lead to Kelly finding out and why and how People ‘exclusively obtained’ the affidavit to print it up now.

  49. SavageGrace says:

    Daniel needs to stop being nice and allowing her to get away with her stunts and slandering. I understand he wants the kids to have their mother in their lives but she’s getting desperate and it’s starting to get scary. The more this goes on and the more her behavior is brushed off, the more and more scared I get of what she’s going to do next. She’s just so unbalanced…

    • Katherine says:


    • notasugarhere says:

      Crossing my fingers that the NY court and judge will file something against her for these recent actions. That would help his case in Monaco, especially if he ends up asking for travel restrictions.

    • K says:

      The problem is that if the kids really do love her, which it seems they do, losing her altogether would harm them badly. Same reason Denise Richards is so saintly about Charlie Sheen, I imagine.

    • Samtha says:

      I think he wants his children, when they get older, to see that he did everything possible to keep her in their lives. Undoubtedly he will move for restrictions on her visitation behind the scenes, though.

      • SavageGrace says:

        I hope so but as nice as it would be to be able to tell the kids he did all he could… at this point, I think many would understand that he could no longer put the kids in such a toxic environment with such an unbalanced woman, mother or not.

        Though I will give him this: sitting back and letting her run her mouth, get in trouble with judges, etc… I applaud his restraint. It’s also a good move to keep himself looking as the stable & mature parent rather than getting into the mud pit with her and slinging some mud back. I applaud you, sir. LOL :-)

    • Laura says:

      True. The sociopath in her knows that despite all her insane behaviour he will never truly punish her. I know he feels obligated to keep her in their kids lives but her behaviour is slowly but surely morphing from bad to dangerous.

  50. Chantal says:

    Is the follow up to Gone Girl to become a reality show with Kelly? Media circus! I’d Nancy Grace on the case? Or she only does murder? I want to believe this woman wants the best for her children, but I doubt it. She wants the best for Kelly.

  51. ERM says:

    Shaking head….

    Kelly Rutherford has launched a stinging attack on the judge who ruled against her in her ongoing custody battle. On Tuesday a New York court ordered the 46-year-old to send her two children back to her ex-husband Daniel Giersch in Monaco, after she had ignored an earlier order to do so. The following day the Gossip Girl star released a biting statement, accusing Judge Ellen Gesmer of being cruel, abusive, incompetent and acting outside of the law.
    Read more:

    • Giddy says:

      Even after hearing all she has done, I am still stunned by her statement. She is so egotistical, so narcissistic, that she actually felt free to insult the judge who sent the children home to their father. Does she really think that anyone in the judiciary will look upon her favorably after that? Her September hearing should be interesting. I have a feeling that her visitation and custody are going to be drastically changed, and it’s all her own fault.

  52. Diana says:

    I am hoping to God that Daniel’s lawyers convince him to file for sole custody or at least a motion to have only supervised visitation for Kelly. That lady has clearly gone bonkers and the last thing I want to read next summer is news that she jumped off a cliff with the kids because the American justice system had failed her, and she, the poor American mum who loves her America-born US citizen kids, was ready to give up her life to bring attention to this ‘constitutional’ issue.

    • SavageGrace says:

      That honestly is my greatest fear. She certainly seems to have the mentality that women who off themselves and the kids have: they are HER kids; if she can’t have them all to herself then nobody else will have them – especially not the “evil” father. It’s scary. I really do hope he either gets fully custody and keeps her away or she is restricted to supervised visitations – in Monaco, no more handing over the passports and visiting the US.

  53. Jezza says:

    Daniel needs to get sole custody with supervised visitation only. I thought after yesterday’s ruling going the way anyone with common sense was going to go, she would STFU for a little bit. I gave her too much credit.

  54. Liberty says:

    Okay, I started to wonder about something, and looked up Kelly’s Wiki page. Maybe this was already mentioned in a thread, but it appears she herself was raised by her own mom without a father around (no father is mentioned, nor a divorce or death of a father). So in addition to NPD and sociopathy likely being at play here, is it possible she actually also did desire, as some suggest, to create a “no father around” scenario in her own life, as her comfort zone? And is infuriated that it is not working out? It’s like the plot of a mystery novel, but….

    WIki reads like this:

    “Kelly Rutherford Deane[2] was born in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, on November 6, 1968, daughter of Ann Edwards.[3] She has a brother named Anthony.[3] Rutherford attended Corona del Mar High School in Newport Beach, California.[4]…..”

    On, it reads like this:

    “Born November 6, 1968, in Elizabethtown, KY; daughter of Ann Edwards (a model and writer); brother of Anthony Rutherford (an actor); married Carlos Tarajano (a banker), June 30, 2001 (divorced).

    • notasugarhere says:

      I’ve seen people think that about Halle Berry too. Growing up with a strong single mother, no father in the picture. To *some* women, this may become a “Men don’t belong here, they aren’t needed” mentality.

  55. Duchess of Corolla says:

    She looks so much like Angela from “The Office.”