Kelly Rutherford releases a crazy rant about the judge who ruled against her

Kelly Rutherford manages a small smile as she steps out for lunch after leaving court, where she was ordered to send her children to their father in Monaco
Earlier this week, Kelly Rutherford was ordered by a NY judge to return her two children, Hermes, 8, and Helena, 6, to their father in Monaco, where they have lived since 2012. Kelly kept the kids past their scheduled visit with her, in violation of a court order and custody agreement. Courts in two different states and at the federal level have rejected Kelly’s bid to have the children returned to live with her in the U.S. She has repeatedly smeared her children’s father in the media and has claimed in multiple interviews and in front of Congress that her children were deported when this was clearly not the case. The court hearing on Tuesday was essentially Kelly’s last stand, and she didn’t even bring the children with her to court as ordered, although she eventually surrendered them to the custody of their paternal grandmother.

Of course Kelly has now issued a statement about the ruling against her, which even her previous lawyer called predictable. She personally attacked the judge who ordered her to turn her children over, and she repeated her spurious claim that their father can come to the US (he can’t visit, she had his visa revoked). Here is Kelly’s full statement. She sounds like an Internet troll here. TL;DR: ‘Murica.

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. 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.

Knowing she had no authority, Judge Gesmer seized my children and their U.S. passports, and forced them to leave the United States and reside in Monaco, a country where neither they nor I, nor even their father, has citizenship.

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.

I did my best to comfort the children, but there are no words to help children understand why a judge would be so cruel.

We asked the State Department for help, but they claimed there was nothing any federal official could do. That response was curious given that non-citizen children receive help from the U.S. government all the time to ensure that they are not forced to leave the United States. We pointed out that under the Hague Convention, which was the basis for my ex-husband’s filing, the State Department must be advised, and it must consent to the removal of American children. The State Department claimed it had no role, and there was nothing it could do to protect the illegal removal of American children from their own country, even when they were being forced to live in a nation where neither the children nor either parent has citizenship.

We filed an emergency action under the Hague Convention in federal court, which is supposed to put an automatic stay on all state court decisions that affect children’s residency in the United States, but that court ruled that a federal court has no authority under the Hague Convention to correct a state court order, even when the state court order is unconstitutional and was issued without authority.
I find that odd.

When the children’s father filed papers this week demanding that the children be taken into custody, he told Judge Gesmer there was an emergency and that he did not know the whereabouts of the children, or whether they were safe. That was a lie. I told him in writing repeatedly that the children were in New York, safe with me. He Skyped with the children and talked to them many times during the periods when he claimed he did not know the their whereabouts, or whether they were safe. It was all lies to persuade the court to issue an emergency order. The court went along with his false emergency claim and ordered the lawyers to serve me their papers by 3 p.m. The judge gave me until 4:30 p.m. to respond. I received the nearly 100 page filing just before 4:30.

The following morning, I filed my response explaining the myriad legal reasons why the judge had no authority to take custody of my children or their U.S. passports, much less to command them to leave their own country. The judge did not listen to one word I said and instead demanded that the children immediately be taken from my custody, and handed over to the lawyers for delivery to an airport. It was the most cruel act against a child I have ever witnessed in my entire life and the fact that it happened to American children at the hands of an American judge, in a United States courtroom is just inconceivable.

I am including below some of the points we raised in court, so the public can see clearly how illegal and irrational the court’s decision was.


No official in any branch of government, including a judge, has authority, under any circumstances, to order an American citizen to leave the United States and reside in a foreign country. This principle has been the law of the land since 1967. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) (The right of an American citizen to physically remain in the United States is absolute and cannot be “shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.”)


Judge Gesmer forced my children to leave the United States on the grounds that they were “habitual residents” of Monaco, thus “wrongfully retained” by me in their own country. This is absurd because the children have always been “habitual residents” only of the United States, and it is legally impossible to “wrongfully retain” children who are “habitual residents” in their own country. Diaz Arboleda v. Arenas, 311 F.Supp. 2d 336 (E.D.N.Y 2004)(there can be no wrongful retention in a country where children are habitually resident.)

Although Monaco issued a ruling in 2014 stating that the children were “habitual residents” there, that ruling had no force of law or affect on the children’s status as “habitual residents” of the United States because Monaco had no authority to declare the children “habitual residents.” This is because the California order that in 2012 sent my children to live in Monaco — temporarily— explicitly stated that the children would remain at all times citizens and “habitual residents” of the United States, and that no other state or nation had authority to declare the children “habitual residents” of another jurisdiction.

In addition to the 2012 court order forbidding Monaco to declare my children “habitual residents,” my ex-husband and I entered into an agreement in 2012 stating that the children’s stay abroad would be temporary and that the children would always remain citizens and habitual residents of the United States.

My ex-husband violated that agreement by filing papers in Monaco in 2014 to cause a court there to declare the children “habitual residents.”

Judge Gesmer knew of the parental agreement, and the California order that forbade Monaco to declare my children “habitual residents,” yet she forced my children to leave their own country based solely on that 2014 declaration in Monaco.

Judge Gesmer either lacked sufficient knowledge of the law, or didn’t care that she was violating the law, because the it is well established that when a child’s parents agree that a child will remain a “habitual resident” of the United States, no other country can declare that child a “habitual resident.” Guzzo v. Cristofano, 719 F.3d 100 (2d Cir.2013)(even though child was declared a “habitual resident” in Italy, the parents’ shared intent that the child would reside in United States predominated over Italy’s declaration of habitual residence there). Polliero v. Centenaro, 373 Fed. Appx. 102 (2d Cir. 2010)(where parents did not have shared intent to abandon children’s initial habitual residence, temporary residence elsewhere could not be established).

It is profoundly disturbing that a judge in an American court of law would denigrate this country’s Constitution, and my children’s precious citizenship rights, in favor of an illegal declaration from a foreign country, especially where no government official in that foreign country has expressed an interest in enforcing that illegal declaration, or otherwise forcing my children to leave the United States.

In fact, Monaco has yet to determine whether it even has jurisdiction at all over my children’s custody. A hearing on that issue is scheduled for September 3. Which means Judge Gesmer forced my children to leave their own country based on an order from a country that not only expressed no interest in forcing my children to leave the United States, but has yet to determine that it has any jurisdiction over the children at all.

This case is simple. My ex-husband and I, and the California court, agreed in 2012 that the children’s court-ordered stay abroad would be temporary, and that they would reside with their father briefly, solely to accommodate him while he undertook to resolve his U.S. work visa problems. He did nothing whatsoever to resolve his visa issues for three years, while my children and I waited patiently for some U.S. court to say “that’s enough time – the temporary period is over and the children must return to their own country either with their father or without him.”

When both California and New York declined jurisdiction this July, the temporary period ended by force of law because no court in this country had an order in place rehiring my children or me to do anything. Never in my worst nightmares did I envision the children’s father to angrily, and unlawfully take legal action in New York to cause my children further pain, by demanding their forced exile beyond an already too long period of three years. Nor did I envision a judge my own country violating the Constitution and adding to my children’s suffering by indulging his tactics.

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. 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.


Is she ok? I really question this woman’s sanity. A federal court already ruled that her children’s rights were not violated and that it’s perfectly legal for them to live overseas with their father. They hold passports from America and from Germany and have dual citizenship, their US passport does not trump their German passport. There’s no doubt in my mind that her children are right where they should be. If she would have tried to get along with her ex to peacefully coparent she wouldn’t even be close to this situation, but this is not about what’s best for the children, it’s about what Kelly wants. She wants the kids, she thinks she’s entitled to them, and she sounds totally unhinged.

Also, Kelly’s lawyer released that statement from Kelly to the press. What kind of lawyer lets their client rant at a judge like this and risk contempt of court?

People has a new story about an exhibit from Kelly’s side in her 2012 custody battle. A woman described saving Kelly’s daughter, Helena, from nearly drowning in a pool at a hotel in Bermuda. The children were under Daniel’s care, and he was with them poolside sitting in a lounge chair. It’s unclear from the woman’s story how long Daniel was inattentive when Helena fell into the pool. Daniel should have been paying closer attention but he comes across as a very worried dad. He ran to his daughter’s side the minute he noticed, he asked so many questions about the accident and he offered to buy the woman who saved Helena lunch. This is the worst story Kelly has about Daniel and the judge took it into consideration and still sent the children to live with him in Monaco. This is all she can come up with to smear him.

Daniel’s lawyer has calmly responded to Kelly’s claim that she always told him where the kids were when she was refusing to send them back. He said “[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.” Daniel had no personal comment. Really he doesn’t have to say anything, she’s doing all the work for him. She’ll be lucky to get supervised visits at this point.

Header image is of Kelly going out to lunch after court. Other images are from outside court, after the ruling. Kelly’s look reminds me of Cate Blanchett’s character in Blue Jasmine. Credit: Pacific Coast News

Kelly Rutherford manages a small smile as she steps out for lunch after leaving court, where she was ordered to send her children to their father in Monaco

Kelly Rutherford manages a small smile as she steps out for lunch after leaving court, where she was ordered to send her children to their father in Monaco

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

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

407 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford releases a crazy rant about the judge who ruled against her”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. LB says:

    So her argument boils down to “I have a right to have everything I want because America.” She certainly knows what words to say to appeal to the uninformed – America, citizen, mother. There are also so many omissions and outright lies in that essay and because the case is confusing, in terms of jurisdictional matters, the public falls for it. It’s so misleading.

    Blaming the judges for following the laws is also unhelpful. But it’s clear it would take all the strength in the world to get Kelly to admit she’s responsible for her own predicament.

    • Sixer says:

      Looking at that Dan Whatshisname yesterday (sorry, had never heard of him before and frankly hope I never hear of him again), I think we can add media to Kelly and her lawyers with the jingoism thing. They seem to be acting as knowing gatekeepers to it. Anyone publishing or reporting on this without pointing out the glaring factual inaccuracies is knowingly disseminating lies.

      And so I guess you can’t really blame the public when they support the crazy woman.

      So way to go Celebitchy for actually doing proper journalism on it. You know. With research and facts. That kind of thing.

      • Val says:

        Yes, I find it absolutely shocking how any media outlet is portraying her as the victim (lookin at you, DailyMail!)! But I think most people who at least -somewhat- followed this story realise that Kelly is nuts and the kids are much better off in Monaco.
        Pulling at people’s heartstrings and patriotism is such a low, low move.

      • Jellybean says:

        The daily mail online is garbage and the print addition is a right wing mouth piece, think of them as the UK’s Fox News. I honestly don’t think the online addition checks any facts at all, they just republish stuff from other gossip sites and get off on stirring up controversy, regardless of what facts they do have.

      • Rachel says:

        I don’t think some of the members of the GMA panel are on board with Dan Abrams’ take on this. The other day when they were reporting on it, Robin Roberts used some very particular language and her tone led me to believe she feels Dan is full of sh!t. I can always count on Robin.

        As a lawyer, I cannot believe any attorney would allow their client to act in this way. To issue a statement like this, personally attacking the judge… well, at this point, her best bet IS to accept Monaco’s jurisdiction. She is burning her bridges with the American legal system like Sherman marching through Atlanta. You can’t unload on a judge like that and not expect backlash. OMG I cringed.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        @Rachel–thanks for the info re Robin Roberts. Thinking that she as well had jumped on to the KR Krazy Train with Dan Abrams (when people mentioned the ABC/GWA coverage) was making me sad.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Daily Mail, People, ABC News… there’s shoddy journalism all around. Someone with the NY Times or Wall Street Journal needs to set the record straight and call out Abrams for his lack of professionalism as a “legal expert”.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Nutballs, the WSJ? Sorry, but I’ve been interviewed by the WSJ half a dozen times and each time it was like entering the Twilight Zone. The questions were off the wall, biased, based on opinions and not facts, and the results were bizarre. I was never quoted accurately and, on one occasion, my statement on behalf of one client was attributed to another client, with me cut out of it entirely. And the client who received credit? Well, he was the son of a Korean mom and an African-American dad and didn’t resemble me at all. They also refused to respond to our attempts to get a correction. No, the WSJ probably supports Kelly.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Oh my. I don’t read WSJ regularly, but I have seen some good op-ed pieces there, hence why I mentioned them. Point being, someone with a broad readership should be calling Abrams out.

    • Sarah says:

      Perfect statement above – she thinks she is “entitled” to her kids,no questions asked. I now really believe Kelly Rutherford is mentally ill. Amazing display of narcissism. Poor kids.

    • funcakes says:

      That first picture explains everything.

    • Katherine says:

      Pretty much. lol

    • holly hobby says:

      If she doesn’t agree with the judge she can file an appeal. To belittle a judge because she thinks she is sitting in a no name court is stupid. That jurisdiction belongs in family law court, not superior, not district, not circuit and certainly not supreme!

      She can’t file an appeal because she knows she won’t win! I hope her ex is collecting all of this as evidence of her mental instability.

  2. Grace says:

    Blah Blah Blah. Take a seat, woman. Your kids are not points on a balance score card.

    Edit: I can’t help but side-eye her legal team. Surely there is a worthy cause elsewhere.

    • Cricket says:

      It sounds like she is being represented by Elle Woods (aka American Citizen)

      • Norman Bates' Mother says:

        I agree but with a small correction. Elle Woods was a good lawyer and Kelly is represented by someone, who seems to be as qualified as Reese Witherspoon herself – no legal knowledge, but a greatly overblown sense of American superiority.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        Even Elle Woods used actual and indisputable facts to plead her client’s case. This sounds more like Elmer Fudd is advising her. Oh, I just realized that you meant Reece Witherspoon, the actress who played Elle Woods, because of her “I’m an American citizen!” drunk tirade, lol! Yes, in that case I agree with you. 😊

    • ERM says:

      To be fair to her legal team (+all the poor paralegals hiding in a closet) they cannot control this woman. They can give her advice or remove themselves from the case but short of gagging her …. (I’ll stop here so we can all revel on what it would be like if she were gagged).

  3. Little Darling says:

    I wonder if she’ll ever have a moment in the future and think, wow, I spent so many years of my kids lives fighting with their dad instead of making the situation better. Or if it even penetrates that she’s going down in infamy for brining the crazy to a divorce, which has FAR surpassed her acting career, even in its heyday.

    Life is so short, and so precious and this is how this baboon is going to spend this time while her children are little? It goes so quickly, and life can be cut short when we least expect it.

    It just seems like so much, but I get the impression she likes the infamy and somehow that, and the drive to be “right” and “win”, keeps her warm at night instead of the sweet little bodies she could see a lot more of if she wanted.

    ETA-Side note: I had a real Dbag of an ex for a really long time. AND we had that same initial judge Kelly had, Theresa Beaudet. She’s a tough cookie and I got a dose of reality when I realized there is no “sole” custody out here really, not like my native NYC. It’s all pretty much 50/50 unless you want to be litigious, and even then it’s rare.

    That said; I’ve been separated for 10 years now, filed around 4 years, dealt with Theresa’s ruling, was forced to see through the blind rage and coparent, and now my ex and I are going to get a house together again for the remainder of the time they’re in school.

    Coparenting is the BEST gift you can give your children.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      So…in your case Judge Beaudet’s orders worked? You and your husband both were seemingly able to move on from the past and become functional co-parents. It sounds like you two are providing a stable, loving home for the kids and acting in their best interests as well. Kudos to you!

      • Little Darling says:

        Well, it’s not her orders that worked, I WORKED MY ASS OFF!! (:

        I did though. I worked every day of my life to remember he’s their dad, he loves them too. I consistently worked on my commitment to be a better person, to be more forgiving to my ex, to not let my ego get in the way of parenting properly.

        It also helped, I must say, that financially the CA court, and Theresa B.’s ruling definitely had my back since I was a stay at home mom and had not a single bank account in my name. I walked away with a cool 10k a month in child support and spousal support in order to get myself on my feet again. I changed careers so I could have flexible hours for the kids and now make a great living for myself and my kids.

        Theresa is a tough judge, and specifically tough on mothers who think dads cannot raise children, or expect to be given parental exclusivity because they gave birth. Looking back I think it was very fair, although that first year I cried my face off because the ruling happened right before the holidays and luck of the draw he got them for thanksgiving and Christmas, which was very very difficult for me. But I grew and got over it, and most importantly my two guys have an AMAZING relationship with both of us. It changes everything.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Little Darling, good for you for being able to accept the ruling, work within it’s limits and put your children’s interests first. By giving them what they need (a relationship with their dad) it everyone wins. I can’t imagine it was easy for you, but you have my admiration and respect.

      • Ennie says:

        Kudos to you, you are a darling!

    • cannibell says:

      It *so* is, LD. I also had a difficult ex, and while we weren’t able to get to a point where we shared a house again (I think his new wife and her three children would have liked that even less than I would have!), I did a whole lot of keeping my mouth shut to keep peace while refusing to go away. They’re adults now and I can tell you that however you make it happen, keeping things as peaceful as possible between parents pays off over time. Good luck and congrats to both of you adults on having been able to get to the place you have.

    • funcakes says:

      Good job Little D.

    • Birdix says:

      Wow… I was feeling the slightest bit of sympathy for Kelly, beyond all reason, thinking I might go around the bend if I were as powerless/unable as she seems to be to get her kids back and yours was the voice of reason. She could learn a lot from you.

    • Tara says:

      You ARE a little darling. I echo the others applauding your restraint, dedication and hard work. I LOVE that it paid off and that you have a great new career and happy healthy kids. Thank you for sharing your experience with Judge Theresa; sounds like there are some things/judges that work as intended in the legal system.

    • Samtha says:

      You sound like an amazing mom. 🙂

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      @Little Darling
      Now, THAT’s being a good mother. Not just whining and clinging to what makes YOU happy, but sacrificing, growing, hurting, stretching as hard as you can to meet the needs of your children. That’s love. That’s parenting. And I wish Kelly could take a hard look at the difference between what she’s doing in the name of motherhood and what you have done for your children. Hats off to you. You’re a real mother, and I admire you very much.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      @Little Darling – when you have some time, you might want to send Judge Beaudet a note telling her how she helped you and your family. Often judges only hear about the results of their decisions when something bad happens, and you can just imagine how stressful her days are dealing with highly emotional people. I bet she would appreciate hearing how well you are all doing.

    • Mixtape says:

      @LittleDarling–fabulous story. What KR doesn’t seem to have picked up is that judges aim to be as fair as possible in custody disputes (even though both sides tend to view this as unfair because neither got their way). One thing that will cause them to favor a party is if the other party clearly attempts to alienate the children, as KR has done in spades. Like so many parents in messy divorces, she thinks she is fighting for her kids’ rights, but she is only fighting for herself and making their lives unpredictable and miserable as a result. Even sadder is that one day soon they will be old enough to recognize it.

  4. Lynnie says:

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

  5. original kay says:

    Those poor kids.
    I cannot imagine how it was for them, in that court room.

  6. Shambles says:

    Cheesus Christ. This woman is off her meds.

    So sad for the kids. This could have probably been an ok situation for them, one they could have made it past relatively easily, if they didn’t have a bat sh!t mother telling people the judge is “cruel” for “arresting” them. Mom is making this experience a hundred times more traumatic for them than it ever needed to be.

  7. Mia4S says:

    That’s not a statement, that’s a novel.

    That pool story, come on! Now she’s being ridiculous. I travel a lot and have grabbed kids who were going under in pools on three separate occasions. Their parents were feet away and averted their eyes for a moment. It takes less than a second. Don’t judge because I guarantee it could be you. I guarantee it.

    • Tiffany says:

      Yep. While mine experiences have never been by pools, the kid always breaks speed while the parent in looking for something. I stand in the way to slow them down. Your right, only takes a second. I feel for them because that have this look of embarrassment thinking they are being judged. No judgment, just move on.

    • StormsMama says:


    • MrsB says:

      Yep, I had to grab a save a kid the other day at the pool we are members of with tons of parents around and TWO lifeguards!! It can happen so quickly. Get swimming lessons for your kids folks!!

    • Birdix says:

      Yep, happened to me when I was in the pool with my kid. Just got into a deep spot. I did see it and pulled her up, but what struck me at the time was how quiet it was–no splashing, flailing like in the movies, just quietyly sinking under the water. And her big scared eyes.

      • bostoncat says:

        Everybody thinks drowning looks like in the movies where people call for help but drowning is silent. A person goes into the Instinctive Drowning Response and their body will not let them waste air screaming and their arms instinctively go out to the side. I used to lifeguard and we just bought a house with an inground pool. With two little girls at home I made my husband read this article several times:

        20-60 seconds is all it takes

      • NorthernGirl_20 says:

        Happened to my son – we were in a hotel pool. He was standing up and seeing how far he could go and still touch the bottom of the pool, we had our 1 year old with us and were watching him splash around. We didn’t realize our son wasn’t touching and was in trouble right away – a few seconds but enough to start drowning. He was so silent, I grabbed him and he threw water up all over me. He was fine but it was very scary. Took a LONG time before he was comfortable in the water, like about 5 years.

      • bluhare says:

        It happened to me when I was 3 and in a big hurry to get in the pool. All I remember is looking at people swimming by as I was underwater.

        That being said, I’m not particularly aquatic to this day.

      • FLORC says:

        That sounds scary! I’m unable to swim. I’m too dense FMORC says…

        So this is the worst Kelly has? What about the alarming news her kids told her? Or was that BS too…
        And this woman is straight from lifetime. Not as the wronged woman, but the nutty one too crazy for words, but can’t understand she’s the evil in the plot.
        I was on her side months and months ago. Then I read the facts.

      • AntiSocialButterfly says:

        Wow… what an eye opener. Shocking, actually. We had a 10′ deep pool in our backyard- I really don’t think we were supervised very well- it is amazing that there were no casualties. I am very grateful for this link, and will share this information with my teens- also daughter’s boyfriend who life-guards in summer.

    • lunchcoma says:

      Yeah, it might sound extreme, but toddlers are FAST. You don’t have to be asleep or reading or ignoring them to have one get away from you – all it really takes is turning around for a second.

      • Lady D says:

        My son, at 2, saw the Fraser river, and leaped in. It happened that fast, and I was right beside him. By the time I got to him in the water he was just coming up and the little twerp was laughing. I was almost in hysterics (it’s the Fraser!) and he’s laughing. That’s when I learned how fast toddlers are.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        We were all at the beach recently, and my 17 month old grandson pulled off his hat. I literally turned away for one second to pick it up and he was already halfway to the water, and I had to run to catch up with him. Their short little legs give the false impression they can’t move quickly!

    • Samtha says:

      Yeah, this is a very common thing to happen around pools. We had a similar scare at a pool party a few years back when my nephew bumped his head doing a flip and had to be pulled out. It just takes a second and can happen no matter how well you’re watching them.

    • Wren says:

      I thought that story was extremely weak as well. Kids are fast and get themselves into a mess in literally a blink of an eye. I used to like to lean out over any kind of precipice so I could look all the way down when I was a kid. Scared the bejeezus out of my parents. It only takes a second. Hardly a condemning story.

  8. teatimeiscoming says:

    She’s her own worst enemy.

    Zero sympathy for her. And shame on agencies running with her very slanted version of events.

    • Starrywonder says:

      Agreed on both counts. I’m embarrassed only Dlisted and Celebitchy commenters are calling out this woman. If you read the court documents she has been wrong every step of the way. It’s shameful.

      • Lady D says:

        The Radar story yesterday included the court documents for anyone to read. Hopefully some did.

      • holly hobby says:

        No the comments from US Weekly were also calling her for her bull$hit. I think the longer she cries and moans over this, the more people are compelled to read the court documents and find that she is full of $hit.

      • Bread and Circuses says:

        I saw a lot of commenters calling her out at TMZ yesterday. I think people are starting to see through her antics.

  9. NewWester says:

    Going out to lunch after court? If my children were on a plane off to Europe without me, because of a court order, the last thing on my mind would be food. I would be home in bed curled up in a fetal position, crying.
    Plus is critizing the judge going to really help in the future? This and her actions is showing the world her contempt of the courts

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Sorry, we were typing at the same time and made the same two points. I so agree with you. Who goes to a restaurant to EAT when they just lost their children?!?

      • Jonathan says:

        Not on Kelly’s side even slightly but restaurants are FOR eating, people gotta eat, and you’ve never heard of emotional eating? My flatmate broke up with her long term bf and we went to a restaurant immediately, she binged the hell out. Then she spent basically the whole next year emotional eating. Many, many buckets of ice cream were consumed.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Really? Restaurants are for eating? I didn’t realize that. I thought maybe she was going to get her nails done. I’m sorry, but if I had just said goodbye to my children and was devastated, as she claims to be, the last thing on my mind would be going to a public place with more cameras and attention to eat. I eat emotionally when something is upsetting me – I had an argument with a friend, my boss yelled at me, etc. When I’m “devastated”, like when I thought my mother was dying or I found out I had cancer – I can’t even look at food. Of course everyone is different, but at the very least you would think she would want some privacy. Oh, that’s right, privacy is the the last thing she wants.

      • Jonathan says:

        Well there ya go, when I found out I had cancer I went directly to McDonalds and ordered several Happy Meals.

      • jwoolman says:

        Well, she actually didn’t lose her children. She just sent them back home after their vacation with her, and she could have traveled back with them if she wanted to continue the visit (since she planned to be there for their first day of school anyway). All this hysterical moaning is for the public, to keep media interested in her.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        To each their own, Jonathon. Whatever it takes. I just don’t think she’s upset at being the center of attention.

    • Little Darling says:

      Oh girls. She’s being STOIC, and rising above and letting the world know how strong and capable she is even though she’s a victim.

      I mean, all this concern about the kids safety and she can’t even give us cray lady having to be held back by numerous people as she screams, “MY KIDS ARE IN DANGER! They TOOOOLLLLLD MEEEE THINGS! I am their MOOOOOOOOOTHER!”

    • Luca76 says:

      Probably because she knows she didn’t really lose them. She knows Daniel will accommodate some way to make sure she sees them again. She’ll probably heard from them when they landed. This game she is playing is only hurting herself and her kids.

      • Tammy says:

        It’s hurting herself only at this point. I think after this week, Kelly has lost even more sympathy from the misinformed. I looked at her rant and as a lawyer, I chuckled. She neglects to report in every rant she has that she never put in for a mirror order in NY… if she had done so, she would not be in the position she is now.

        She’s too focused on winning and proving she’s right instead of working with her. She’s effectively closing any door she ever had on obtaining what she wants. I’ve been sympathetic towards her… to a point. It must be hard to not see your kids as often you would like because they live in a foreign country. I’m not a parent, but I can empathize. My nephews moved to Virginia last November and it upsets me that I cannot see them like I used to. I miss them dearly. And Virginia is closer to me than Monaco is to Kelly. I’m well aware that Daniel has offered to pay for an apartment in Monaco for her, pays for 6 trips to Monaco, she gets them half the summer… it still doesn’t mean she can’t miss them when they are not with her.

        But I think she enjoys the attention this gives her more than wanting to be her with kids. If she truly wanted her kids full time in the US, she would have approached this completely differently and have been willing to coparent. But most people don’t seem to understand, outside of this site, is she’s a narcissist & her children living in Monaco provide for her the martyrdom she so desperately craves. I don’t think, though, her children were ever in any physical danger because this storyline provides her with the maximum exposure that she wants. Every news site is now covering her and she has not had a starring role on a TV show for quite a few years. She craves attention. If she did something to her kids… it would go away.

      • Kristen says:

        I have a question for Tammy or anyone who is familiar with family law. I read her statement on People. The question I have is regarding habitual residency… they both agreed that the children were/are habitual residents in the U.S. her whole defense is, since no state, in the U.S. is claiming jurisdiction, residency takes presidence over the custody agreement and by law, the children should not have been sent back to Monaco. I’m wondering if she has a chance here because of her and Daniel’s agreement on resideny. Or has her behavior been so self destructive that there is no turning back now?

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        @Kristen – the short answer is this: Kelly is bound by the custody order unless and until it is modified by a court with appropriate jurisdiction. Because she moved to NY and no one involved lives in CA anymore, CA no longer has jurisdiction over the case. She failed to timely obtain a mirror order (basically an order copying the CA custody order) from a NY family court after she moved there. So NY has no jurisdiction over the custody case. Daniel, however, wisely obtained a mirror order in Monaco, where he resides full-time and the children reside when they are with him. Because Daniel and the children have sufficient contacts with Monaco (they have a home there, the kids attend school there, etc.), it seems likely that the Monegasque courts will assume jurisdiction in the 9/3 hearing.

        Habitual residence is a term of art. It does not trump a custody order. But it may dictate if and how a custodial parent can allege abduction, among other things.

      • Kristen says:

        Thank you Bearcat for your reply. There are so many nooks and crannies to this case. It’s too confusing lol

    • Mare says:

      Did you notice the big smile she had when leaving court and seeing the paps. She didn’t look distraught. She was loving the attention.

      • Jane says:

        Exactly! All the attention is feeding her craziness. Those poor children.

      • JFresh says:

        Could be. Or it could be that she is very stressed out, in pain and pushing it down, putting a lot of effort into wearing a mask of “calm and in control”. That can cause someone to appear overly chipper. This situation must be bringing her to the edge of sanity. I am dismayed to see so little compassion for her here in the cb comments

      • jwoolman says:


        Read it and you will see why there is little sympathy for her. Especially read the part detailing why Daniel lost his visa. She also has been lying in public again and again about the real facts of the case. But read the 2013 Statement of Decision by the California judge. It explains everything.

    • lunchcoma says:

      I sometimes eat when I’m devastated, but Kelly lives in New York. It’s not like she’s staying in a hotel and had no other options. If I were her, I’d want to go and curl up on the sofa with some comfort food. It’s odd she’s making such a public appearance – especially in New York, where a minor celebrity like her could have easily gone to some random place uptown without getting media attention.

      • Lady D says:

        Rumor has it she is staying in the hotel her parents own.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Lady D, that makes me very curious. I’ve never heard anything about a father being in the picture, and there is little available online. What I can find: Her parents divorced when she was 3 and she was raised by a single mother. Her mother was/is a model and actress. Her maternal grandparents were a typist and an airline pilot. I’m not seeing anything in that family tree that indicates enough wealth to own a hotel in NY. Does her father’s side of the family have money?

      • Lady D says:

        nota, I read that on the TMZ website about this story in the comments. Sorry, I can’t verify.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thanks, Lady D. She does have the “summer in the Hamptons” image of wealth going on. From her background, it looks like that is all an act she developed as an adult. There is so little info about her background available, It will be interesting to see if more details emerge.

    • hannah says:

      But you would miss out on a great pap walk

  10. Palar says:

    I think we should all consider that perhaps she does have a mental illness that is not under treatment at the moment. Her ranting, kidnapping her kids, what she wore to court. None of it screams healthy person to me.

    • Tiffany says:

      Nope. She has shown on my occasion before this to be a entitled A-hole.

    • MrsB says:

      This is what I’m beginning to think. She’s so unhinged at this point, I’m beginning to be worried for her and anybody around her. She needs medicine.

    • . says:

      It is called “narcisstic personality disorder” there is no Med who can Help!
      These people with NPD, like Psychopaths are not curably.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        NPD is not “curable” but it is treatable through therapy.

      • . says:

        @ paranormalgirl hardly, or do you think sociopaths are treatable too?
        but i see where you coming from, the very very light form of NPD is treatable, but almost not existing, bc self-awareness is not part of this disorder, rather the opposit, and it need to acknowledge that you have a problem, and she clearly is too far in the disorder, it’s too advanced, sadly

      • Crumpet says:

        .says: Yes, it is treatable.

      • bluhare says:

        paranormalgirl is a mental health provider. I think she knows what she’s talking about.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        I’m a psychiatrist (certified by the ABPN). I kinda know stuff.

      • Jane says:

        Or Borderline Personality Disorder. Personality disorders don’t respond to meds; there must be motivation to change and I don’t see that happening here.

    • yea says:

      being an a**hole is a well documented illness. To bad its not a crime.

      • . says:

        It’s only bad behaviour, but she has a narcisstic personality disorder, and thats not remediable, especially if its that sar along, it’s too late, she will always delusional, lying with twisted brain.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        You can’t armchair diagnose people you don’t treat. You can speculate. She actually shows more of a BPD to me. But then again, what do I know?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Para, I had a co-worker with BPD. iirc, there is no curing it, no drugs affect it. Only therapy, constant self-awareness, and monitoring of their own behavior can try to mitigate it but there is no cure. It was always I’m being persecuted, I am the only correct one here, no one understands, you’re all against me, no recognition of anything being their fault, aggression, violent verbal/emotional/physical outbursts.

        I couldn’t get out of that department fast enough.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        I know there’s no cure. Just like with NPD, only therapy has any efficacy and that is only if the person is invested in the therapy. I’ve been a practicing psychiatrist for over 20 years.

      • Zombie Shortcake says:

        Lol there was a Kid’s in the Hall sketch about a character “charged with being an a$$hole on more than one occasion.” The jury was comprised entirely of his ex-girlfriends.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Para I didn’t mean that an an insult to you. I was trying to get verification from you for what I had read, that there is no cure. That’s why I put the “iirc” in there, so you would know I wasn’t sure. It didn’t come across the right way online.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        notasugarhere: I know. I’m sorry. I’m just so annoyed with .says running around spouting diagnoses that I forgot who I was responding to for a moment.

        There’s no “cure” for personality disorders. No meds that work on the actual disorder. Medication can be used to treat some of the symptoms of a personality disorder (anxiety, mood swings, anger, irritability, etc) but the jury’s still out on whether that is even helpful or just masking the symptoms. There are people with personality disorders who want help, and for them, therapy is usually the best method. But again, the patient would have to buy into the process and want to participate. Many do not perceive they have a problem, though, let alone need a solution. Therapy can take years. I have a patient with a personality disorder who really wants to change the way she is. She is into her third year of therapy and doing better, but to be honest, she will probably need therapy for the rest of her life in order to maintain her progress. And she does take an antidepressant to help with her anger and irritability. That medication wasn’t prescribed until she was well underway with intensive psychotherapy, though.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thanks, para. I didn’t want you to think I was throwing diagnoses and treatment out there as an expert. This person was the type who refuted the diagnosis, refused to do the work of treatment. Resulted in half the staff leaving in a matter of months.

        This Rutherford situation and the resulting discussions are making me tear my hair out too.

  11. Esmom says:

    Crazy. I could be of base but I’m getting the sense that she thinks she’s starring in some legal drama…and is almost relishing the perceived injustice. I think maybe the fact that the kids left the courtroom so happily and willingly is contributing to that sense, that her reality doesn’t quite match up with actual reality.

    • Little Darling says:

      This! I Just thought that in my mind after looking at the picture of her looking up t the side. It came to me, this IS the biggest role of her life. She is acting in the real life drama of “Heleana and Hermes: Kidnapped” and genuinely, truly thinks she is the “voice” and is championing rights.

    • Les Kat says:

      That was my thought exactly. I wouldn’t be surprised if before she enters a courtroom or opens a door she hears “action!” In her head. She appears to have no grasp on the actual proceedings and based on her rant full of words like “forced”, “deported” she is starring in a movie in her head that doesnt match the reality of the situation.

      • belle de jour says:

        This. She is caught up in her own narrative – and the more extreme her language, the more evil the other characters… the larger, more important and heroic her role in the drama. Her soft white outfit (inappropriate for court) is a costume she chose for HER beleaguered mom character, and even the way in which she greeted the press – sunglasses included – reminded me more of a Hamptons Norma Desmond ready for her close-up, for the world to finally appreciate her again (‘I AM right. It’s the courts that got wrong.”)

        With limited sanity and imagination, she’s fighting for Motherhood, American Superiority and Innocent Children Everywhere… daring to speak truth to power.

        It would foil her plans, dampen the drama – and mess up her best role to date – if things were being handled in a rational, civilized, responsible adult manner; I am convinced that’s part of the reason why her actions that seem self-sabotaging are actually crucial for her to keep her story going and her role as the star important.

  12. littlemissnaughty says:

    If I didn’t know any better I’d say she’s under the influence of something or someone. Maybe she is. She reminds me of the CO$ people with her crazy ranting. Jesus, even her outfits look cult-y.

  13. Lucy2 says:

    I wonder if she will be prosecuted for kidnapping or obstructing court orders or something. If so, she may come to regret insulting a judge over and over!
    Her sanity is long gone, and I imagine she is a very disruptive and upsetting force in the kids’ lives right now. But she will never just suck it up and do what’s best for them, because for her this is all about winning and making her ex lose.

    • holly hobby says:

      I want to know what that judge said to her after the press left the courtroom. I’m pretty sure the judge let her have it. There is probably a transcript available somewhere of the proceedings.

    • mary simon says:

      I can’t imagine she’ll be getting her kids to herself for visits anymore without very strict supervision, if at all, since she has proven herself to be unstable and in contempt of the custody ruling. She blew it. I think she will just have to see them in Monaco, and now that is even more complicated. No one is going to leave the children alone in her care after this drama.

  14. Zinjojo says:

    She’s delusional.

    And did she just roll out of bed and throw on whatever was on the floor to go to court? Not only way too casual, but wrinkled and sloppy.

  15. grabbyhands says:

    Wow, and no word about how the reason her ex-husband might be having VISA issues is because she lied to get it revoked. No word on how she has been caught out in lie after lie by the courts in regards to her ex-husband and his relationship with his children.

    FFS-they’ll be living in Monaco, not Syria. And the only reason they’ll be living there instead of New York or California is because again, she made it certain that he cannot reside in the US. Unfortunately, her revenge plan backfired in her face and she never forgave him. Nothing she is doing is in aid of her kids-she is doing this all for herself to try and hurt him.

    The bottom line is that he has does nothing but try and facilitate a good relationship with her for the sake of his children. She needs to stop.

    P.S. Wave the American flag all you want, use every variation of the word America in your nutso rant about how the judge “arrested” your kids-it doesn’t help. It makes you look like a crazy xenophobe.

    • . says:

      This is the sad thing here, she is playing at the xenophobe and unaducated people (go hand in hand), with manipulating, like a person with a narcisstic personality disorder would do, bc she is one of them…

  16. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I also question her sanity, but I think her motives are becoming more clear every day. She went out to lunch after that hearing? She. Went. Out. To. Lunch. Supposedly, her biggest nightmare had come true and her children were torn away from her and deported, so she goes out to lunch? Not home, in tears. Not to her attorney’s office to start working on an appeal, hysterical. She’s smiling and going to get a salad. So she can stay in front of the camera just a little longer, I guess. I don’t think she cares about anything but that.

    Oh, and from my professional and personal experience with judges, they love it when you say they have no authority over the case they just ruled on and that they’re corrupt. That’s a great strategy that works wonders.

    • Shambles says:

      + everything

    • Snazzy says:

      I think her biggest nightmare is that her hubby will no longer be dressing the children solely in white.

      PS Love your comment about the judges 😛

      • Tara says:

        Ha! Totally. Can u see the lawsuit? “He dressed my children in teal, your honor. TEAL!!”

    • Who ARE these people? says:


      What a disordered personality. It’s hard to tell whether she’s really that stupid about the legal system OR she knows how it works but just doesn’t care and wants to lie her way through this. Most of us seem to think it’s the latter.

      Also, with psychopaths (sociopaths), the more stressful things get, the slower their hearts beat (i.e. it’s calming for them). So … yeah, you “lose” your kids and go around the corner for a bite to eat.

  17. Ivy says:

    I couldn’t even make it through the whole statement without getting irrationally angry. I really admire Daniel Girsch’s patience and good will towards this woman who has been nothing but cruel to him for years.
    If Kelly really believes all the sh*t she lets her lawyers bring forward she should really get medical attention. I was really worried for the kids when she refused to return them to their father. Worried as in this woman is crazy enough to harm them if she can’t get what she wants.
    Daniel is the sane person in this mess.

    • Saywhatwhen says:

      I am irrationally angry myself. The blatant lies, the utter disrespect for the Court, the judicial system, her ex-husband, her children and their privacy!!! This no compassionate, loving mother. She would never subject her young children to such scrutiny and public debate about their life and circumstances if she cared for their emotional and physical well-being. This is simply her thirst for attention. Absolutely disgusting person! Gah!!!

    • GingerCrunch says:

      The whole thing makes me very anxious. On the one hand, I’m weary about reading up on it. And on the other hand, I have to know the outcomes! She has to go down for all of this and I’m afraid she might get away with it! The suspense!!!

    • . says:

      Im completely baffled about the patience, meybe he knows she has NPD.

  18. Lilacflowers says:

    Stop lying about the Constitution of the United States of America, you jingoistic bigot! And stop wasting my tax dollars with your insanity and bigotry.

  19. Dbw says:

    I’m impressed at this rant. Her false righteousness reminds me of a very serious, straight out of acting school theatre actor, delivering a monologue under the bright lights. Center stage.
    I’ve a feeling that if she doesn’t get punished for this statement, she’ll bring up some made up sexual abuse stories next (beyond what she already hinted at). This whole thing is so gross. I want to stop reading her crazy talk but every time I see it I just have to…my eyes are going to roll out of my head soon!!!

    • NewWester says:

      Don’t be surprised if she somehow manages to turn this into a reality series.

    • DIANE says:

      At this point I’m convinced she’s going to try to turn this into a Lifetime movie of the week starring her. This act is her audition reel. The fact that she continuously gets away with breaking the law with no consequences just further points out to me how the wealthy and famous are given endless leeway for their misdeeds. How many times has she blatently violated the ‘no parading the kids in front of cameras’ order? Openly showing contempt for the court by appearing without the kids and dressed as she was? She knows there won’t be any consequences, so why obey the terms? Why isn’t the court ordering a psych evaluation? Giersch’s attorneys really need to compile every single incident where she violated some part of some order and get him sole custody. He’d better toughen up and stop bending over backwards to co-parent with a sociopath before she decides to take him up on his offer and move to Monaco. He needs to realize that the best thing he can do for his kids is to protect them from her.

  20. vauvert says:

    The judge needs to toss her insane ass in jail for contempt. The end.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Yes, I don’t understand why she wasn’t at least fined. Or something.

      • original kay says:

        Exactly. All it does is reinforce she was right, in her mind.

      • Bread and Circuses says:

        Would we know, if she had been? Would that fact come out via public records? The media was removed from the courtroom, so we don’t get to know what happened in there.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        True, B&C. I suppose it could have happened without our knowledge.

      • Tara says:

        Speaking of entitlement, I think us Celeb!tches deserve to at least be notified if and when she gets fined, sanctioned. We’ve been through enough; we deserve a little schadenfraud… or however that’s spelled — synonym: “fun.”

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Really something out to be done to set limits and shut down this tantrum. Every day thousands of children are beaten and belittled. Her rants are all about her, not them.

  21. Brittney B says:

    “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.”

    You often mention her revoking his visa (or at least instigating the process legally), and it’s a primary reason I don’t have sympathy for her… but now she’s outright denying it. Surely there’s some way to call her out? Is there proof that she did this? I would think his lawyer would be ALL OVER this.

    ETA: I see now that she mentioned the visa issues and said he wasn’t trying hard enough to fix them. It’s hard keeping up with all the convoluted reasons.

    Not to mention… she’s putting it out there for her kids to read that he “didn’t care about them enough”. That’s even worse than alienating him physically, in my book; even in the most tumultuous custody battles, the most important thing is making sure the kids know they’re loved.

    She probably feeds them lies about him using them to get back at her, and not really loving them. The ultimate irony. Her hypocrisy would be laughably ridiculous if there weren’t impressionable young minds in the mix.

    • Meatball says:

      She is nuts. There was nothing he could do about the visa issue and as of last yeR I believe it is a moot point. She is just so ridiculous. I couldn’t finish the whole book (statement)

    • cannibell says:

      When H&H are old enough to read through and process all this garbage themselves, they’ll probably be sending thank you notes to everyone who made sure they lived with their dad.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      It certainly seems that Daniel could use all of her slanderous statements to show conclusively why the children should not be left alone with her since you know she’s trying to turn them against him. Not to mention ignoring court orders!

      Daniel needs to take the kid gloves off and get her access to these kids restricted, pronto. For his sanity and the sake of his relationship with the kids.


      • claire says:

        One would hope, yeah, that all of these rants and interviews, full of lies and delusions, would be used against her at that September court date. She’s very clearly dishonest, deluded, disrespectful of the law, etc. etc.

      • Linn says:

        At this point Daniel/his lawyers doen’t really need to do anything anymore.
        Kelly might be able to manipulate the media and the uneducated audience but from a legal standpoint everything she does is ruining her chances to ever get the children.

    • Celebitchy says:

      The judge wrote in the original ruling that it was Kelly’s lawyer who got Daniel deported by calling the state department with a tip on him. There’s proof.

      • Brittney B says:

        Thank you!!

        And thank you Little Darling for the link.

        I wish everyone else would stop glossing over this detail; it says a whole lot about the case that she instigated all of this in the first place. I don’t know anything about law, so maybe (probably) Daniel’s lawyer has higher priorities than debunking her many, many claims in the press… but it’s frustrating to see her get platform after platform to lie and shirk responsibility.

      • jwoolman says:

        And lovely Kelly was right there beside her lawyer as he made the threats and made the call. The judge had really never seen such a thing happen before! It was right in the courthouse, in a hallway I think, not in secret.

        I can understand why she doesn’t want to clear up the situation with the government – that lawyer will get disbarred and she may face legal penalties for lying to government officials. She could even end up in prison if they decided to push it. I imagine that’s why she let the requirement of working on a visa lapse (so he no longer has to do anything). That doesn’t stop her from lying about it all, though. I hope he doesn’t try to re-apply for a visa until the children are grown. They are much safer with him in Monaco, physically and emotionally.

    • sheisinsane says:

      Please red the document, the link to which is often posted here, stating the judge’s decision. The judge did a thorough job of explaining her decision to allow the 50/50 custody arrangement with Daniel having the children in Monaco. The judge wrote a detailed Statement of Decision explaining in minutia her reasons for ruling as she did.

      The judges statement includes, in two separate section of the reasons for her ruling listed how KR sat right next to her lawyer as her attorney, Rich, called the State Department on his phone, while at the same time tried to get Daniel sign an affidavit forgoing all his parental rights!

      Their extortion plan backfired on her!

      I really hope she has not mentally abused her children by her insane behaviour, of which the public untruthful statements, contempt of court, and accusing the NY judge of legal impropriety are clearly evident.

      I have a theory that all along her plan was to “judge shop”, as also stated by the original judge in her ruling, so she would gain sole custody and receive enormous sums of money in child support, which is very probable since she has no career, is dependent on her boyfriend, no prospects of work now or in the near future, etc.

      I am also convinced she is playing this outrageous role in public because she wants to be offered a book deal, which in her mind, will garner her millions.

      I really think for her it’s all about money.

      She is, hands down, the Worst Mother in the History of Humanity for damaging her children.

    • TheInsanityofHer says:

      Please red the document, the link to which is often posted here, stating the judge’s decision in 2012, which I believe was finalized in 2014. The judge did a thorough job of explaining her decision to allow the 50/50 custody arrangement with Daniel having the children in Monaco. The judge wrote a detailed Statement of Decision explaining in minutia her reasons for ruling as she did.

      The judges statement includes, in two separate section of the reasons for her ruling listed how KR sat right next to her lawyer as her attorney, Rich, called the State Department on his phone, while at the same time tried to get Daniel sign an affidavit forgoing all his parental rights!

      Their extortion plan backfired on her!

      I really hope she has not mentally abused her children by her insane behaviour, of which the public untruthful statements, contempt of court, and accusing the NY judge of legal impropriety are clearly evident.

      I have a theory that all along her plan was to “judge shop”, as also stated by the original judge in her ruling, so she would gain sole custody and receive enormous sums of money in child support, which is very probable since she has no career, is dependent on her boyfriend, no prospects of work now or in the near future, etc.

      I am also convinced she is playing this outrageous role in public because she wants to be offered a book deal, which in her mind, will garner her millions.

      I really think for her it’s all about money.

      She is, hands down, the Worst Mother in the History of Humanity for damaging her children.

  22. Leah says:

    I only made it part way through this current statement but it always confuses me why she focuses so much on their U.S. Citizenship rather than which parent should/ does have custody. If both parents moved out of the country does she still think the kid should stay in the US? It seems like her defense is basically that because she lives in the country that they are technically citizens of she should automatically be awarded custody regardless of her parenting capabilities. Her argument seems to be so irrelevant to me but maybe I missed a piece of the puzzle.

    • insomniac says:

      Well, playing up the “American children RIPPED out of America by their heartless German father!” has been getting her lots of attention in the horribly uncritical US media, so I’m not surprised she’s still milking this angle for all it’s worth. It’s like she doesn’t get that US citizens aren’t going to be voting on where her children get to live (and thank goodness for that).

    • Montréalaise says:

      Bingo. This is a child custody matter, which has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship, but she has found the American Citizen angle and has milked it for all she can (with help from useful idiots like Dan Abrams).

  23. Belle Epoch says:

    Wow that is some rant! The kind that you leave on the computer overnight and delete the next day.

    She seems VERY disturbed. NOTHING is her fault, EVERYTHING bad is associated with her ex (so what were those “alarming things” the kids told her?), the judge does ILLEGAL things… How does someone get so far out of touch with reality? She thinks she’s Joan of Arc but really she’s a washed-up actress and whackadoodle. THOSE POOR KIDS!

  24. nicole says:

    I really appreciate celebitchys coverage of this. I have seen a number of sites that I usually respect running outraged pieces about how Kelly and the kids are being treated and it blows my mind that her tactics are working with anyone.

    • lucy2 says:

      People did a very pro Kelly article yesterday, but the comments ripped them apart for it. I’m glad to see more and more people realizing that she is not the victim here.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      I clicked on the Daily Mail’s article (why??) and while I didn’t read through all 500+ comments, most of what I saw were against Kelly. There were plenty of posters that were providing the facts of the case to those who buying into the one-sided reporting in the media.

      • lucy2 says:

        Yes, on another site I read, someone post a link to the court documents every time someone claimed Kelly was being wronged. Whether people read it or not, who knows, but I’m glad to see the actual facts being put out there to counter her ridiculous accusations and rants.

      • @lucy2
        Lol, that was probably ME! I got so mad at that stupid article……..I was doing it on the PEOPLE one on FB, anyway.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Well Done You, VC!

      • claire says:

        I’m not too sure if it works. I worry that the intelligence level of the people screaming ‘MURICA! GO KELLY! is such that they may not even be able to understand or follow the court documents. They’ll just stick to the quick soundbytes they can understand.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I saw the comments on the People article too and was glad to see there were people bringing the facts and documents over there too. It’s a good thing none of those people crying “poor Kelly” have anything to do with decisions made in the custody case. I’d be fearful to have them on my jury if I was being falsely accused by someone as manipulative as Kelly.

      • Tara says:

        Something seems to be working. Posters in previous weeks were saying comment sections on the other sites were almost all pro-Kelly. So go VC and all the restOya! Your posts are educating people 🙂

    • insomniac says:

      Yeah, Jezebel published a story yesterday that was fairly slanted towards “Gosh, why is poor Kelly being treated like this?”. It was so clear that the author hadn’t seen the court decisions, and even after umpteen zillion commenters posted a link to them, he kept asking questions like “But how come the judge only gave custody to the father?” Read. The. Decision. It’s really not that complicated.

      • morc says:

        It’s really pathetic how “journalists” on jezebel, who seemingly are all about intellectual debate, are too dumb to read a document.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        The phrase ‘journalist’ and ‘Jezebel’ are two words that mean nothing when put together, that website is under Gawker which just outed an unknown businessman for no reason and got shredded in the media for it.

      • holly hobby says:

        What about Dan Abrams? He’s just spewing $hit from his Twitter. I’m surprised Disney/ABC didn’t tell him to shut up.

      • BlueNailsBetty says:

        @Holly. Right? I suspect ol’ Dan has a crush on Kelly. He used to be a good source of legal clarification so his refusal to use facts in the Kelly sitch is baffling unless he has a strong personal interest in Kelly.

  25. BearcatLawyer says:

    Let’s say hypothetically the Monegasque court rules that the state of NY has jurisdiction over the custody battle (unlikely to happen since Daniel and the kids are habitually resident in Monaco but play along). Kelly has been living essentially full-time in NY, after all. She just insulted the hell out of Judge Gesmer and in a very public and unnecessary fashion.

    Now her custody case theoretically could be assigned to a different judge if it were returned to NY, but Kelly and her lawyer are clearly idiots if they think that Judge Gesmer’s colleagues will simply overlook the vitriol and outright lies in this statement. Judges are people too, and they tend to stick together. Kelly may have screwed herself even worse with the NY family court system by issuing that statement than if she had kept quiet (hahahaha) or issued another statement only whining about how she will keep fighting for her kids. And if this case were to be returned to the NY courts, she would not be able to forum shop for a different state. All the media she has done over the past few months make it clear that she is habitually resident in NY.

    I am beginning to think she does not really want the kids living full-time with her at all. She is 46 and not working consistently. She needs to lock down her next husband-victim-wallet, and the kids would complicate that mission. But I am sure there are still a few ignorant Donald Trump types who are pitying her and buying the crap she is selling. She only needs one to put a ring on it.

    • Grace says:

      I was thinking about that since yesterday. If she has already filed bankruptcy, let’s say if she gets the kids back, how are they going to live? I hate to think she wants her ex to pay for everything for her to live in a country which he can’t visit with their children. That’s just… Urgh!
      She can’t think what she’s done is helping her to get the kids back. I am beginning to doubt whether she actually wants them back. Maybe she just wants to create as much noise as possible and benefit in the process. And the same goes for her lawyer. What decent competent legal adviser tell their clients to openly call out and insult a judge? They are just in for the publicity.

      • Jezza says:

        I kept reading as much as I could force myself. Good lord. And still bleating on about the visa when she knows the visa issue is now considered waived as of jan 10, 2014. She didn’t want to sign the affidavit Daniel gave her (nor produce an affidavit of her own), and as such, he didn’t send in an application.

        Just stop it already!

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      I wondered too. It seems that this way she is trying to have her cake and eat it, too. She can discard the 2 children who turned out to complicate her life (the way she dumped the ill first husband who complicated her life) while upholding her public (and maybe self-) image as a passionately devoted mother. If she just walked away quietly, it would appear as if she didn’t care. Which she probably does not, or at least she seems more interested in them as reflections on her than as separate individuals. Her interest seems to lie in her public image.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The man she is dating how is the head of the Menswear Department at the Gucci store in Manhattan. He doesn’t have enough money for her to put a ring on it.

      If she was going to claim that this court has no jurisdiction, she should have had her lawyer do that Tuesday and not show up in court herself. It seems to me (as someone who knows nothing about law), that she willingly submitted herself to the court’s jurisdiction by showing up and producing the kids when ordered.

      • Lurker says:

        Really? He’s just a retail guy in a store? The way the media reported it, I thought he worked for Gucci as an exec. Funny. Not that what he does is bad, but it seems like a mighty fall down the gold digging ladder for her.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If you search for his name and find his LinkedIn, that’s what it says. He’s the manager of the menswear Department at that store. Maybe that is prestigious in its own way, but he isn’t some high-ranking executive according to that. Unless he hasn’t updated that in awhile?

      • Lurker says:

        You’d think if he was promoted, he’d update his LinkedIn. Or she’d make him so everyone would know. Very interesting.

      • Samtha says:

        Wow! I’ve read a ton of articles about her that say he’s a powerful Gucci exec. Just some more Kelly misinformation, I guess!

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        A petition for habeas corpus (which is what Daniel filed on Monday) is a legal procedure by which the judge could seize the children and return them to Daniel in accordance with the original CA state court order and the Monegasque mirror order. It did not convey any jurisdiction over the custody case to the NY state family court. Random factoid: “habeas corpus” is Latin for “may you have the body.”

        Kelly showed up to answer his petition for habeas corpus because if she had not been there (even if her lawyers appeared on her behalf), the judge could have issued an arrest warrant for her and a seizure order for the kids. Anyone who was caught helping to conceal or transport the children could have been criminally charged with aiding and abetting and conspiracy to commit international child abduction/interference with child custody as well. If she or the children travelled across state lines in any way over the weekend, the feds could have charged her with all of the above and their personal favourite: unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. The judge could have also slapped her with contempt charges for failing to appear in court as ordered.

        She knew she was going to lose on Tuesday. Her petty way of sticking it to Daniel and the judge was to look like she had just rolled out of bed and not bring the kids with her claiming it was a media frenzy outside the courthouse. Uh huh. The only reason she has thus far avoided contempt and criminal charges is likely because she did foot-draggingly comply on Tuesday and the NY court system undoubtedly has bigger problem cases than this trick which deserve their time, attention, and resources.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thank you for explaining all of that, BCL. That remains a concern, as someone posted a few articles ago. That she may have found tiny loopholes and is exploiting them. Sounds like there were no such loopholes, she made them up as usual.

      • jwoolman says:

        He could work as head of a department but also have money. It is out of character for her to choose someone without money, so I would suggest investigating his actual situation. Not all children of the rich act like tabloid fodder – often they do work real jobs.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I did mention that maybe it is prestigious in its own way. He could get a percentage of everything sold out of the Department. Dylan Lauren runs a candy store – real job – but she owns it too. It seems an odd position, if you come from money, to work the Men’s Department floor instead of as an exec. His choice, but an unusual one.

    • holly hobby says:

      Oh judges do talk. So do their chambers staff. So yeah her case is probably infamous right now in the courthouse. I don’t know how family law works but you cannot really judge shop. Once you are assigned to that judge, it stays with that judge unless the judge retires. I’m sure she an always file a motion to recuse by saying the judge is biased but that is pretty hard to prove.

  26. DanaG says:

    She is lucky the judge didn’t charge her for kidnapping her kids and to show her gratitude she does this? And her lawyer said it was ok to do? I hope the Judge throws the book at her. Kids are so clearly better off with their father.

  27. Dbw says:

    Crazygirl needs a new makeup/styling team to attract some new rich guy. Unless she’s a the best lay ever (doubtful), she’s got nothing that a million other 46 year olds don’t have better.

    • Forthelasttime says:

      I cannot believe what I’m reading from you all. You’re all heartless. This woman is a mother and she wants to be with her children. It is shocking that they’ve taken them from her. Those children need their mom too. Can any of you imagine if you were one of those kids – how would you feel? I know I would be traumatised beyond repair if I were taken away from my mother at that age. I feel so sorry or her and I never knew who she was until all this stuff came up. Regardless of what went on, she is fit to be a full-time mother to her kids.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        They have NOT been taken from her. Legally, she essentially kidnapped them when she failed to turn them over, as required, in a timely manner. Tens of thousands of children have divided parents who manage to co-parent successfully and peacefully without breaking laws, as this jerk did. She still has visitation rights. She still can call, text, and skype with them. If she continues this behavior, no, she will not be viewed as a fit mother.

      • Grace says:

        For the last time read everything that’s been said about her and the case and don’t play the ‘she’s their mom’ card to cover everything. Ask yourself this at least: what kind of fit full-time mother drag her children to be photographed at every opportunity she gets?

      • Snowflake says:

        Hello, what’s wrong with coparenting? What about the dads right to the kids? He did contribute, you know. She’s a selfish beyotch who wants to make her ex’s life hell instead of being an adult and working with her ex to raise THEIR kids.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        And what about her husband? If the children had to live most of the time in the U.S., how would HE feel?

        Oh that’s right, Kelly, you don’t give an airborne fornication what happens to the children’s FATHER, even though by all accounts he has done nothing except try to peacefully co-parent and act in the best interests of the kids.

        BYE, FELICIA!

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh, for God’s sake, learn the facts. You’re just wrong. This disaster is of her own making because she lied about the father – just go read something about the case before you declare us all heartless. And try to get it in your head that fathers have rights, too. And this particular father has been a decent, mature, loving PARENT to these children, while she has been a lying, selfish, attention seeking nut job. I am so tired of uninformed people coming on here and ranting about something they no absolutely NOTHING about except that she has a vagina, so the kids “belong” to her because mothers are automatically perfect. Wrong.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        And by the way, if you would read up on the case you would know that the son experiences anxiety if he spends long periods of time away from his FATHER.

      • Anon33 says:

        FOR GODS SAKE.

        Read the actual facts if the case. Stop being blinded by her uterus.

      • Forthelasttime says:

        Wow GNAT, get a punching bag, would ya?! I think this situation is awful anyway you look at it and yes I feel sorry for her and those poor kids. It’s heartbreaking to watch. I don’t know how everyone can be so freaking judgemental. It’s just sad.

      • bokchoi says:

        Oh, look! Kelly Rutherford reads Celebitchy!

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        And one more thing –

        “Regardless of what went on, she is fit to be a full-time mother to her kids.”

        Really? Regardless of what went on? If she ran over them intentionally with her car, she is fit to be a full time mother? If she keeps 2,000 cats in her apartment she is fit to be a full time mother? That statement is crazy….wait a minute…. Kelly? That’s you, right?

      • BlueNailsBetty says:

        @BearcatLawyer. “airborne fornication”??? BWAHAHAHAHA! Awesome.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Forthelasttime – we are not being judgmental. You are. We have followed the case, read the opinions and know what we are talking about. You know one thing. She’s a mother. So every law she has broken, every lie she has told, every attempt she has made to separate these children from the father they love, every slimy thing she has done to hurt HIM, every nauseating way she has exploited her children for attention….is fine. None of it matters because she’s a mother and mothers should always have custody of their children regardless of what is in the best interest of the children. That is so wrongheaded I don’t even know where to begin. She is a terrible parent and her children are far better off with their father. You do know that children and fathers, not just mothers, have feelings? So go ahead and feel sorry for her and let her lies manipulate you into believing she should have custody. Thankfully, most people who matter, such as the judges who have all facts of the case, disagree with you.

      • lucy2 says:

        She’s had every opportunity to be with her kids. They have to live outside the US because of her team getting her ex-husband kicked out of the country. He pays for her visits to them, and offered to buy her a house near them. She could easily fly back for the occasional bit of work she gets. She chooses not to, because she wants to WIN. It’s not about a mother wanting to be with her kids, it’s about her wanting to get everything she wants and her ex get nothing. Multiple courts have all made the same decision, and it’s time for her to work within those orders if she wants to be a good parent to her kids.

      • Lurker says:

        Kelly, is that you? Or just a paid shill?

      • anne_000 says:

        They take turns having the kids with them.

        Her turn was summer vacation. She got her turn. Now it was his turn.

        But instead of co-parenting peacefully, she arbitrarily decided that he should never get his turn again.

        How is that fair to him and the kids?

        He can’t come to the US to see the kids (because of her).

        So is it OK that the kids never see their father again unless they are made to travel back and forth on long plane rides? Is that fair to them with them being so young?

        She is the only parent that is allowed to come and go from the US (because of her fault). She created the situation in which he has a US travel ban. So she should be the one inconvenienced in traveling back and forth, not him and not the kids.

        He pays for six visits per year for her to fly out to Monaco, including car service and residence.

        She’s visited 70 times, because that’s how supportive he is in making sure the kids have their mother in their lives.

        Whereas her? She’s been doing her best for years to try to make him being a present father an impossibility.

        A full-time mother? Unless she had these kids through a sperm donor, that was never possible. The kids have a father too. It’s not just her and nobody else. She needs to learn to accept a co-parenting relationship.

      • . says:

        She is NOT fit.

        She as an narcisstic personality disorder, those “Mothers” used to abuse there Children psychic.

        Not every Woman is a good Mother, uninformend/uneducated poeple schould know that too.

      • Lady D says:

        pssst, read the court documents.
        Five, count ’em, FIVE child psychologists and children’s mental health experts examined those children and determined they should be with their father. Does her having a vagina trump medical experts too?

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        @BlueNailsBetty – I shamelessly stole it from someone else’s comment yesterday. It is my new way of getting around censors online and in the office! 🙂

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Hey Forthelasttime

        Reading is fun AND fundamental, it’s great to read and have facts secured before posting something that exposes your ignorance. Using your vagina as a shield and defense is no way to go through life and pretending women can’t possibly be bad is lying by half. Actually try reading next time.

    • Forthelasttime:

      It just reads from what you wrote that you may not be aware that Kelly has 50/50 custody w/the ex having primary physical custody because Kelly refused to co-parent. Not that I blame you because the way she talks & the words she uses make it sound like she never sees her kids and now they’ve been ripped form her loving arms. That’s just not the case she sees them 50% of the year between her flying to Monaco & the kids with her in the summer. Kelly just thinks anything less than her having the children all to her self & the father being dead is totally unfair.

  28. Scott says:

    What the hell? She is insane! I’m trying to figure out what personality disorder she has. Narcissistic sounds about right:

    – Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
    – Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
    – Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
    – Requires excessive admiration.
    – Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.
    – Is inter-personally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.
    – Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
    – Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
    – Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

    I can’t believe her dramatics and outright lies. “This the most cruel thing I have ever witnessed someone do to a child” and personally attacking the judge so aggressively is a sure sign of narcissistic rage in my books.

    • original kay says:

      My mother is all of those things 🙁
      it’s exhausting and horrendous dealing with her, the verbal abuse alone would be more than enough, but she twists reality around and is so convincing people believe her POV, which is so hard to sort through.
      I cannot imagine anyone being paid enough to deal with anyone who exhibits these behaviours.

      ETA: one of the biggest things the mother loves is something she calls “the right of refusal”. she wants to be invited, included, so she expects to be invited to all events. but she cancels last minute, or cancels to go somewhere “better”. If you don’t invite her though, the crying, the verbal abuse, the carrying on can last for days- multiple phone calls, showing up at your house knocking on doors. This is, to me, what Kelly is doing. She doesn’t actually want what she fights for, she just wants to be the one to say no- becasue someone else is saying no to her, she is doing what my mother does- basically a tantrum. It’s exhausting.

      • Scott says:

        I feel your pain, it’s my step-father too. Ended up in me losing contact with half my family because I was the only one who would stand up to him.

      • byland says:

        Another one here! My “mother” has Narcissistic and Histrionic Personality Disorders. In court a psychiatrist testified to that as well as to her having scored a 33 on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist and displaying a “marked amount of disinhibition.” A few people in my family (long-distance family members who never had to spend much time with her) found it odd that the court hearing made me so giddy. I couldn’t help it. It just felt like validation for every bad thing I’d felt and gone through as a child.

        @original kay My mother did the same thing, i.e. “right of refusal.” After my grandparents adopted me when I was 18 she began stalking me to the point where I had to take out a restraining order. That’s what led to the court hearing. She did the blaming the judge thing, too, after she ordered her remanded to a psychiatric facility. Didn’t work out too well for her, as I imagine it won’t for Kelly.

    • Ennie says:

      I’d say that one of the most cruel things I’ve ever seen was the cold attempt of separating a father from his children, knowing perfectly that he’d not be able to even try to visit them for years, and pretending he would kidnap them.

      • Lady D says:

        I think one of the cruelest things I’ve ever heard was when the Boko Haram kidnapped 100+ 12-14 year-old school girls to be abused, tortured, sex slaves. Makes Kelly and her words despicable.

      • Ennie says:

        Oh, no comparison, that and every piece of news lately about how parents have hurt their children, even if it is because of mental illness.
        Really Kelly lives a sheltered life, someone mentioned here, she lacks perspective.

    • . says:

      @scott You nailed it!
      She is like my so named “Mother”, these kind of women schould never be permitted near their children.
      It’s like you would a known pedo babysit your kid, nobody would do that.

  29. Manjit says:

    IMHO, the perfect result of the Monaco hearing on 3 Sept would be for the court to announce that the US State Dept. had approved a new visa for Daniel and he would be returning to the US with the children but that, as a result of Kelly’s behaviour and unwillingness to co-parent, 50/50 custody is no longer appropriate and only supervised visitation would be allowed with the mother. Exiled American children would be free to return to their homeland in the care of the parent who appears to have their best interests at heart. There’s your happy ending right there.

    • Grace says:

      Oh no. Cross the visa out. If he can travel to the U.S. she will make the situation even more difficult.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Except they’re not exiled. They’re dual citizens living most of the year in Monaco with the primary custodial parent, in a situation of shared custody. As well, they’ve now spent a good chunk of their childhood in Monaco, are settled in school, activities, friendships, extended family etc. Returning to the US would only uproot them again, and be designed only to get them more proximate to a mother who already is flown over to see them several times a year, a mother who is likely to require close court supervision in her visits, a mother who is likely to be moving between LA and NY, and above all is completely unable to co-parent with their father.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The children would be papped out every day of their lives from then on. Not only are they better off with their father, they’re better off in a country where it is illegal to photograph them.

    • Ennie says:

      At this point, i don’t think yhis is an option. She has burned every bridge. If i were him, I’be afraid of unknowns who’d attack me because of this hate campaign she has made, also. She is not going to stop inventing stuff, and she will continue slandering. So, no.
      She’gone too far as to attack judges like this, she won’t stop at nothing if he were in ghe USA, she’s already implied dirty things about him and his mother.

    • anne_000 says:

      They’re not exiled.

      Their ‘homeland’ is not just the US anymore. The daughter has spent most of her life in Monaco. The son nearly half of his.

      They reportedly have their grandparents living with them too or at the very least very involved in their lives. They already have a settled life with family, friends, school, etc. in Monaco. How would uprooting them now add to their stability and continuity of life? The only person not inconvenienced under your scheme would be Kelly.

      Kelly’s end goal seems not to co-parent, but to make sure the father is not in their lives and possibly just to exist to give her child support.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      Uh, guys, I think Manjit was being sarcastic.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It is difficult to tell at this point, with some of what ends up getting posted about this debacle.

  30. Iknowwhatboyslike says:

    What happened to all the alarming things her kids told her? If this crazy chick really heard “alarming things” she would have been shouting them from the mountain top. I can with this privileged lady. She keeps shouting about America, America. If her kids being soley American was such a damn issue for her, she should have closed her legs to foreigners and screw an american instead. But I guess his foreigner money was too good to pass up.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      She’s only shouting America, America to get public sympathy. If she didn’t have that, what else could she say?

      I like your take on it though. She married two non-US citizens in a row, apparently for their utility. Witness the quick first divorce of a sick man and the quick second divorce once she had her 2 kids. What happened was the father foiled her plans — he simply would not abandon his children. And she’s enraged that he did not go along with her scheme. So sick!

    • meow says:

      I was thinking perhaps she is saving up her “alarming things” for Sept 3 as she got shut down at the NY Supreme .

  31. Betti says:

    This women needs to be sectioned – she is a danger to herself and those kids. She’s not getting her way so at some point is going to do something extreme with them. I wouldn’t surprised if she does a runner with them when she goes to see them in Monaco as you don’t really need a passport to go throu borders (only at Airports). I can see her taking them to another country possibly outside the EU and turning up at a US consulate somewhere demanding protection and passports for her kids.

    The ride on this crazy train is only going to get faster.

    I used to work with a guy who has NPD and the lies and stories he made up was shocking. He would behave in a way that made sure he got attention (good or bad) and would say or do WTF things to achieve that. The more he was told No the more determined he was to get what he wanted regardless of the consequences to himself or others. She’s just like that.

  32. Tig says:

    I tried to read her manifesto, but it reads like a pro se (aka representing yourself in court) screed. It’s barely coherent, and forget about making valid legal points.

    Not sure of the jurisdiction of NY courts, but many places, the same judges preside over truly appalling cases of child abuse and neglect, domestic violence and the consequences of both. Understandably, they have zip patience with this kind of grandstanding. Totally agree- at this point, it’s all about her “winning” aka getting what she wants.

  33. cynth says:

    Small, small detail, but imo, very telling all the same — she declares bankruptcy, yet she has the cash to upgrade to the iphone 6? I guess that speaks not only to her priorities, but her honesty and authenticity as well.

    • RahRahNo says:

      That is exactly what I was thinking. She has a new phone, that is not cheap, and some of the awful virgin mary clothes she wears cost well over $1000. For a really ugly dress! Take that money and buy a plane ticket and see your children if they are that important to you. My gosh lady. I have not filed for bankruptcy but my everyday shoes are three years old, at least. I could buy new shoes except 1 They are hideous but, oh so comfortable 2 I am a cheapskate and 3 My daughter needs new shoes, every month it seems like, so I put that money aside for her. This “mother” needs to be put in a pretty white coat in a pretty white room with no sharp objects.

    • Samtha says:

      She has enough money to live in the Hamptons (or at least spend the summer there) and in NYC. And you know she’s not exactly going to live in a 2k per month studio in Queens.

    • holly hobby says:

      I hope the US Trustee is paying attention to this (they usually are!) and she gets prosecuted for bankruptcy fraud. That means years in the pokey!

    • Chinoiserie says:

      Where I live if you declare bankruptcy you need to sell nearly everything you have to pay the debts and pay those dests you can not pay immediately for years and you can not use money on things you do not need. Apparetly in US your previous debts just stop exciting if you can not pay them?

    • jwoolman says:

      Well, you can get a free iPhone with a two-year contract with many carriers or at least a deep discount that even I can afford….

  34. IcyBlue says:

    This unhinged woman reminds me of the deranged Heather Mills, so unhinged and unable to see how others see them through their actions and how they are their own worst enemy. Talking smack about a judge, how is that going to help.?

  35. Norman Bates' Mother says:

    I had a moment of personal doubt yesterday and asked myself if I’m maybe being to harsh in judging her in my multiple anti-Kelly rants and then I read this. Hell I am – if something, I was being too kind, but not anymore. This woman is criminally insane and her ex is close to a sainthood. Good legal advice or not, there’s no way I would be as calm and understanding as he is, in his position.

    If I understand your extensive freedom of speech laws, the judge cannot jail her for those insults, right? If so, that’s a shame. That woman has no boundaries.

    She should be put in one jail-cell with women who actually lost their children and someone should present them with all her crazy rants. Her children are safely living in Monaco – a beautiful tourist destination, with their loving father and grandmother, they go to an elite school, speak 3 languages (I presume) and Kelly is free to see them whenever she wants, on Daniel’s dime most of the time and she dares to say all this crap? In a celeb world – Nick Cave just lost his child and I deeply sympathize with him. Kelly is short of spitting in the face of grieving people like him and his wife, when she plays the victim and says she lost them. I won’t sympathize with her, even if she loses the custody entirely. This whole mess is nothing but her own fault from the beginning.

    • Snowflake says:

      Exactly, she’s the one that started this shit. She made her bed, now she can lie in it. Tbh, I feel for her ex. He has worked so hard and been so restrained in the face of all her crazy antics. He did the right thing, I don’t think I could have been so restrained

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I have asked myself the same thing…perhaps I am being too hard on Kelly or not seeing everything. Then I skim the court rulings and her statements and I think, “Nope. If anything, you aren’t being tough enough!”

      As an immigration lawyer, her jingoistic, xenophobic rants really irritate me. She doesn’t have the first clue what it means to be in REAL deportation proceedings or to be an exile. If she heard some of the horrifying stories that I and my colleagues hear every day about people literally running for their lives and never seeing any of their family members again (and often never knowing if they are dead, alive, imprisoned, or being tortured), she might understand how good she and her kids have it. But this is Kelly, so probably not.

      • Sixer says:

        BearcatLawyer – when I was at uni, I spent 6 weeks of one summer break volunteering at a UK asylum seeker charity’s office. And this was long before the War on Terror made the receiving countries so draconian and paranoid. All I can say is that I’m glad I did it, and I learned a lot, including a bit of humility in the face of other people’s nightmares, hopefully, but I would never have had the mental strength to take on a career in that area. So hats off to you.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        @Sixer – this job certainly gives one almost daily reminders that life could be much, much worse.

        Perspective: Daniel has it. Kelly does not.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      He’s playing a smart legal and PR game by keeping quiet. Her own words and actions speak for themselves and he’s letting her tighten the noose around her neck little by little.

      I really hope the judge makes a significant ruling on Sept 3rd that will bring some peace and relief for Daniel. Six years of defending his rights against this loony is long enough.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Peace and relief — exactly. He can’t move on with his life with this continual crisis. Clearly he has love to give.

  36. Ella says:

    For God’s sake, the children were not DEPORTED or “forced to leave their home country”. They were simply returned to the custody of their father who in this case happens to live outside of the US.

    Technically the children could still live in the US or travel there as much as they want.

  37. Kate says:

    Not that it matters to this nitwit, but her entire statement is both factually incorrect and wrong as a matter of law. I especially chuckled when she sniffed that the judge sits in the state’s “lowest ranking court,” as if this b*tch is somehow entitled to have a routine family court matter immediately escalated to the NY Court of Appeals because she’s just so special.

    • original kay says:

      I chuckled at the wording there too. She is just not getting it. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Yes, I thought that was funny, if anything about this is funny, as well. Too bad that lowest of the low ranking court has jurisdiction over your case, snowflake, because you’re going to be seeing that judge again.

    • Yea–I was like uh, WHAT?! He/she is STILL higher ranking than you, bitch!

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      Narcissists really care about status. They think they are important people and only other important people are fit to associate with them.

      That’s likely why she called on both the Supreme Court and Obama to sort this out. To her, she shouldn’t have to be curtailed by the laws of lesser beings. She’s *special*.

  38. Kristen says:

    I will never again be able to hear the words constitutional rights, American citizenship and habitul, without having my eye twitch a little. I have come to loathe those words thanks to her.
    And way to piss off every judge in the country Kelly… YEAH, ‘MURICA! smh

  39. Crumpet says:

    Narcissistic rage. Just as Hamlet’s mother said, “the lady doth protest too much,” “the narcissist doth brag, scorn, talk down, primp and belittle too much” in order to continually prove to the world and themselves that they are larger than life.

  40. QQ says:

    That Lady Is Two Eggs Short of a Grand Slam

    Also Biggest argument for The Internet’s Fave Memes: B!tches Be Crazy (cause this one is, Crazier than a Sh!thouse Rat)

    Also She has No Gfs, this is a letter that any of your gfs or loved ones sees and tells you , QQ Delete That/Don’t send that Mess, Girl

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      That Lady Is Two Eggs Short of a Grand Slam – Love that expression, didn’t know it.. British or American English?

      • QQ says:

        QQ based, not sure LOL

      • Sixer says:

        In Britland, we’re inclined to say “sandwich short of a picnic”!

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        Oh, I’m loving your expressions… Wonderful.. In mine it goes something like (have to translate from Portuguese) – have a screw less / not having all the screws (screw as in tools, those tiny metal things to put furniture together) – meaning not all things in your brain are actually screwed? LOL Or maybe they are?

      • Sixer says:

        We also have “spanner short of a tool box” – so that’s similar!

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I love this thread… my favorite “she’s so dumb” expressions are the ones I heard living in the South:

        She ain’t hooked up right
        She’s dumber than a box of rocks/bag of hammers/doorknob
        She’s a few beers short of a six pack
        There’s a villiage somewhere missing its idiot
        That makes about as much sense as tits on a lightbulb
        You can’t fix stupid
        She’s nuttier than a fruitcake
        She’s so dumb he could throw herself on the ground and miss

      • Crumpet says:

        Grand Slam – that’s a Denny’s breakfast, right? I’m thinking it’s American.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        @Nutballs @Sixer we also have
        she’s dumb as a door
        she’s as deaf as a door
        He’s got (little) monkeys in the attic – to be delusioned (attic being a metaphor for head)
        He’s lost his spools – went crazy

      • Norman Bates' Mother says:

        In Poland we say:
        She’s got it uneven under a ceiling
        She’s stupid as a left foot shoe
        She’s got a cat – which means someone is seriously bat-shit
        She’s tall like a birch and dumb as a goat (it rhymes in Polish)
        And the most popular and the hardest to translate:
        She’s got an excavated beret.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Ha…NBM, I giggled over here with that last one in particular. I’m sure it makes more sense in your native tongue.

        I’m using “She’s got a cat” from now on. Only the Celebitches will know that I mean, but I’m adding it to my lexicon.

      • jwoolman says:

        The Portuguese expression sounds like the one here in the U.S., “she has a screw loose”….

      • Lucky Charm says:

        Don’t forget “The lights are on, but nobody’s home”, “Not the sharpest tool in the shed”, “Not the brightest crayon in the box”, “A few bricks short of a load”, and “A few fries short of a Happy Meal”.

      • Norman Bates' Mother says:

        @NUTBALLS – the thing is – it doesn’t make sense in Polish, but people use it anyway. I used excavated as a translation, but I thought about furrowed, because the general sense behind this is probably that someone was digging big holes or flumes through other person’s beret (as in a hat), searching for a brain but failed and made things worse. So the person is left with an excavated beret.

        “She’s got a cat” is my dad’s favorite. When a person actually owns a cat and someone says – he/she’s got a cat in a literal sense, he starts giggling and adds – oh, the furry one too? Dad jokes.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Phrases my folk might use to refer to her evident mental state:
      “The lights are on, but nobody’s home.”
      “Elevator doesn’t go to the top floor.”
      “Hammer don’t reach the nails.”
      “A few ants shy of a picnic.”
      and regarding this messed up situation she’s extolling:
      “Trying to make a seaweed soup sandwich.”
      “A goat rodeo.”

  41. Size Does Matter says:

    The kids ask her often if she is still fighting for them? Parental alienation, much? My ex says crap like this to my kids, and it is really, really hard to keep turning the other cheek. I have always been advised that it will bite him in the ass eventually. I guess we’ll see.

    • anne_000 says:

      Yes, I agree. That’s horrible that she says that, especially if it’s untrue.

      If it is true, then that’s horrible too, because that means she’s putting those thoughts into their heads.

      She shouldn’t have them thinking that mom and dad are always fighting against each other. That adds unnecessary stress and instability in their lives.

    • Samtha says:

      They’re probably asking because they want her to stop.

  42. Becks says:

    It’s a truism that one of the BEST GIFTS you can give your children is to be a father who respects their mother. It’s not material goods, not trust funds, it’s respect.

    In the absence of respect, there is usually contempt, and that is harmful to the psyche of kids who see that one parent is contemptuous of the other.

    Of course, in this case, the genders should be switched around.

    • DTX says:

      Totally agree. It is super hard to do though, especially when your ex is attempting to alienate the other parent who is trying to make the child love and respect both parents equally. My hubby’s ex did something VERY similar as Kelly (in her defense, Kelly was a little bit worse). She had been quite successful in her alienation efforts and my stepson became a damn nightmare for a while and even spoke about “getting revenge on his dad” for what he supposedly did to his mom. We later found out that she had shown him pics (when he was around 8 y/o) of her face all beat up and told him his father did it, when in fact it was her live in BF at the time, she had even pressed charges against him but decided to work it out with him a dropped them shortly after. These pics were dated 7 YEARS after he divorced her.

      But my hubby gave her one last warning shot before he amped up his efforts, he basically out-moneyed her in court and it wasn’t until she had to file bankruptcy fighting that her new hubby (different guy, this dude is very nice) put his foot down and made her chill out. Funny thing is, stepson now kind of hates her (he is a teen now, tho) and when he gets in trouble with his dad for being disrespectful to his mother (she calls up my hubby now every time little junior acts bad and asks him to “fix it”) he tries to defend himself by telling dad, “I don’t know why you take up for her, she poisoned me against you my whole life and ruined my childhood, you’re too nice dad. She doesn’t deserve it, trust me.” I feel sad for him sometimes but we are constantly encouraging him to work on his relationship with his mom and it looks like they may eventually get there…maybe. Kids never forget. I think this Daniel G guy is a pretty awesome dad, he reminds me of my hubby in his parenting style, he pretends that everything is always okay between mom and dad and let’s the kids be kids. Kelly, however does not. She is selfish.

  43. Who ARE these people? says:

    So help me, all I kept thinking of was the Wicked Witch of the West flying around — “Surrender Dorothy.” Now I can’t get the music out of my head.

  44. LuluPolly says:

    Why doesn’t she just go live in Monaco?

    • notasugarhere says:

      Because it doesn’t get her what she wants. She wants sole custody in the US and to cut their father out completely.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      This has been addressed and discussed so many times. It’s unclear what her motivations are in terms of true co-parenting. Her actions however say, “All or nothing,” kids with her in the USA or nothing at all, just a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth and trashing the father of her children and wasting public monies and insulting the family courts and manipulating the media and public opinion.

    • Ennie says:

      My theories:
      She would not be coparenting in a foreign country, she’d be suing him all the time for any little thing, and she’d haveo actually pay the lawyers.
      She probably says that her job is here, (what job?) but that would not stop he for being able to spend a month or more a year renting something cheaper in a nearby place.
      Her support net is in the states. I imagine she has rich friends that she hpcan ask for freebies, using their hamptons house, etc. I do not think she actually owns anything in the hamptons, and she is there all the time, right. She should be friend with Beyonce and aske them to lend her their yatch.
      She gets press , pity, taken pics and some sense of importance for being that poor mother in the USA, she’d lose that if she went there, she’d be nobody.
      I think vaccination is mandatory in France, and probably in Monaco, too. I think she is an antivaxxer.
      Because America.

      I really think that she plans to continue suing and suin and suing. She knows she won’t be peacefully coparenting ever. If she lives there that probably will coste her more and she wont have the American public on her side.

    • Neah23 says:

      Because it’s not about doing what’s best for the kids it’s about winning for her.

  45. ShazBot says:

    Someone needs to explain to her how the EU works. She sounds like a moron saying they shouldn’t live in Monaco because they, and neither parent, are citizens. I mean, she sounds like a moron for that whole rant, but that but about why they shouldn’t live in Monaco is truly stupid.

  46. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    “He’s such a bad father trying to alienate his children’s mother” … NOT… This interview is actually awesome, he created an ap to send postcards because his children wanted to send their mom daily postcards… Terrible, terrible person he is… I didn’t know he had created blipcard for mobile phones…

    Loved the interview…

  47. notasugarhere says:

    “The court hearing on Tuesday was essentially Kelly’s last stand” – Celebitchy

    Oh, if only that were true! She is nowhere near done yet.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      You know she will somehow take this case to the European Court of Human Rights. I can feel it. Her kids are AMERICAN CITIZENS who need to be in THEIR OWN COUNTRY. The Monegasque court is violating THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS!

      I have some clients who could talk to her about real human rights violations. You know, 100+ people being crammed into a shipping container in a desert and only given minimal food and water. Or watching your entire family get mown down by AK-47s and your village burned to the ground. Her three-ring court circus looks like a garden party in comparison.

    • meow says:

      This. And it will go on and on and on. She’s like The Terminator.

  48. The law according to Kelly. Good luck at the Monaco hearing on September 3rd Kelly!!!

    What a nutbag. She was so distraught after her children were ‘arrested’ and illegally exiled from their country (bs) that instead of going straight home and having a good, sobbing cry, she went to lunch. End scene. Yeah, she’s totally bonkers and I’m glad she released this rambling mess because now those who didn’t know, do. And those professionals who try and defend her after she released this lose even more credibility.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Oh, no there are still the ones who know nothing about the case sniffing that we are all so mean to poor Kelly, who is, after all, a Mother…😇

      • That’s true. I saw the coverage on the ABC & NBC Nightly news this week and the reporters covering the case are just spouting Kelly’s view, ‘American citizens, bizarre case……etc.’

        I guess I’m just glad that there seems to be a turn in the grass roots where I see on the People, US Weekly, ABC blogs that the cat’s out of the bag as far as the Statement of Decision & what’s in it. As opposed to just this past May with her nanosecond temporary sole custody, where one of this blogs only had 3 responses all supporting Kelly. now there are 1000’s or responses and most are now negative.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        So glad to hear that most people aren’t buying her bs.! She really gives women a bad name.

      • J.Mo says:

        GoodNamesAllTaken: You mean AMERICAN mother, right?

  49. Ankhel says:

    People ask why her lawyer doesn’t steer her better, letting her attack a judge in writing and so on. Well, I think the cart is firmly hitched in front of the donkey here. Those lawyers have NO control.

    Also, what is this nonsense about the children not being habitual residents of Monaco? Even the staunchest supporters of pasty motherhood ought to wonder at this. After all, Kelly doesn’t stop whining about how her children is with their father in Monaco, like, ALL THE TIME. “Habitual resident” is a legal term, but at the end of the day it’s just a DESCRIPTION of reality. Someone ought to introduce Kelly to a nice, white straightjacket so she can hug herself and not call any more lawyers.

    • Scott says:


    • kai says:

      I was going to ask whyyyyyyyyyyy her lawyers let her release this crap? Can they quit her case, because it sounds like a nightmare.

      • Ankhel says:

        Oh, they can drop her case all right – but why do it? Her lawyers get publicity and money without having to actually act as professionals. Kelly isn’t grounded or smart enough to rate their work properly.

      • K says:

        Her lawyer is allegedly acting pro bono, but if you look at her website, she is gunning for a media role. All sorts of deliberately controversial pieces on high profile cases she has no professional connection with.

        This woman is just telling Kelly what she wants to hear, and in return, Kelly is making her a household name.

    • FingerBinger says:

      This could a situation in which the lawyer is as crazy as the client like Donald Trump’s lawyer. He made that crazy comment about marital rape. He also didn’t know that marital rape is illegal in all 50 states.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Kelly’s pal Dan Abrams, ‘legal correspondent’ for ABC News, didn’t know the kids were also German citizens. Very simple, easy to discover fact.

      • holly hobby says:

        Dan Abrams is also not a legal expert because he doesn’t know how to read a court decision – one that has been linked here every time a nutjob article appears.

  50. Giddy says:

    The stupid and delusion are strong in her batshit statement. Does she really think that other judges won’t take note of her lack of respect towards the judiciary? She seems to be doing everything possible to have her custody and visitation changed for the worse. The hinges on her sanity have given way.

    • Lady D says:

      Lindsay Lohan showed the same absolute contempt for the court system, and it worked for her. She should have had prison time for the amount of times she violated parole alone.

  51. hanie says:

    Bitch is crazy. Didnt she know/adviced by her lawyer(s) that this kind of crazy ranting can hurt her case? Daniel doesnt need to do anything because she gives everything on silver plate.

  52. kai says:

    I agree with those who said she doesn’t actually want those children. she cannot possibly think that this is going to help her get them. she just gets off on the drama.

  53. K says:

    This stopped being gossip – hard, but not like we know them, and the world is full of sad stories, etc and so on – and started being genuinely distressing over this summer.

    I have a six year old and an 18 month old. I look at them, and imagine this being their life, and for all their luxury and privilege, and sane father, my heart breaks for the Giersch children. She is inflicting wounds that may never truly heal, and she doesn’t appear to know that, or care if she does. Small children are so, so vulnerable to parental crazy.

  54. justme says:

    As a single mom raising my kids on my own due to the fact their dad (he doesn’t really deserve the title) puts everything else before his own children I was always glad he disappeared from our lives. But now that timeh has ppassed I would give almost anything to have him act like Daniel. So I really wish Kelly would stfu, sit down,and realize how lucky her kids and her are to have a man who wants to be a dad.

    • K says:

      Yeah. So, so many single mothers without support from the father, emotional or financial, and here’s Kelly with a millionaire wanting to co-parent. I know women on their knees with work and small kids, no break from care from anyone except working hours, no money from any outside source. And here she is flipping out because someone else loves her kids as much as she claims to,

      Earlier I was gloomily wondering why people like Kelly and Halle don’t hook up with fathers like Charlie Sheen and Eddie Murphy and Steve Bing, and then I remembered that if they did, the kids in question would have nobody sane and unselfish loving them in a parental role. Brooke Mueller’s twins being a tragically good example.

    • DEB says:

      I agree with you but she can’t see past herself. She doesn’t see that she’s very lucky that he does what he does and PAYS for what he does. I think she’s unstable and will hopefully continue to shoot herself in the foot. The more people see it, the better.

  55. Lily J says:

    Honestly her Gossip Girl character is a essentially a watered-down (less dramatic/extreme) version of her real self in so many ways. It’s so odd and ironic.

  56. Montréalaise says:

    Time for Daniel to stop being Mr. Nice Guy. While it is admirable for him to bend over backwards so that his kids could have a relationship with their mom, he’s got to admit that she is sounding crazier and crazier by the minute and her ongoing battle to get sole custody is mentally and emotionally abusive to them. He should ask the Monaco court to order supervised visits only from now on. If she is saying all these things publicly, painting her ex as a monster, can you imagine what she is telling the kids in private?

    • (Original, not CDAN) Violet says:

      Agreed. I’d go so far as to say that the supervised visits should be in Monaco only, no more visits to the US because Kelly can’t be trusted not to pull this stunt again. I also don’t think she should ever be left alone again with the kids, because I suspect she’s filling their heads with crazy talk. I still remember reading the court papers about how she told her son to shout for help the next time he was at an airport with his father; no wonder the poor boy experiences separation anxiety whenever he’s away from his dad.

      Personally, I think Kelly needs to undergo a psych evaluation and/or spend time in jail. Preferably both.

  57. RahRahNo says:

    First things first BearCatLawyer..airborne fornication. That is the best thing I have read all day! I love it. Secondly can the judge still charge her with contempt of court for not bringing the children when she was ordered? I would love to see this “mother” be back in the lowest ranking judges’ courtroom after this crazy and personal attack.
    Last summer when she tried to have the kids stay with her in NY I have to admit I was very sympathetic towards her. I just kept thinking how awful it would be not to be able to kiss your kids goodnight and make them breakfast everyday. I was given a link to the court documents and I wanted to beat this person screaming about her children being taken away. My ex and I do not have a great relationship and we split when I was pregnant. He does love OUR daughter though and she loves him and his family, why would you ever want to hold your kids away from someone that loves them and can teach them something that you can not? We are not together anymore but, we have a child that is part of the both of us, no one can change that. My ex and I fight like the blazes sometimes but never around the baby and we give each other birthday and christmas gifts to show our daughter that we care enough about her to respect her other parent. She is only two so it might not sink in for a while still but, I will always love him, not because of him(he is an ass) but because he is a part of her.
    I just do not think I would ever have the patience that Daniel has shown with this nutbag. Now she is bringing up a drowning story from three years ago that seems very sketchy. How many times have either of those kids had an accident on her watch that she has never been raked over the coals? I hope that the courts in Monaco limit her to supervised visitation only. Her irrational behavior is getting scary, I am worried she will start inflicting physical harm to those kids since the mental and emotional abuse is getting her nowhere.

    • jwoolman says:

      Didn’t one of the kids have one or more bandaids in one of her red carpet pics? The Horror! Put them in foster care immediately!

  58. anne_000 says:

    I’ve posted this comment by Daniel’s lawyer before, but I want to bring it up again light of and in context to Kelly’s statement, because it’s so 180 from what the reality is versus what Kelly is spewing:

    “Ms. Rutherford is free to visit anytime she wants and she has certain specified times under the agreement, but she had indicated at one point that she would like to come at the end of the summer so they can take the children to school together.

    He has been perfectly accommodating to whatever request she has made. He just wanted to make sure the children were coming back as they were supposed to.”

    So while she knew that Daniel probably wasn’t going to stop her from visiting so soon after what she’s done, she still had the gall to put out this statement which includes a swipe at him as well as saying “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.”

  59. Katherine says:

    When’s the psych evaluation? Seriously, this woman needs to be locked up.

  60. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    Oh God, just read a comment. Does anyone know when Daniel’s Visa was revoked? Was it april 2012? Because the woman from the affidavit claiming his daughter almost drowned in May 2012, and that she found out it was Daniel when flying back to NY. How does one fly back to a country, if one can’t enter the country?

    “When reached this week, Lisiewski told PEOPLE that she remembered Giersch, now 41, was visibly upset after the May 6, 2012, incident: “I think he was panicking. He asked me a lot of questions like how long she was underwater.”

    “Lisiewski told PEOPLE she had no idea who Daniel Giersch was when she brought his daughter over to him. She said her girlfriend was on the plane returning to New York with him from Bermuda and found out he was Rutherford’s ex-husband. She, in turn, knew someone who lived in Rutherford’s building in New York who told the actress. “

    • meow says:

      I think Kelly will take this to court in three weeks.

    • Ennie says:

      Kelly and her lawyer made the call on December 12th, 2011. His visa was almost immediately cancelled, because when he was in Germany in January, they gave/sent a letter stating the cancellation of all types of visa until his case was reviewed. HE could not get back to the US, as I understand.
      I get from the court docs that after that, he still co-parented, even when Kelly repeatedly trying to make it just video-calls. HE had the children out of the USA in Canada and in Bermuda, and somewhere else, IIRC.
      She complained first of the pool in Daniel’s home (California), and there is at least this other incident in Bermuda when this woman claims to have taken the girl out of the pool.
      The statement of decision has an October date, so Kelly probably had already presented the judge with this incident and the judge dismissed it calling it a red herring, and I think it is not the only thing she complains about. There is a statement from a counsellor or therapist that says that he found that all safety concerns raised by Kelly were red herrings.
      I bet this Bermuda incident is partly why it was decided that it was unfair that the father had to see his children in such conditions, not in his own home or the children’s hometown, in a familiar situation.
      At least Kelly can travel and participate in events that the school has, after school activities, go to parks or places or see and meet their friends in Monaco and France. Those things would be denied to Daniel if the situation was reversed.
      If Daniel was traveling in the same plane w/them, remember that people without visas can take connection flights at USA airports, but they have to stay in certain areas. He probably took the children to Kelly at the airport, or his parents did, and then took a flight back to his permanent home.


      I have to add that in the court doc. is stated that he never has threatened with taking the kids, to kidnap them or otherwise, and Kelly fully accepts this, and in the contrary, there is multiple evidence of Kelly alienating him as a father.

  61. holly hobby says:

    As soon as I read that crazy tirade I was waiting for this to show up here! OMG, what kind of nut job lawyer does she have that would let her go off the ledge like that? She now sounds like a crazy vexatious litigant.

    I read this on US Weekly and the commentators were all basically calling her crazy. So the tide has turned against her. I hope those dummies in Congress are hanging their heads in shame for entertaining her.

    What do you have to say now, Dan Abrams?

  62. Wens says:

    Yes, I agree she seems unhinged and has totally trashed her children’s father in the press however having my own children I can imagine I would go to the same lengths to keep my kids – although I guess I wouldn’t have my husband deported so I could keep them to myself as I believe children have the right to both their parents. Difficult, as I’m sure deep down, despite all her foolery in the press she loves her children and just wants them with her (which is how any normal mother would feel) – so, so sad for her children

    • tracking says:

      Yes of course, anyone can empathize but, in addition to her reprehensible behavior toward her ex, she simply doesn’t seem to have the children’s best interests at heart. They are happy and well with their dad. What is her proposed solution, other than sole custody with her ex cut completely out of the picture or granted very limited custody rights? It’s always her way or the highway, which is not a positive environment for the children.

    • K says:

      The core problem is she can’t separate out her own best interests from the children’s best interests. To her, what is best for her is what they need. She seems incapable of considering that they have interests not just separate from, but actually conflicting with, her own.

      As a parent, the really shitty times are when you have to recognise that something with a major emotional, financial or energy cost to you is in your child’s best interests. But as a parent, unless the benefit is minor compared to the enormity of a cost, you go with what they need, and screw what you’d prefer. It’s the job description, so you suck it up.

      She doesn’t seem capable. She just assumes her needs and wants are theirs, and anyone challenging that is persecuting her. And whatever the reasons, disregard for the welfare of your own kids is the very definition of a bad parent.

  63. Pandy says:

    I’m not a mother, but I’m sure she’s distraught over having her children living on another continent.

    • Ennie says:

      Can you imagine how the father felt when he could not visit their children in their home country?
      For a while he had to see them if foreign lands like Canada, BERmuda, etc. Like it was vacation, instead of sharing normal parenting time, all because the mother tried to extort him of his shared custody time.
      At least she can visit whenever she can or wants. He can’t do that if the children lived in the US , and this is her doing.

    • anne_000 says:

      Then why wasn’t she happy to share custody with Daniel while he was living in the US?

    • holly hobby says:

      Then she should have told her attorney not to spread lies to Homeland Security.

    • Samtha says:

      Not distraught enough to move closer to be with them.

    • Crumpet says:

      Uh huh. So distraught she went out to lunch after seeing them off.

    • Katherine says:

      It’s Kelly’s fault her kids have to live on another continent in the first place. She and her lawyer lied to Homeland Security resulting in Daniel being deported, which is why her kids live in another country. Besides, why is she the only parent whose feelings matter? She’s not some kind of victim here, she brought this all on herself. Children need TWO stable parents, in most cases that’s not a problem. But there are exceptions, which is why these things should be judged on a case by case basis. And in this case, there’s only ONE stable parent thinking about what’s best for the kids. I don’t believe it’s healthy for those kids to be exposed to her special brand of crazy, she’s completely unhinged.

  64. Molly says:

    She really needs to eat a Snickers bar.

  65. Anon 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.”……… Shame on this woman for doing this to those two little kids. You can google female sociopath, the traits spell out her tactics that she’s doing. Poor children, poor Daniel and family. I even feel sorry for Kelly’s family and friends who are getting duped by this woman, for they will feel her rage too when it all finally falls apart..she’ll eventually blame them too…for not doing enough to help her win her game of hate against her ex and to possess her doll-children. Good thing she still could ‘lunch’.

    • . says:

      It’s rather a narcisstic personality disorder than sociopathy, but narcissm is always part of sociopaths, she fits all the boxes with NPD, believe me it is worse than you think (my mother is one) if you are interested, read about mothers with a NPD, it’s horrible.

      And your’e right, they always blame the others, bc of megalomania and disturbed sense of self is part of it, twisted brains.

    • rach says:

      “My children ask me all the time why, when they are with me, they always have to dress up and go to photo ops and red carpets and don’t get to do things that normal kids do – like go to the park, play with other kids, that kind of stuff. I think Daniel has truly brainwashed them!!”

      • tracking says:


      • rosalie says:

        What? An 8 – or is he 9 year old boy who would rather play ball than get all dolled up and paraded around like a show pony for the pap brigade? Yep, that rascally Daniel has him brainwashed all right. Silly Rabbit

    • Katherine says:

      What Kelly’s doing to her ex-husband is cruel. But even worse, what she’s putting their kids through is absolutely disgraceful. It’s emotional abuse.

  66. me says:

    It’s 50/50 custody isn’t it? Doesn’t she get them half the year? I don’t understand.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      She does, but has to be in Monaco, because she told lies making him lose his Visa… So, if she goes to Monaco and lives there, half the year, they’ll live with her…

    • Ennie says:

      As I understand, it its practically the whole summer, christmas, easter, pus 2 more weeks during the year and at least six scheduled visits to Monaco, where I believe they stay with her (plus more if she can), including first day of school. I am not sure how many weeks are those.
      The total of the weeks/days she has is altogether more that whatever alternative agreement they proposed if she had the children in NY during the year, because he can’t visit the USA.
      Apart from that, they can video call privately with the parent overseas daily, and get updates daily.

  67. TessD says:

    So will there be any issues now with her husband letting the kids come see her in the US again?

  68. Jezza says:

    I hope Daniel’s lawyers go back to radio silence. They don’t need to respond to her. Let her talk, because the more she talks, the more unhinged she sounds. She’ll do all their work for them.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They need to spend the next three weeks nailing down Monaco’s jurisdiction. Meet with Hague staff so it is clear she’s the one who violated Hague Convention.

      School starts September 1 at the International School in Monaco. There is nothing stopping Rutherford from getting on a plane and traveling to Monaco to see their kids today. That is both good and terrifying all at the same time.

      • Jezza says:

        I have a feeling Daniel and his lawyer have been planning for this eventuality.

        I think there is one thing stopping her from getting on a plane – her pride.

  69. SavageGrace says:

    Keep talking, Kelly – you’re just making it easier and easier for every judge you approach to go in Daniel’s favor. I mean really: wonderful work slandering every judge you see who doesn’t put the kids in your unstable hands. Making enemies everywhere, aren’t you? Lawd.

  70. brainatplay says:

    I read somewhere that the father’s parents picked up the children and brought them back to Monaco. If that it is true, she’s nuts to suggest that he didn’t care enough to personally collect them. If I were him, I wouldn’t come either and have to deal with her.

  71. brainatplay says:

    Also, I think she’s saying that he come as a tourist to the US on his German passport as I don’t think you need a visa to tour the US. However, he cannot live in the US without a valid visa. But if his initial visa was revoked due to “arms dealing,” he’ll probably be flagged and placed into custody upon arrival. She’s needs to move on.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      Actually you do need a visa to tour the USA, and considering he had his revoked, he wouldn’t get into a plane, let alone arrive in the country… They could be all happy… 🙁 Sad for the kids..

      • Lady D says:

        When you say visa, do you mean passport? I get into the states with my passport.

      • morc says:

        No, the visa was stamped into his passport, that visa was revoked.

        The US can’t revoke his passport as:
        1) it wasn’t issued by them
        2) is property of the Federal Republic of Germany

        Many people get a visa on arrival and may stay 90 days, others who wish to stay longer need to apply for a visa with an embassy/consulate.

      • jwoolman says:

        I think Germany has a visa waiver agreement with the US for limited times, for tourists at least. But someone with a revoked visa would not be eligible for that program. It is unlikely that he would have a chance of getting another visa for many years, considering the accusations made, unless she formally tells the authorities that lies were told and the accusations were baseless. The custody judge didn’t believe a word of it, and unlike Homeland Security, the court actually investigated. And he can’t come into the U.S. without that visa. A little googling shows that many people have lost their visas for years/decades for trivial reasons, the U.S. is notorious for easily revoking a visa but not easily re-issuing one. In Daniel’s case, he’s caught in the “better safe than sorry” policy. They have zero evidence backing up her claims, or else he would have been arrested. But the accusations from a lawyer and ex-wife are enough for them to revoke the visa. The nonsense floating around comments sections that he is involved in shady business dealings is more likely more of Kelly’s fantasizing to get rid of Daniel. He monitors patents and trademarks for infringements, which makes him enemies among the infringers. So it’s not hard to find a disgruntled trademark infringer to wail about how “shady” Daniel is. What he does is not illegal.

  72. Anon says:

    Just a refresher on who Daniel is and what he does…arms dealer, drug runner…NO.

  73. Michelle says:

    On a total side note, what is with the white-on-white outfits? This is not the first time she has been seen with this type of getup. She has also dressed the kids that way too. Totally weird to me. I feel for her as a mother who wants her kids, but she has jumped off the cliff with all of this mess.

  74. Sparkly says:

    Her behavior is absolutely unsafe and detrimental to the children, so I can’t see how ANY of the courts (or Daniel, who deserves a sainthood at this point, ffs) are allowing her access or visitation without insisting she get psychiatric help. She truly does seem a danger to them.

  75. Killalustre says:

    This statement reads like one of the weekly manifestos this homeless guy hands out each week in the downtown of where I live.
    For real.
    Kelly Rutherford is what happens when a cute little blonde white girl isn’t told ” no” by the adults in her life.

  76. Grace says:

    So, ladies, what are the odds she will stay quiet until Sept. 3rd?

    • notasugarhere says:

      Let’s do some more international idioms. The ones up thread were fun!

      When pigs fly. On the Twelfth of Never. When Satan plays with snowballs.

      • Grace says:

        Um, English is not my first language. I will do one in my mother tongue.

        ‘You can pull a cow to the edge of the sky – it’s still a cow.’

        Is that too offensive? Given the subject…

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        Not even if cows cough – never, impossible
        We also have the one with the pigs in Portuguese..
        And we have one similar to the 12th of never: On St. Never’s Day in the afternoon..

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      Trying to keep Kelly (and her dipstick attorneys) quiet is like trying to smell the color 9.

  77. Syko says:

    I’m still blown away by the utter lack of respect she showed in wearing that outfit to court. I worked for many years in law firms, and always, when a client had to appear in court, we would counsel them to “dress as if you were going to church”. I still remember one case where the couple was adopting the wife’s sister’s baby because the baby was half black and the mother’s new boyfriend refused to have the child in his home (yes, that sort of thing happens). The couple showed up for the final adoption hearing, wearing dressy khaki shorts and knit shirts, and the judge refused to hear the case because they were not dressed respectfully, and continued it to a later date.

    This woman. First off, she doesn’t even tell the father when the little girl is born, he learned of it on social media. Then in the wake of 9/11, her lawyer feeds lies to the government and gets his visa revoked. Since he can not visit his kids, the courts award physical custody to him. He has done everything possible to facilitate her seeing them often. He offered to buy her a house in Monaco, but she refused, stating that her work is in the US. But she’s also stated that she works about 45-60 days of the year. Wouldn’t it be simpler for her to live in the free house in Monaco, see her kids often, and travel to the US for her infrequent work?

    She gets the kids for an extended summer vacation. She also is able to travel to Monaco six times a year at the father’s expense to visit. This is more than generous visitation. I believe she’s visited more often than six times a year, as well, I read somewhere that she’s averaged nearly a visit a month.

    This is not a grieving mother missing her children. It’s a narcissistic, batsh*t crazy woman who sees her kids as possessions, and as tools for hurting the father. I have no sympathy for her at all.

  78. blla says:

    If anyone is still checking this, I heard she will be on Fox tonight, 9pm eastern time

  79. Harrison says:

    This doesn’t really have anything to do with her children, even though they are obviously and sadly props in her drama. She wants attention and has found a way to get lots of it. This is ego all the way.

    Why do parents work this hard to create pain, confusion and trouble for their own children? Disgusting pigs. She’s worse than Courtney Love.

  80. Zooyork says:

    She is SO repulsive looking. Who is she anyway? I never heard of her until this celebitchy posts recently. She looks like she’s out of a horror movie- Hostel.

  81. Puffy B. says:

    Only an uneducated person, or someone with an agenda, would consider this writing a “crazy rant”. Her legal arguments are completely sound and correct. I hope this case gets turned around soon. Her and her children’s rights are clearly being violated.

    • jwoolman says:

      Read it. Really. It explains everything. The judge (in California, October 2013) writes very clearly and details how the custody arrangement was decided, as the only way to ensure equal time for both parents with the kids without making things too difficult for the kids. It also has the details of how Kelly and her lawyer threatened Daniel with the visa problem, which they said would disappear if he signed away all custody and visitation rights. He refused, and within a few days his visa was revoked based on their false accusations.

    • Ennie says:

      She conviniently forgets in her public statement her faults and her mistakes.
      She just wants to win public opinion because with her actions she is not winnng in court.
      Why else to release that years old supposed event just now?

    • Lucky Charm says:

      I realize that this woman can sometimes make rational people so angry that they can’t type without making a few typos, so I’ve gone ahead and fixed your mistakes for you:

      Only an uneducated person, or someone with an agenda, would NOT consider this writing a “crazy rant”. Her legal arguments are completely UNsound and INcorrect. I hope this case gets turned around soon. Her children’s rights are clearly being violated by her.

    • SavageGrace says:

      Hi Wendy!

    • Grace says:

      Well. My uneducated mind finds it hard to understand how somebody like you think a life with a mother using her children to gain publicity is better than a stable life with friends and family away from public eyes for two children under the age of ten. She is exploiting her children. If anyone is hurting their human rights, she is. And if you can’t see that, you are clearly as block-headed as she is too.

      Edit: I may not know legal statue, but I have common sense. People like you make me angry.

    • Alice says:

      No one’s rights are being violated. Citizenship has zero to do with anything, despite her claims of “America, America”. Let’s put this into perspective shall we? Imagine for a moment that they were both living in London when they divorced, and that Kelly had stayed on there for work committments AND had been given primary custody. Would the children’s rights as “American citizens” be violated by being forced to remain in the UK with their mother? Would a judge order Kelly to move back to the USA because her “American children” were being “exiled” abroad?

      Of course not.m her whole “legal” argument is bull which is why the only people paying any attention to it are those who are sadly ignorant of both the law and the details of why this happened in the first place.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I went to Duke for undergrad and the University of Texas School of Law for my J.D. I have been board certified in immigration and nationality law for well over a decade. I have no dog in this hunt either as I do not live in CA, NY, or Monaco and do not know any of the parties involved in this case. I am not uneducated nor do I have an agenda.

      And I can say unequivocally that her “legal” arguments are unmitigated crap. Other attorneys with even more knowledge and experience than I possess have agreed with that assessment. The only people continuing to support the nonsensical vitriol Kelly and her attorneys are spewing are people like you who are ignorant of the prior court orders issued in the custody case and the law.

      So my dear sea lion, as the Lord said unto Felicia, “BYE.”

  82. Ennie says:

    I saw a video oh her being interviewed and let me say that her lawyer is what can I say?
    She is not going to get sane advice from this woman. At all.
    And Kelly? She was not wearing white (she must read the comments, hi, Kelly!)
    She seems so passive aggresive to me. ” I find this curious, I find this strange, this is odd… America this, America that, American mother, American children… Exiliated, expatiatred, an ambush, I know the importance of both parents…” REALLY?!?!?!
    And she did not say why she lost main custody and how is her exhusband ineligible for a visa.

  83. Sez says:

    This woman clearly has some sort of borderline personality disorder on top of some type of weird USA jingoism fetish. That said, she does repeatedly say that her ex can travel to the US on his German passport. The counter argument to that is that she had his visa revoked. Was that just his working visa? I would imagine so and then the fact that he can come to the states is true? Or was what she said about him so detrimental that they banned him from entering the US at all? Clearly a bit of a moot point because no one sane would give the kids to her now but interesting all the same. I have an EU passport and am free to visit for three months at a time on a tourist visa (which is effectively without a visa as you don’t need pre approval). If she had behaved in any way appropriately the fact that he could enter the country on a regular basis may have worked in her favour. Instead she has behaved like the crazy narcissist that she is screaming suggestions of anti US sentiment, while defying court orders. The children have German passports therefore they are German citizens, therefore EU citizens, therefore the right to live anywhere in the EU.

    • Sixer says:

      Not a moot point. He had his working visa revoked, which means that his eligibility under the tourist-y ESTA programme has also been revoked. He can’t set foot in the States.

      If you, Sez, had a criminal record or arrest record or had previously had a US visa revoked, you wouldn’t be able to travel to the US under ESTA for a holiday either. Nobody would.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      ESTA is NOT a visa. It used to be called the Visa Waiver Program. In some ways it is a great way to travel to the U.S., but in other ways it is not so great. For example, if you overstay your visit even by a few hours without permission, you will never be allowed to use ESTA again and must apply for (and actually get) a visa from a U.S. consulate in order to come back to the U.S. in the future. If you have a U.S. work or student visa revoked for ANY reason, you cannot use ESTA. If you apply for a U.S. visa and are denied for any reason, you cannot use ESTA.

      • Sez says:

        Yep that’s what I thought but I haven’t really read what the situation was with his initial visa and the terminology around it bring revoked etc when she keeps saying he is free to travel. And I do believe he would have been in New York to pick up the children with his mother if he could have been so clearly she is spinning this visa situation beyond belief! Poor kids.

  84. blla says:

    The “Gossip Girl” actress discusses what’s next in the legal fight to reunite with her children

  85. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    Ok, Daniel said to the German press: “She made herself liable to prosecution” and also that he’s going to protet them from any harm and Media Shows”- Das Bild.. hum hum…
    Definitely, he’s smart and so are his lawyers and she’s sas dumb as a door… He’s given her rope and she’s hanging herself with it…

    German magazines titles are all about:
    KR kidnaps her own children
    Why her ex is entitled to sole custody
    Has she lost her kids for good?
    KR: Critics to judge after rulling…