Those of you who follow this story might remember an interview that Daily Beast and People Magazine writer, Dana Kennedy,did with MSNBC in which she took Kelly Rutherford’s side in her international custody battle. Kennedy parroted Rutherford’s talking points, suggested that this story would get the cover of People (it did not, the Duggars did, which People surely regrets now) and called Daniel Giersch, Rutherford’s ex, a “a mysterious German businessman” who is “notorious in Germany“. Kennedy’s interview did not bode well for People’s story, and suggested it would be incredibly slanted toward Rutherford’s side.
The good news is that People’s print edition is out, and their article is much more balanced than I was expecting (although certainly not completely balanced) because it was written by Michelle Correston, not Dana Kennedy. I’ll excerpt some parts of the print story below, but first I wanted to mention that People did publish an article co-authored by Kennedy on their website. The online version tries to make the children’s exclusive life in Monaco sound negative. It’s laughably titled “Children in a Fortress” and includes quotes like “The family makes privacy a priority by living behind a fortress-like wall made up of fencing and high shrubbery in a big, modern compound with a swimming pool…. Uniformed city police patrol the area on bicycles. Every home is similar. Hard to see, hidden behind walls, grand fences, trees and shrubs.” So it’s a bad thing that there are cops on bikes and that the kids have an amazing, safe home with a pool and high walls?
Here are the relevant quotes from People’s print article. This was more matter-of-fact than the “fortress” article. Kelly makes vague accusations against Giersch with no details, as is typical of her. She doesn’t have anything concrete on him or she would have come out with it long ago. The headers are in my words, not People’s.
Kelly explains why she kept her kids
“They were great the entire time. We were painting, horse-back riding. Then right when they knew they were going to go back, they got really panicky. My daughter was crying, my son started saying, ‘Mommy, I’m afraid’… If I put them on a plane, I realized I may never see them again. I sent an email to Daniel telling him where we were. I just needed a moment to figure out what to do.”Her goal is “their well being”
My goal is their well-being, that they’re safe, happy health. It’s scary. My kids have been through a lot. I’ve done everything I can to let them think everything is normal.On why she broke up with Giersch
“I was in love with him, and things were good in the beginning – then weird things started happening. People are not always who they say they are.”On Giersch wanting his name on his daughter’s birth certificate
“[It] became a war. It was like, ‘I’m going to take you down, I’m going to take the kids.’ He wanted 50/50 custody immediately of a newborn. It’s physically challenging for a newborn to be shared 50/50. Physiologically, they need their mommy.’”She tells her kids she’s fighting for them
I’ve had to take a situation that’s so bizarre and try to keep my kids healthy. I have to keep knowing, if I’m okay, they’re going to be okay. I don’t want them to be fearful. My children ask me all the time if I am still fighting for them… I always tell them the day will never come when I say no.”
[From People Magazine, print edition, August 31, 2015]
There was more in there about how they’re American kids who have been taken from the US, etc., but we’ve heard all that from Kelly before. Also, Kelly and her lawyer gave a statement to US Magazine, which sounds like the same one they gave People a few days ago. It is total batsh*t, but the more I hear from Kelly’s lawyer the more I think most of it is coming from her. Some of you mentioned that the lawyer, Wendy Murphy, has been a talking head on shows like Nancy Grace, where she’s made outrageous and untrue claims. So keep that in mind when you read this new-ish statement from Murphy on the federal court rejecting Kelly’s emergency writ. Murphy claims that this is a Hague (international child abduction, essentially) case. This is not a Hague case. The fact that US Magazine got this statement later than People suggests Kelly is just trying to get more publicity.
Photo credit: Pacific Coast News and FameFlynet
Doesn’t everyone in Monaco live in a fortress?
Better living in an fortress than with this crazy woman. Seriously, her argument that you can’t share a baby 50/50 is mindboggling. She seems too far gone to be a stable parent for her kids.
She said 50/50 custody of a newborn was physically challenging not that you can’t share a baby.
I would say it would be more emotionally challenging than physically but I don’t have kids. I just know that is it much easier to transport a newborn who can’t fight you than a toddler that wiggles and squirms.
She’s a narcissist, she craves attention so keeping this up is what provides her the attention she wants.
Newborns need thier mothers full time at first. Sorry bit thats the truth.
She’s right. They do need to breastfeed … unless that’s not happening. I think they need to not be handed around too much in the first few months.
No, that’s the one thing she’s said that is actually true. Newborns are completely attuned to their mothers – their body temperature is regulated by them, even. It’s not in their best interests to separate them from their mothers in the early weeks and months, and that is even more the case when they are breastfeeding. In the UK the contact preferred at that age is very frequent but short visits, no overnights or anything like that. It’s not good for a baby who is still wrapped up in the mother. Then as the baby gets older, and closer to the father, they extend the visits longer and longer until they are full days, and then overnights. Which I would imagine, given everything else he’s done, her ex would have been happy to comply with as long as he was able to build a close bond and know full 50/50 was on the way as soon as his daughter was out of early infancy.
Of course, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with Kelly’s refusal to put her daughter’s father on her birth certificate. That’s a spiteful demo that she hated him more than she loved her own child. She’s throwing the newborn needs element in there as a distraction.
Who knew they made these things where mothers could still feed their children by e tracking breastmilk? Innovative.
I think you didn’t get my point. Of course you can’t drive a newborn around from one parent to another! That’s not the meaning of 50/50 custody! I think there’s no point to her argument because the 50/50 thing doesn’t apply to newborns and it’s not meant as such thing. It means that the father has the right to make decisions and visit the baby. And she’s pretending like he wanted to cut the baby in half or have the baby 50 % of the time despite the fact that she has to breastfeed it – so ridiculous!
It’s not false, but also not the complete truth. Take adoption for example. Some mothers give up the child an hour post birth. and the newborn thives. As long as food was supplied it’s entirely possible.
Still, That much transfering of a newborn… It’s a lot of stress.
I was furious with that article. Making it sound like the kids are prisoners. A fortress? Who writes this crap? Sounds like the houses in Beverley Hills, gated and private. Kelly is such a psycho, I’m sure her kids were panicked and upset because of the crazy things she was doing/saying. If I were in her situation, I would have been in Monaco a long time ago. I know it’s easier said than done, but I would have done whatever it takes to be closer to them.
Except it was probably easier done as he was willing to get her a place to live so that she could be close to the children. She isn’t an in-demand actress and could easily have made it work but didn’t.
Exactly! by the look of things, her children live in a very affluent and safe area. She is just twisting the truth to get her way and proving that this is what she is fighting and not the kids. I get that she is a massive narcissist, but I don’t get how she has been able to get any lawyer to represent her and participate in his nonsense.
I haven’t been paying the closest attention to this story, but why couldn’t she just move to Monaco, again? I can see not wanting to be there full-time, since her career is in the U.S. But surely she could have stayed there a few months out of the year.
Green Girl
She said because it would be very costly for her in the begining. Now? Because Murica! She’s american and that’s why she shouldn’t have to move.
It’s not logical or reasonable, but it’s her stance.
green girl/Florc: she’s also said in an interview that moving to Monaco would be conceding defeat.
plus she’ll never accept it if the kids choose to stay with their father. she said on The View that the boy was already brainwashed because he’d said loved his father’s home.
this fight will continue until those kids are adults.
Same as most Hollywood kids. From the aerial shots of the Gaffleck estate, what’s the difference?
It’s an AMERICAN house .
Point being Hannah?
I think Hannah was being sarcastic based on Kelly’s rants.
Hannah’s being ironic about the blatant xenophobia of People.
I can’t say I know much about this actress but she comes off as really manipulative and narcissistic in this article.
It’s not a fortress it’s a prison! We got to save them ya’ll!!!
Someone call the US army!
Sounds EXACTLY like the houses in the Hamptons! You know, where Rutherford prides herself on going? So, yeah. No.
I bet the reporter and paparazzo that went to Monaco to check on Daniel And the children could not take any single pic, not even of the home, much less of the sad, “kidnapped” children … So they are complaining about the fortress-like home …SMH
sorry, not children, the photographers could not take a single pic of the home nor of the children
Monaco doesn’t allow paparazzi. Probably another reason why Kelly wouldn’t want to live there 🙂
Precisely. Getting permission to photograph or film in Monaco is almost impossible. If anyone bothers to send a camera crew with Rutherford, they’ll have to film from France.
Sound as if Monaco is doing a better of protecting the kids than Kelly.
Great, if it weren’t because of that, then the People article might have included pics of the home. How dangerous!
I’m assuming the author would explain Brentwood (or any gated community) exactly the same : “fortress where all the houses look the same.” /sarcasm
I don’t understand why this woman doesn’t just move to where her children are. Her husband would have to let her have visitation rights. She should just shut up, and move, if she truly loves those children.
Good God. I actually smacked my forehead with my palm upon reading that headline, and continued to facepalm throughout the article. The dramatics, oh the dramatics. I’m so over it. If you want to see your children, shut your mouth and move to Monaco. That simple.
If she’d kept them, it would have been a Hague case, but not in the way Murphy says – as I’m sure Murphy knows perfectly well.
Sign me up to live in Monaco.
Are you kidding, I would be on the next plane!
Heck,I would never bother to pack. I would have been extra nice to Daniel so he could get the latest Monaco fashion and furnishings for the mother of his kids.
Ha! Me too Funcakes!
So like, is there any fun gossip anymore? Or is it all K.Klan, Duggars, crazy ladies and nannies? Where are all the JORTS for love of God?!
I also miss the jorts…
And beige booty shorts? Where are they?
God made Jorts because she loves us and wants us to laugh.
And bacon.
And cheeze-its
Maybe Kaiser will give us an BBS open post today so we can cleanse our palette of all the ugliness this week. HODOR!
I can’t keep up with the abbreviations here. What’s/Who’s BBS?
I dunno, I’m finding this crazy lady and her crazy lawyer incredibly entertaining, as long as the kids are safe–which they are until next summer, if not permanently after the hearing where Kelly’s latest antics get discussed.
That’s the problem with the Duggars and the youngest crop of Kardashians (or Jenners, rather). The kids are not safe. I can’t enjoy gossip like that; it’s horrible.
Article about the hack lawyer from back in 2012 called “How Does Wendy Murphy Have a Job?” She just makes stuff up! Those two are like a really terrible mixed drink.
http://constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1859:how-does-wendy-murphy-have-a-job&catid=42:news&Itemid=71
I was thinking the same thing lately. All they seem to post on here is disturbing stuff that everyone argues venomously about if you have a different point of view other than ‘they should burn in hell’. It’s seriously bringing me down because of how the comments, and reporting, continuously escalate the argument so there is no room for middle ground. It makes me sad and wanting to sink into a hole for being at all compassionate when apparently there is room for none of that on here.
Sandra–don’t you think you are a cause of escalation by using the phrase ‘they should burn in hell’?
Please show me any comment in this or any other recent Rutherford thread that includes that phrase (other than your own.)
Regular posters have lost patience with people who come on parroting Rutherford and company’s talking points without taking the time to do some research and think for themselves. There is an understandable frustration. And yes, most of us find her behavior incredibly disturbing.
When someone who HAS read the court documents and made some effort comes on here with a well-supported thesis that differs from the common opinion, I suspect the celeb**ches will be impressed and very interested.
I wasn’t referring to Kelly in particular – and the ‘they should burn in hell’ comment is a generalization, not a direct quote. I’m speaking generally about the content on this site being such that if a person expresses a moderate or sympathetic opinion, they are jumped on by the other commenters as being completely awful for not agreeing. And actually, I am in agreement that Kelly has a problem and needs to stop. I hope she takes a breath, engages her head to override her emotions, and starts acting in her own best interest, which coincidentally will also be the best interest of everyone involved.
Hopefully the grand fences keep em protected from her ghostly looking ass her white cloths of innocence and her perma photowall and gifting suites
She’s giving Goopy a run for her money in the brassy AF hair category.
Limp Center Part Sisters United in one Hamptons haze of garden soirees, you could say
Lol. I’m fair skinned AF, so I can’t even say anything. But this gave me the giggles, oh QQ
QQ always pulls through for me. Always.
I feel haunted just looking at that photo!
“He wanted 50/50 custody immediately of a newborn. It’s physically challenging for a newborn to be shared 50/50. ” – That means he wanted joint custody from the start, is that a bad thing?
This statement of hers only confirms she had planned to be a single mum from the beginning and that he wasn’t supposed to have any sort of contact with the kids, he’s just a sperm-donor…
Ya exactly. I saw that and thought: He wanted to be involved in his kid’s lives from the get go … how exactly is that bad?
+1
A sperm donor who pays child support…
It also doesn’t answer the question that she was asked.
@Jessiebes the headers are my own, I will specify that. She wasn’t asked that question and her explanation was given without too much context.
Understood. Thanks.
In her mind, in her own world, joint custody is a very bad thing!
And the biggest horror? The kids live in some sort of gated community in one of the nicest places in Europe! Sheer horror. Can’t sleep tonight. Those twits try to make it sound as if the kids are being held against their will.
Rutherford always looks a bit… uhm… inane. She looks like a person made for the saying “I really would like to explain it to you but I don’t have the time or the crayons to do so.”
“Physiologically, they need their mommy.” So what about women who cannot or choose not to breastfeed, single fathers, children with two fathers, and infant adoption?
I don’t know if she intended him as a sperm donor from the beginning. If things were going south after the first child, I can see her getting pregnant and then tossing him out. Brave single mother by choice, had to get rid of the evil foreign man and send him packing.
Or maybe this was her plan all along with the first foreign husband, a wealthy foreign sperm donor. Oops, he became deathly ill so she dumped him 6 months in.
Ah sugar! I said same thing below pretty much, but used example of mothers who pass in birth.
The more I learn about her, the more I’m convinced this was her game plan all along. Marry a rich, good-looking foreigner, have kids with him and then dump him. Last week someone commenting on this site posted a link to a TV interview Daniel and Kelly gave a German station in 2008 (remember, this was just a few months before she became pregnant with their second child and dumped him). Since I’m fluent in German, I watched it and found it quite enlightening. Daniel came across as sincere and genuine, if a bit idealistic. He gushed about Kelly and how he fell in love with her, and showed the interviewer around the house he was renovating, using all-ecological materials (for the well-being of his wife and young son, he said). Kelly, however, gave replies which sounded rote and rehearsed, as if she were answering questions on the red carpet and was just repeating what her publicist had told her to say.
It can be impossible if the mother is breastfeeding (it would be very rare to find a woman who could pump enough for her baby to be away from her a few nights and days a week, or who could keep up her supply if baby was getting formula with dad).
I doubt that was the situation here though. Kelly strikes me as someone who would have gone down the night nurse route 100% (nothing wrong with that, but then you can’t argue your child NEEDS it’s mother more than it’s father).
Read comment #21, if that couple managed it, she could also… While breastfeeding, Daniel could have his daughter a few hours every day, I think he’d agree to that….
She could have pumped and give half to Giersch to feed to the baby. That would allow him to have the baby 50/50 AND the baby still be fed breast milk. Not an option in Rutherford’s scheme. Or she could pump and freeze. Breast milk keeps for six months deep frozen properly.
up to 6 months? wow, didn’t know that about breast milk… Oh, it’s also the same when you can’t produce milk and a friend of yours who also had a child breastfeeds your kid…
I mentioned this below, and have actually worked with two families whose marriages imploded during pregnancy, and it’s very rare for a court to give fathers 50/50 physical custody to a newborn immediately. There is a phase in program where father usually gets day time visits as the child gets older before graduating to nights.
“Because infants aged 0-6 months require one or more naps during the day and frequent night feedings (which may include breastfeeding), the general consensus is that “overnights” (where the infant stays with the non-custodial parent or non-primary caretaker overnight) should be postponed until the child no longer requires night feedings.”
Yes, and he wanted his name to be on his daugther’s birth certificate! What a MONSTER!
She sounds like a nut. It’s not like they couldn’t make arrangements about feeding and all that. Besides explain why you fought the birth certificate thing for three dang years. That’s not a newborn.
She was aiming to breastfeed as long as she could, that’d be a nice excuse for twarthing the 50-50 custody, because the child would be BFing until s/he wanted to, and she would be claiming that they need her.
I think the child weaned himself around 3.5 yrs old and the girl at less than a year old or so.
I am not criticizing long term BFing, but I just think that in this particular case, KR would be using this as an excuse for alienating DG and not to coparent.
Those homes sound like the ones I saw in Boca.
Daniel’s house sounds really safe and after their wing nut ofa mother said that anyone would be a hero if they returned her kids to her (basically telling the world to abduct them), having police outside the walls sounds like a good idea.
I feel for her a bit. I am a mother and would be distraught if my daughter lives halfway across the world with her father but I would also move heaven and earth to be with her every day, working with her father to have us all together, regardless of how I felt about him. When you have kids, you put all that other crap aside and put the kid first. She is horrible for sticking them in the middle and allowing her pride, wants and desires ahead of what is best for her kids. From everything that has come out, Daniel appears to be a loving and involved dad. Kelly should be thankful for that, not all kids (neither me or my husband) get that.
I honestly believe she doesn’t give a crap about the kids – it’s all about the attention …
If her side hadn’t contacted the State Dept numerous times to try to get Daniel’s visa revoked, then they could have all been in the US, but even then, she didn’t want to co-parent with him.
It was said that he beefed up security after her “somebody please kidnap my children, mistakes are ok” plea last Spring. Who wouldn’t? Hope he has a bodyguard for himself, also. The “mistakes” probably include killing the kids’ dad, then she doesn’t have to “fight for her kids” anymore.
We must save those poor children from such a horror! Pools! Security! THINK OF THE SUFFERING OF THE CHILDREN PEOPLE! Poor Kelly, so selfless and misunderstood
(pls note: sarcasm)
Tretorns!! I loved my Tretorns in middle school.
She’s made far worse accusations than this. Did anybody else ever see that interview where she stated that her ex has an “unusually close relationship” with his mother? That was the one that convinced me that she is genuinely evil and that she does not deserve those children in any way.
I can’t stand people who drop all sorts of thinly veiled threats and suggestions. Just say it – if you have any evidence, say it. Tell the whole world how lousy your ex is, everything he does, etc. This playing coy stuff is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that she’s got nothing to go at him with.
“Unusually close relationship” with mother = being German.
Very true in most non American cultures. Heck, even kind of true in America.
And ironically the VERY thing Kelly wishes with her kids and probably would tout that she is unusually close with them, which is why they need to live with her.
Edited to post properly!
Oh, I know that. My mom is German. You know that. I think Kelly was banking on Americans not getting that. It’s pretty clear that within the context she said it, she’s hinting at, well, incest or something along those lines. And that is really, really despicable.
….or Italian. Our boys are notoriously enthusiastic mamas boys. (Which is why I married an Irishman.)
Or Portuguese… that’s why I’m single… 😀
Really? I am Central European and none of us have such traditions, this is very much Southern European thing (as someone menrioned below). And is definitely a deal breaker, not only for me but has broken quite a few marriages around me. Nothing to laugh at.
That’s what I’ve been thinking through this whole thing — Kelly better not p*ss off oma. I had a German grandma — and they are not to be messed with.
I can’t unsee that see through dress 🙁
I hope this women never gets to see her kids again unsupervised. She is a raving lying psycho lunatic.
At this point, they’re better off being kept away from her. She is using them as a prop for attention and hoping she can get herself a career based off of being “the lady who had that custody battle that time.”
The problem is that the kids do love her, and I think that’s why their dad really doesn’t want to interfere with their relationship with her. He is probably doing damage control about her weird behavior, to make it less stressful for them. But in a few years, they will start figuring it out. She gets away with things now because they’re young and resilient and don’t have rock solid memories.
We had a fenced in yard with no pool. My parents should have been declared unfit
How did you survive?
The “fortress” idea is a lot healthier for them than the constant pap attention she exposes them to!! FFS she dressed them up like dolls and constantly paraded them from one “photo op” to another in an effort to get publicity for herself. AT least their dad seems to espouse the idea of letting kids be kids — memo to Kelly: that means playing not posing.
I feel a tiny bit sorry for her, only because she’s so delusional that she believes her kids are in danger. I wouldn’t want to put my kids in a scary situation and I would be equally as desperate if I thought something bad was happening to them, but that’s the thing: is there really any danger? It’s sad because what if there were, but she’s crying wolf so much that nobody is going to believe her. It feels like she’s grasping at straws here and the more she talks, the crazier she seems.
When she first announced that she wasn’t going to send them back, she cited jurisdiction issues and ‘MURICA!!!!
So the danger/mommy i’m afraid stuff didn’t come out until later.
So I don’t think she thought her kids were in danger at all. I think she just wanted to play up the situation for her own benefit.
If she really believed those kids were in danger, she could pack her bags and be on the first plane to Monaco to hang close for the next 13 years. If she was worried about the kids being “scared” of some vague something just before leaving for home in Monaco, she could have gone back with them. She was planning to be there for their first day of school anyway. Instead, she’s spitting at the judge and bouncing around to interviews.
Seems the gloves have come off a tiny bit…
http://www.tmz.com/2015/08/20/kelly-rutherford-daniel-giersch-calls-claims-kids-were-panicky-afraid-bs/
Those statements were done by his attorney, according to other magazines.
Yes. You would have had to have been in the courtroom to actually see how the kids were acting and clearly that wasn’t an option he had. Although presumably, given how restrained both he and his lawyer have been up until now, I doubt she’d say anything without running it by him first. His patience must be wearing very thin by now.
I certainly hope they have high security since she publicly invited every nut job to become a ‘hero’ by kidnapping her kids. They fail so badly at trying to make their rather lovely description of their home and community sound sinister!!!!!!
That’s exactly what I was thinking. I wouldn’t blame him if he did have some extra protection for the kids put in place after his nut of an ex-wife was all but publicly asking someone to snatch them.
And I had no idea that wanting your name on your own child’s birth certificate was such an evil and unreasonable thing. Yeah, he sounds just *awful*.
And how awful that he wanted to share in his daughter’s early infancy, as he had with his son! A good father would have disappeared until the kids were 18, yes?
God, those poor children, living in an expensive home with a pool in one of the safest and wealthiest places in the world. *sarcasm*
Anyway, that’s not a description of a fortress, just a standard wealthy neighborhood. You need some armed guards, some bulletproof glass and some attack dogs to upgrade it to a fortress in my mind.
That People writer forgot to mention the moat filled with alligators and piranhas.
Comments on other sites have sympathized with not sharing a newborn 50/50. With breastfeeding and stuff.
Now, breastfeeding is important. But there are ways to make it work. A friend had a baby with another friend from a drunken night. When their daughter was a baby, she kept the baby most nights but she pumped milk and they took turns during the day. It was hard, but their daughter is now 7 and close to both parents.
If Kelly was reasonable, Im sure Daniel would have been flexible about the newborn. But not putting the name on the birth certificate is a pretty clear battle line.
^ This…she could have pumped the milk, for when he was with he kids…. Yours friends seem really great parents and sensible adults… Give them my congrats…,
I will say for the sake of argument there are several scenarios where this doesn’t work. A baby who just won’t take a bottle (and if you are breastfeeding, it’s recommended not to also use a bottle for the first few months anyway). Also, even with a good quality pump, it’s not the same as the baby — it can be hard for a brand-new mom to establish a good milk supply with a lot of pumping in the beginning.
That said, I agree that it’s just Kelly’s lame excusing. I’ve had friends do something like 80/20 in the beginning with an pre-arranged agreement that it will go to 50/50 as the infant gets older.
Ok, but him having his daughter a few hours every day would be possible, she just didn’t want it…
My friends definitely were more like 75/25 in the beginning.
But she very deliberately fostered the father daughter relationship. AND she worked to increase his time proactively as the baby grew.
Kelly showed bad faith from the start.
I know a family where the kids slept at mom’s and dad showed up every morning to get them out of bed, fed, and off to school. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. I get the feeling Daniel would have been willing to do that, but Kelly wasn’t playing along.
@Solancaea — That’s why I mentioned the 80/20. While I think that a breastfeeding newborn needs to be with the mom the bulk of the time for practical purposes, there is no reason for the father not to have some time every day with his child from the very beginning.
Lara’s friends sound very reasonable and caring of their child. I think Kelly would have used it as an excuse to limit the child’s time with her dad as much as possible.
Agreed.
I am fine with that up to a point but she was refusing to allow his name on the certificate for three years and what does breast feeding have to do with that. She didn’t want him to have any part of their child at all.
Yes, day-times visits would have been good for the first few months. Unfortunately, she wouldn’t even let him see the baby the first 35 days, because she wouldn’t even tell him the baby had been born.
And her blocking his visits caused serious anxiety in their son. It’s in the court documents. When he was younger, he didn’t do well when separated from his dad too long.
How long did she breastfeed? Was she working, or did she have a long time off after her daughter was born?
My friend did almost a year. She’s a financial planner, so flex schedule. They worked around it.
But Kelly wasnt even working – she has no excuse.
Didn’t Kelly make some statement about wishing someone would kidnap her children and bring them back to the U.S. ? It was awhile ago , but I can’t keep track of all this woman says. Maybe it is a good thing the children are in a fairly well protected community
Yes, she did…Daily Mail 14 May 2015, here’s the excerpt:
Of what she would like to see come from the movement, the Gossip Girl star told TMZ Live on Wednesday: ‘I think it would be wonderful for someone to show how much they appreciate US citizens. I think that, you know, whoever brings my kids home is going to be pretty much of a hero.
‘They are going to be doing the right thing for children, for citizens of the United States of America. I mean I think it’s a very pro-American thing to do.
‘If something went wrong, we’re not saying it’s their fault, we’re really saying we need some help here and what it’s taking to get help here is a lot.’
WOAH. I never read the full quote. That’s amazingly insane. “If something went wrong”..??? She gets away with SO much.
‘If something went wrong, we’re not saying it’s their fault’ – for instance, if the kids were killed during the kidnapping event, we wouldn’t blame the kidnapper because, well, these things happen? Is that what she is saying? She is evil.
I think so (I actually cringed at the thought). I’ve tried to come up with different interpretations (because in my mind no mother could say this) but I can’t.. And it’s so scary… I considered the father being killed, but really… the whole statement is scary…
Wendy wants a free trip to Monacco. Well, mission accomplished you bat**it idiot.
So much here. So much.
My goal is their well-being, that they’re safe, happy health. It’s scary. My kids have been through a lot. I’ve done everything I can to let them think everything is normal.
Ummm, her kids haven’t been through a lot, and in fact, this *is* their normal. They probably don’t recall a time where mom and dad didn’t live in the same country. The only one who can’t normalize things is her! What is scary about that? That they’re living with their dad? Or that they’re living in another country with their dad? Everyone keeps pointing out how now, their kids seem happy.
I think they have been through a lot – all the litigation between their parents must be hell for them. But Kelly is responsible for it, so she needs to take a look in a mirror.
Hermes is old enough to do a computer search of his name. His friends and their older siblings are old enough to do the same. His friends will overhear discussions about his parents from their parents. It won’t be long before Hermes will be asking Daniel a lot of questions.
Kelly’s crazy media romps will soon come back to haunt her once Daniel is faced with having to explain her statements to their children. Kelly’s theatrics are all about herself, not her children’s safety and well-being.
Yep, unfortunately that will happen sooner or later. She’s doing so much harm to these kids by venting her rage and spewing lies all over the press: If she actually gave 2 thoughts about the children’s well-being, she’d be quiet and wouldn’t talk to the press as ordered by the Court. But that wouldn’t give her the attention she is getting and the money. Probably she has many people around the world writing her checks because she filled bankruptcy and they pity her.
Nonetheless, more and more people are reading the court docs and changing their minds, she can’t understand how all this harms her kids and also her relationship with them…
“If I put them on a plane, I realized I may never see them again. I sent an email to Daniel telling him where we were. I just needed a moment to figure out what to do.”
No, you do what the court tells you to do. He at no point kidnapped their kids, kept them from her, etc, but she acts like he was always ready to at a moment’s notice. He always obeyed the court’s agreement. She’s the kidnapper. And if those kids were scared, it’s because she scared them with her lunacy.
Also, if they have a pool, OF COURSE they have a wall or fence. So does every home with a pool here in her precious America. And uniformed police patrol the area? Good lord, it must be the Gestapo! Oh wait, it’s just a regular police force, again, like every other town here in America.
She talks as though the European Union is the Middle East, and mothers have no rights to contact with their kids.
Whitest legs I have ever seen outside of Ireland.
This fortress sounds like most gated communities in the United States. I mean have you been to Greenwich or Beverly Hills? Yep pretty much as described….not some terrible prison especially if they are loved and supported.
I don’t buy her story that the kids were “panicky” about going back to Monaco.
1. The kids just happened to get panicked just as they were about to leave….hmm.
2. If your kids told you “alarming things” about their Dad, would you:
a. File a motion for an emergency hearing in court. or
b. Fame whore with your loony toon lawyer on three news outlets spewing lies. veiled accusations and patriotic dribble.
Lol, I think reasonable people would choose 2a), but then there’s Kelly who chooses 2b)
True. We can’t all be as “sane” as Kelly.
If I put them on a plane, I realized I may never see them again. I sent an email to Daniel telling him where we were. I just needed a moment to figure out what to do.”
Five I’s in that statement. Yet she is still so blind as to who she is really fighting for. She is fighting only for her “I”.
“[It] became a war. It was like, ‘I’m going to take you down, I’m going to take the kids.’ He wanted 50/50 custody immediately of a newborn. It’s physically challenging for a newborn to be shared 50/50. Physiologically, they need their mommy.’”
Umm, “*need*their mommy” no. Need a caretaker who can hold, love, bond yes. They might need their mother’s milk, yes, but there is no way only a mother can provide for a newborn. Ideal, yes, mandatory, no. Case in point when a mother passes during birth. And the use of “mommy” ties emotional attachment, which newborns aren’t capable of quite yet, as their existence is more “need” based. They need nourishment and care, not their “mommy”.
Additionally she starts talking about her perception of it becoming war because he wanted his name on the birth certificate? First of all, not war, equal parenting rights. Additionally, courts have a phase out system for newborns. There is no way a court will allow a father physical custody of a newborn out of the gate, even in 50/50. I believe they give it a good 6 months or so until heavy joint custody locks into place. So he wanted his name and 50/50 custody to be recorded and it became “war” because she was fighting him tooth and nail on basic paternal rights.
I’ve had to take a situation that’s so bizarre and try to keep my kids healthy. I have to keep knowing, if I’m okay, they’re going to be okay. I don’t want them to be fearful. My children ask me all the time if I am still fighting for them… I always tell them the day will never come when I say no.”
This is infuriating. I highly doubt they ask if she’s fighting for them. And if they do it’s probably like, fighting for “us” meaning getting Daddy and us back in the states. They don’t feel endangered. They love their life, they aren’t unhealthy by any stretch of anyone’s imagination.
Also, the narcissism is so strong! Wow. She highlights again and again the equation: Kelly-full time kids=bad/scary/war/unhealthy/bizarre/abnormal/unsafe/not okay/fearful.
How do I post hands clapping here?? Anyone??
Ok .. CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP–
Daniel’s lawyer said that during the time Kelly illegally held onto the kids, Daniel asked her repeatedly every day where the kids were and she never told him.
I guess her idea of telling him where they were is responding with “Planet Earth. That’s all you need to know!”
She didn’t even let him see the baby for the first 35 days and didn’t even tell him the baby had been born. She told the media she was going to raise the kids alone. She was at 100/0 custody with no intention of co-parenting. So yeah, 50/50 custody was her worry, because that would have meant letting the kids have two parents in their lives.
So if she’s OK then the kids will be OK? Because it’s all about how she is and the universe will revolve around that? How come her primary concern isn’t whether the kids are OK? Shouldn’t it be ‘if the kids are OK, then I’m OK?’
If the kids are truly asking her all the time if she’s fighting for them, then how come she’s not telling them not to think like that? Who’s putting ideas in their head that mommy needs to continue fighting with daddy and win in order for the kids to feel safe?
She’s passive agressive in her interviews: I find this odd/weird/strange, using these lukewarm words to highlight that she is not a violent, aggressive person.
According to her, she is a peaceful person, and Daniel, an aggressive one. Also, in one of her interviews before the girls was born, when she was suing DG over him potty training the boy, she was saying things like:
“He was coming home saying things. I was starting to see definite changes in him,”
This woman is all about control.
She is still doing things like this even when the children are growing older, God forbid they eventually want to date, or learn how to drive, or have surgery…what will American mommy of the year say?
I read a great comment on another site where a mom said that DG should tel her to stop breastfeeding (back when she was BF the older boy), just to see how she’d feel to be told how to parent. She wants absolute control of the children… tough luck they have a father. It is sad that she could not understand it back when he was living in the US and not now.
I agree, Anne, I think she is putting ideas in their heads, even attitudes and sly words and digs at the other parent are enough.
The boy had to ask his therapist if his father was a criminal after the period of time that she did not see him after he lost his visa … Gee, I wonder where such a young boy heard that?
Don’t forget she fought him over his right to potty train Hermes. I still think it’s a pretentious name and I bet this dummy picked it.
“if I’m okay, they’re going to be okay.”
I thought that a mother concerned about her kids would say: “if they are OK, I am OK.
Again, wildly inaccurate reporting that isn’t just stemming from quotes. The end of that US Magazine article makes it sound as if Kelly’s emergency temporary custody filing that was granted and then promptly overturned was the reason she had the children in the summer. It was not. It was part of that 2012 custody ruling that she vacillates on following. Ugh. I’m a professor and I spend half my class trying to get students to follow logic and learn to research properly and I teach anthropology. That should be 85% of your journalism studies (with 15% focused on writing at a third grade level, which most journalists also seem unable to do). I’m so sick of poor research.
+1
OK, this isn’t going to be a popular sentiment, but I’m a lawyer and have to point this out. I agree that Kelly is a famewhoring asshat crazy person who had a hand in her ex-husband’s deportation. But our child custody laws are VERY clear that we base decisions on the children and their best interests, even if that sometimes means essentially rewarding a parent for crappy behavior. In other words, you don’t punish the parents through the children.
International custody cases are a very serious issue. There are scores of parents in the US who have had their children effectively kidnapped when the other parent has removed the children to a foreign jurisdiction. In the absence of a treaty that covers child custody matters, the US courts can do nothing. I find it incredibly distressing that a US court would intentionally send 2 kids out of its jurisdiction and effectively wash its hands of the matter. That’s the real legal issue in Kelly’s cases from NY and CA this summer – the courts saying they no longer have jurisdiction because the children are residents of Monaco now. There’s an expression in the law that “tough cases make bad law.” The court who sent these kids to Monaco set a precedent that US citizens (sorry to use Kelly’s so oft-repeated tag line but it’s true) can be taken from their American parent and sent to another country, with the effect of terminating the US courts’ ability to ever revisit or modify that decision.
Custody determinations are NEVER permanent, unless a court terminates a parent’s parental rights. They are always subject to modification. Do I want to argue in front of the Supreme Court with Kelly Rutherford as my client? I sure don’t. But I also don’t want some other poor parent who is fighting for custody of their kid with their foreign-citizen ex to be told that their kids are being sent to another country and the US courts will no longer be able to rule on the matter.
BAD LAW.
Uh no and if you have a law degree you should already know the facts of this case and know that it’s not about American parents having no rights internationally.
CA was the court that heard and ruled on this custody case initially. Many commenters have linked to the PDF copy of that verdict and the judge found that Kelly was engaging in a textbook example of parental alienation. That Daniel would be the only parent that would ensure that Kelly still had access to the kids and abide by agreements. The judge recognized that Kelly would not. Also Kelly and her lawyer are 100 percent the cause why the judge ruled that the Monaco 50/50 split happened because if not for those two fools they could have shared custody in the U.S.
Daniel made sure he filed a mirror order of this in Monaco and Kelly then tried to get NY to look at this case because she was judge shopping. NY kicked it back to CA who once again said now.
Because of Kelly not filing mirror orders the only court left to rule on anything related to this case is Monaco. And Daniel who I think must be a saint is still trying to provide her with access to the kids whenever she wants.
Shocking as it may seem, no state bar requires every attorney to be thoroughly familiar with all facts of all cases. As I stated, this case is a hot mess. Kelly has behaved terribly and most likely, illegally. She’s shopped for attorneys, forums and apparently even new boyfriends who can fund her efforts.
You perfectly articulated my point: a US court made a determination about US jurisdiction over a custody case involving minor US citizens based on the (abhorrent, to be sure) actions of one parent.
If you care to read a legal article on the subject of mirror orders, I found this one to be interesting:
http://www.international-divorce.com/irror_Orders_to_Help_Prevent_International_Child_Abduction
(“The European Union has a registration system but it applies only to orders issued by an E.U. court and the practice within Europe varies substantially from country to country.”; “Thus, it is important to understand that merely because an American court conditions an event upon a foreign mirror order, the foreign court might not have jurisdiction to issue any such order. “)
Safe to say, a “mirror order” is no guarantee.
But who knows? Perhaps my concern here should be that Kelly is dressing herself up in the language of the serious and scary international abduction cases to hide her culpability for creating the situation in the first place.
@TBQ then I guess I don’t get what your initial comment was about. This was all ruled on in US courts. The initial custody arrangement was issued in CA.
The reason now only Monaco has jurisdiction is because Kelly messed up and didn’t file a mirror order in NY and then tried to go back to CA in order to get sole custody. Luckily that got kicked out again.
WRONG, TBQ. There IS a treaty that covers international child custody: it’s the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, commonly known as the Hague treaty. Problems do arise when children are taken to countries that are not signatories, but both Monaco and the US are signatories, as is Germany.
Both Daniel and Kelly can call on the Hague treaty if the other partner refuses to cooperate with the custody agreement, which Starrywonder discussed above.
What part is “wrong” exactly? Do you think taking a case to the Hague is preferable than being able to continue to argue a case before a US judge familiar with the case?
It is wrong in this case because of the fact that the U.S. courts can only enforce what the custody arrangement currently is. Kelly is doing this all wrong. If she wants to alter the arrangement then she needs to file in her state of residence and have to show cause for why the order needs amended. And not because she doesn’t like the fact the father is involved with them.
Custody cases have involved international parties before and will continue to do so. U.S. courts can and have made decisions on children where one of the parents have been a foreigner.
Really? You profess to being a lawyer, yet you have failed to read the court documents succinctly providing evidence of Kelly’s disregard for the LAW numerous times. The 2012 custody agreement, which became permanent in 2014 includes the judge’s statement of decision, which clearly and on at least two different occasions, lists the reasons court granted the father the right to have the children live in Monaco, his residence, due to despicable stunts pulled by Kelly and her then attorney, Rich, to call the state department and accuse him of false wrong doings leading to his visa being revoked. Also, if you are an attorney and you had read the court documents, you certainly would read the order of the court for kelly to write an affidavit to the state department noting her untrue and despicable accusations against her husband (which to this day she has not), which resulted in his visa revocation (she has not done so because she fears attesting to her crime would result in serious legal sanctions against her.) Her ex can NOT apply for a visa unless she sends the said affidavit admitting to her unlawful accusations.
I am utterly befuddled how a supposed LAWYER would simply not read the court documents before forming opinions, which are straight out of kelly’s side.
Are you another paid commentator supporting kelly’s bizarre and untruthful statements not to mention her chronic disregard for the courts in this country and utter lack of respect from the judicial system to which she has availed herself at every opportune moment and has lost every filing?
Would I want to be your client (if you are an actual attorney?) NO!
OK, if you are REALLY? a literate person, slow down a minute and reread. Yes, I am really a lawyer. No, I have nothing to do with this case – which is why I have not spent hours of my (billable) time reading documents and decisions about it. I have repeatedly noted that Rutherford’s actions have been horrible (hence, the “tough cases” situation).
My *entire* point is that this case does raise some concerns about how a non-famous, non-rich parent might be treated by the courts of either CA or NY in future child custody proceedings.
See, one of the things that actual attorneys do is assess an current situation and analogize to how the law might be applied in a different scenario. I do not need to have completely memorized every fact of the current case to do so. If you’re not interested in engaging in this type of actual legal analysis and would prefer to just rag on Rutherford, knock yourself out – but there’s no need to attack me personally for trying to elevate the discussion.
I shudder to think that there are attorneys out there who wouldn’t read the relevant documentation prior to making an assessment. No-one is asking you to memorize things, but you don’t seem to have a basic grasp of the basic facts of the situation, yet you are claiming that you are elevating the discussion.
Anyway, do you know Lionel Hutz?
TQB – you’re such a sea lion.
In any case, every issue you have raised, including future modifications given the international nature of the judgement, is dealt with in the 2012 judgement, citing multiple US case law. The court found that the French courts would use exactly the same criteria and also built in extra (US) protections. Page 37 onwards if you care to look.
Run along.
@ TQA
I’m sorry but I have to laugh at your comment.
( Yes, I am really a lawyer. No, I have nothing to do with this case – which is why I have not spent hours of my (billable) time reading documents and decisions about it. )
But your going to spend your ( none billable) hour making blind comment on a case you haven’t gotten the fact on? What was the point of pointing out your a lawyer then?
Well, I really am a lawyer (full disclosure, Canadian) and the last thing I would do is speculate how a case might apply to other factual situations without knowing the underlying facts of the decided case, because that tells me EVERYTHING about whether the principles have general application or are limited to the specific facts of the case.
Most of the time commenters are reasonable on this site but there are cases, like this, where people seem prone to attack. You can be a lawyer and not share the legal viewpoint of other lawyers. Personally I would have found a measured discussion on legal precedent and international custody issues more interesting than a lot of personal attacks on intelligence and professional competency. I’m sorry that wasn’t the case.
Paleo–c’mon, don’t you think you are erroneously conflating ‘challenge’ with ‘attack’?
It certainly would be problematic to have a measured discussion on legal precedent centered on a specific case with someone who by their own words can’t be bothered to familiarize themselves with actual details, especially as case law in family courts is so very complex and multi-faceted.
Totallybiased, unfortunately no. When commenters begin personal insults I do find that to be attacking and uncalled for. People have different opinions. That doesn’t mean they should be dismissed as bad at their job or less than intelligent. I think there could have been a more polite and open dialogue and I say that as someone who has lead classroom discussions for years. If people aren’t going to discuss the actual points that they disagree with, ie that this case isn’t setting a legal precedent because a lot of international custody disputes have come before this, etc, and instead begin personal insults then that closes down a lot of interesting discussions. I was very hesitant to begin commenting on this site because of the number of highly contentious threads where people are insulted if they disagree with the vocal majority.
Ugh led not lead but my phone won’t let me correct!
“I’m a LAWYER!”
Harvey, is that you?
😉
Rutherford’s team must have found out 1) CB is relaying facts not their fictions and 2) several lawyers on here have shown time and again how Rutherford has no case. Time for a paid sea lion.
I sincerely hope this doesn’t come to grave misfortune, if one parent says if I can’t have ’em then no one can. If heard it in other cases, about either the mom or dad killing the children then themselves. Very very selfish. poor kids.
I’m surprised the State Department hasn’t discovered they were “used” in a divorce case and reinstated his visa, but that would be admitting that they allowed themselves to be “used” by a loony but devious woman. Bureaucracy at its finest.
Is Griesch even challenging the revocation? If he gets his US visa, he loses his argument that the kids need to come to him. Also, I’ve been to Monaco. It’s nice there.
He did at the time and got denied. Now he has to wait ten years before he can enter the US.
Thanks for the info. The ten-year wait is to Daniel’s advantage. Kelly can whine, moan, and pose for paps all she wants, but she will never admit that her evil, selfish plan to cut Daniel out of their children’s lives backfired big-time. Bad-mouthing “foreigners” isn’t going to help her in Monaco either. Dumb.
He can’t challenge because Kelly has to admit that she acted in concert with her attorney to have his visa revoked. It was all spelled out in the order that she had to do this. She let time lapse so he no longer has to apply for a thing. The judge ordered that the immigration would be waived if neither party took any actions by January 2014. It’s 2015, his getting his visa is no longer in play.
She was ordered to submit an affidavit to help get Daniel his visa back.
According to the court document, Daniel even presented her with an affidavit to sign the same month he was told his Visa was revoked (Jan. 2012). But she wouldn’t sign it nor any other affidavit by the end of that trial.
She said she wouldn’t sign his because it included the line “and [I] do not request that his [Daniel’s] Visa or extension petition be revoked or denied.” (pg 31)
She also said she didn’t want to admit any wrongdoing.
Anyhoo, like Starrywonder said above, Jan. 2014 was the court-ordered deadline.
“Is Griesch even challenging the revocation?”
Do let me edit the comment of a “LAWYER!”
It’s “Did Griesch even challenge the revocation?”
See? You need to learn your grammar! 🙂
Not that it matters anymore but I am very curious who filed for divorce (sounds like she did) and why, because it seems to me that he was truly in love with her – poor guy… Vague accusations that “he changed” don’t mean anything. Was he a drug addict, a cheater, an alcoholic? Did he beat her? Did he start going away on business and leaving her alone for weeks? What heinous act did he actually commit?
And once she up and left all he has been trying to do since is be a good dad, raising the kids in a safe country, in a home with a grandmother, sending them to international private schools, not talking to the press… I am sure if he did anything remotely unsuitable Kelky would scream it from the rooftops with pics to match. By all accounts he is not even living a flashy lifestyle in Monaco, just a quiet, wealthy, very private life. For most people that would be perfect but I wonder if his desire for quiet and privacy and her obvious need for media exposure are not at the root of the divorce, and then she went full on crazy. Or, as many have speculated, she just shopped around for a wealthy, foreign sperm donor with the ultimate plan to ditch him, keep the kids and half the money. Either way, she is nuts and hopefully the Monaco courts will finally draw the line after her latest antics.
Yes, as a mom I would hate to be apart from my kids, but a. I would fight for the marriage a lot before giving up; b. I would make every effort to co-parent peacefully if divorce was the only option and c. If I had the choice to live close to them with financial help from my ex I would be on the first plane regardless of what career sacrifices or changes that entailed. My kid comes first.
According to Wikipedia with all its footnotes, Kelly was the one to file for divorce in both her marriages.
From other two sites, dated by january 2nd, 2009:
Gossip Girl star Kelly Rutherford, aka Lily van der Woodsen, is divorcing her second husband, German businessman Daniel Giersch, after just 1½ years of marriage.
Irreconcilable differences were cited, of course.
But there’s a catch: According to TMZ, she’s about three months pregnant with their second child! (They have a two-year-old son, Hermés Gustaf Daniel Giersch.)
Kelly was married to Carlos Tarajano from June 2001 to January 2002.
P.S. Pictured here is Daniel, 35, wearing an Hermès belt and Kelly, 40, with Hermés in her belly.
The woman who plays serial divorceé Lily van der Woodsen on “Gossip Girl” is imitating her character — she’s filed for divorce. Oh, and she’s pregnant.
TMZ obtained legal papers filed December 30 in L.A. County Superior Court. Kelly Rutherford is asking a judge to end her marriage of two years to Daniel Giersch, citing “irreconcilable differences.” In addition to a child on the way, they have a two-year-old son, Hermés Gustaf Daniel Giersch.
It’s Kelly’s second marriage, which gives you an idea why she was cast.
XOXO
Life imitating art…
If the children are really crying for their mother and wanting to be with her instead of their father, I think it’s really detrimental to their development and psychological well-being to keep them away in this “war”. I’m sorry, but if they are really asking the question “Will you stop fighting for us?” , it’s really sad. They want both their mother and father, in the same country. I think her ex is really shady. I can’t comment on her mental health like some here do, but I think being so far away from your children and seeing them only once or twice a month for a couple of days can be really challenging, maddening for a person.
But it’s okay when he doesn’t get to see them for 2-3 months in the summer. Because based on what his lawyer said she would not let him Skype or talk to the children. She just kept writing him messages the kids were fine. She’s an asshat.
why is her ex shady, though? because he has tried to ensure a place in his kids lives from day one? because he has done everything he can to co parent with an ex who has zero interest in returning the favour? because he keeps his kids out of the media? because he still maintains, after she attempted to illegally keep the kids from returning to him as per custodial agreements, that he will keep them in contact with her? because he has offered to pay for her to live in the same country as the kids reside in? because he wanted to toilet train a three year old? because he wanted to be more than a bill paying sperm donor? because he was the victim of her fraudulent statements about his business activities? because he CANNOT get a us visa due to her actions? etc etc.
Okay, so I don’t follow the case as closely and obsessively as you do (wow!) , I just said my opinion – that if – IF – the kids really ask their Mom “Will you stop fighting for us?” it’s really heartbreaking. I’m really not a fan of Kelly in any way, I only think about the kids and kind of feel sorry for them.
I really don’t think that a child would ask that in “normal ” divorcing parents conditions. They asking this means to me that she is speaking to the children about it or somehow letting them know of the conflicts, probably to manipulate them.
If there was a situation like that, I’d try to shield them of listening to things, seeing some dispute over the phone, etc. and not manipulate their attitudes towards the other parent.
Getting them to say “fighting for us” means that the other parent is the selfish, bad one, IMO, and not normal for a child to ask.
If Kelly had wanted both the parents to be in the same country in order to co-parent, then her side wouldn’t have repeatedly contacted the State Department to try to get his Visa revoked.
Also, he’s paid for her visits to Monaco six times per year. She says she’s visited 70 times.
And she’s the only one of the two parents that is allowed to travel to see the children in the both countries.
So even before Daniel was disallowed to come into the US, she didn’t want to co-parent in the same country.
I didn’t say Kelly wanted it, I said the kids obviously want it. I feel like no one is listening to the children in this whole matter. It’s pretty clear both adults have screwed up multiple times, but while they’re busy sorting themselves out, two kids want their mother and father – to get along, to see often enough and to feel safe to be with their Mom or Dad, regardless.
I didn’t say Kelly wanted it, I said the kids obviously want it. I feel like no one is listening to the children in this whole matter. It’s pretty clear both adults have screwed up multiple times, but while they’re busy sorting themselves out, two kids want their mother and father – to get along, to see often enough and to feel safe to be with their Mom or Dad, regardless.
I didn’t say Kelly wanted it, I said the kids obviously want it. I feel like no one is listening to the children in this whole matter. It’s pretty clear both adults have screwed up multiple times, but while they’re busy sorting themselves out, two kids want their mother and father – to get along, to see often enough and to feel safe to be with their Mom or Dad, regardless.
You’re parroting what Rutherford SAID the kids said. These same kids who were seen by neutral parties to be excited to see their grandmother and happily went away with her to go home to their father. I see no evidence that Giersch has messed up period. Lots of evidence that Rutherford has.
I don’t know in what way Daniel ‘screwed up multiple times’ and in what way he hasn’t done the other things you’ve said he hasn’t.
He got the physical custody only because the judge, based on his investigations, found that he was the only one participating in co-parenting, while Kelly didn’t. The judge even wrote a long list of examples of Kelly committing parental alienation.
If the kids wanted both dad and mom in the same country, then they should put that topic to Kelly.
Daniel was all set to co-parent in the US. Then his visa was revoked a month after Kelly’s lawyer repeatedly contacted the State Department with accusations.
As I posted in another comment here, the court document states that Daniel even gave Kelly an affidavit for her to sign the same month he found out about his visa revocation. He had hoped that she’d be in his favor to get his visa back. But she refused.
She was court-ordered to send to the immigration authorities an affidavit by a Dec. 31, 2013 deadline. She could have sent her own affidavit. But now that deadline has passed and the judge ruled that inaction would constitute a waiver of the immigration issue of the custody case.
If what she were saying were true, I’d agree it’s bad for the kids. But looking at her words and actions over the last few years, and the lies she’s told, I just don’t believe her. Witnesses said the kids were fine and happy to go with their grandmother. Anything Kelly is claiming they said is highly suspect, IMO. And I’ve yet to see any proof why he is shady.
The kids would probably love to have their parents in the same country, I agree. Unfortunately, again through her actions, that can’t happen in the US, and will only happen if she moves to Monaco, at least part time, to be with them more regularly. But she has refused to do that.
Ok Kelly we heard your vague accusations ad nauseum. Please he’s a computer nerd. The only guilty thing he would have done is write a bad program now and then.
Like I’ve said numerous times, google the court decisions and read up about it.
You can’t trust Kelly’s version of things. There have been so many instances where what she says is proven a lie when you read the court documents.
Kelly said the kids were anxious, not that they said they wanted to stay with her. Maybe they were anxious because their mother was stressed out about them leaving. Given they were reportedly happy to see their grandmother at the courthouse, that’s much more likely. Also, you have to remember they spend every summer with their mom and then fly home. This transition might be stressful for them, but it’s one they’ve done many times.
There’s also no evidence the children have ever asked whether their mom is fighting for them. That’s something Kelly reports, and it doesn’t sound like something a kid would ask, does it? I recall her saying in an earlier interview that she never wanted to have to (hypothetically) say to her children that she wasn’t still fighting for them; now the story has twisted just slightly to imply they really have asked her that. That’s the problem; when Kelly tells the story, her version of the facts starts to twist away from true.
Also note that Daniel was the primary care-giver to the older boy (as noted in court documents), because Kelly worked. The courts said the children are remarkably attached to both parents, so I really doubt they’re asking for their mom rather than their dad. The children love them both.
Again, you have to be careful trusting Kelly as a source on anything. She has been shown repeatedly to be a liar.
Exactly what I said – the children want them both.
One of my closest friends keeps a flat in Antibes. I have asked her about the terrible Monaco life these children must endure in the south of France, and her reply was:
“yahaaahahhahhahahahahhahahhahhahahahahahahhahahahahhaha sign me up.”
Exactement!! I have a sneaking suspicion that they have a better chance of a normal childhood with their father than with publicity hound Kelly. Just a theory, but the fact that she takes them to so many red carpet events, other staged promotional events and is constantly snapped by the paps in “candid” (??) moments speaks volumes.
What 8/9 year old boy wants to be dressed to the nines and paraded around like a show pony? We seem to have a lot of legal expertise on this site (not being sarcastic) but what do all the parents and child experts think of the life Kelly has to offer these kids? She literally can’t seem to function without a lot of fanfare and publicity and drags the kids into it, which is to their detriment imo. Shouldn’t kids be allowed to simply play and socialize with their friends? Even top tier Hollywood a-listers manage to do this and actually try to avoid publicity where their kids are concerned — e.g. Nicole Kidman, Sandra Bullock
Caitlin, I agree with you 1000%.
THIS>>>>>> “What 8/9 year old boy wants to be dressed to the nines and paraded around like a show pony?” <<< is really so accurate. I think these kids are likely to have a far more normal albeit somewhat palatial life with their father and his family. I don't care how many ABC tv "legal experts" try to say otherwise (by burying key facts about the case, of course).
They not allowed to use the kids in the media, that’s also in the documents. Will Giersch and the lawyers call her on this behavior? I hope so.
He’s probably tertified that she’ll hire someone to try to grab the kids. I don’t blame him for keeping them in a nice, private space. Having said that, I don’t think that lifestyle is unusual in Monaco. It certainly isn’t in certain parts of South Florida!
Wow. For a situation involving a celeb who isn’t A-list and a guy who no one knows, I’m always surprised these articles have so many commenters who’ve done detailed reading of court documents and related PDFs, etc.
i, personally, am grateful that the commenters read the documents…it shows that they are interested in facts not grand standing.
What can I say. We’re into justice and fair play.
For years, Kelly keeps making this so public with such ominous and nebulous explanations of the danger the kids are in for whatever reason, so of course she’s going to get people curious as to what the real truth is.
She’s made sure to let people know it’s such a big mega issue that required the attention of the State Department, Homeland Security, Congress, John Kerry, the White House, Obama, and has gone on just about every major news station and given interviews with the major celebrity news rag.
If she hadn’t done her best to whet people’s appetite for this story, then nobody would be interested in actually reading up on the case facts to figure out what she keeps blabbering on about.
Well, I’m thankful someone did. The difference between what’s in the court decisions and what Kelly is telling the media is huge, and Celebitchy seems to be one of the few sites that’s pointing this out.
It’s because a surprising amount of CB commenters have an allergy to lies and disinformation. When actual facts are available to anyone who puts in a little effort, we tend to do just that.
She is wasting a great deal of taxpayer money and court time. Time and money better spent on real custody issues. The more she lies, the more taxpayer money is wasted. The more people who recognize those lies, the better.
Absolutely true. This is one of the most frustrating aspects for me. Combine that with the xenophobia, believing fathers have no rights, complete lack of logic, and utterly ignoring what’s best for the children in favor of narcissism and you’ve got the Holy Grail of stuff that annoys me!
I wonder if something started going wrong in her head during her second pregnancy. Like something made her snap around that time. It kinda sounds like she actually believes that her ex is involved in something not right, rather than is just lying about it to keep the kids away from him. Maybe she is genuinely delusional. Convinced herself that the accusations were true on some level so that she doesn’t have to face the fact that she’s vindictive? Or she made the whole thing up but has to keep the narrative going. Either way, psyche eval.
God knows…. psyche eval on both parents and a chat with the kids again by a psychologist…
Based on her treatment of her first husband, I’d say whatever snapped happened long before Daniel was in the picture.
Yes, it was clear from the facts of that first divorce there’s something very much NOT RIGHT about how this woman thinks about her fellow human beings.
Agreed. The scenes, drama, lies, xenophobia are just icing on the crazy cake that got baked when she ditched her first husband upon learning of his illness.
I have no idea what her game is, but I am glad those children are with their father, in school, safe for now.
She believes it was all a conspiracy from the start.. involving Daniel, his mother ( with whom he has an unnatural close relationship ) a mysterious waitress with a foreign husband whose children live in Kuwait or Afghanistan or somewhere foreign?? And two mysterious German hairdressers who disappeared. All of this is in that daily beast interview, by the way. So yeah, something definitely went wrong.
On Giersch wanting his name on his daughter’s birth certificate
“[It] became a war. It was like, ‘I’m going to take you down, I’m going to take the kids.’ He wanted 50/50 custody immediately of a newborn. It’s physically challenging for a newborn to be shared 50/50. Physiologically, they need their mommy.’”
WTF! Of course in a divorce the custody is split 50/50. It didn’t matter that the daughter just popped out of her vjay jay! Re newborns who need their mommy. How to explain those mommies who died during childbirth? Does that mean the babies didn’t thrive. This is such baloney.
I bet it kills this liar/kidnapper that every time she looks at those kids’ faces, she sees the dad. I’m glad none of the kids look like her. I always thought she looked dim. Yup even during the days she was in a soap opera!
Wiki seems to indicate that she and her brother were raised by their mother alone in Kentucky. I can’t find mention of even a late or divorced father.
So, I keep wondering if some of her crazy began with a mother, who was not just on her own or single or widowed or divorced like many other functioning moms, but who for some reason also decided that fathers are a useless waste of space – and imparted that view to Kelly?
There was an interesting discussion about this regarding Halle Berry over on LipstickAlley. Some were postulating that for *certain* people raised by single parents, becoming a single parent is the desired norm. No matter how hard a partner may try, these certain people are never going to accept a second parent in the kids’ lives. They will always (consciously or subconsciously) try to cut them out at any turn.
You’ve managed to write the ugliest thing I have ever read on this website. You have chosen to support your non existing point by dragging into the gossip half orphans who have no other choice but to accept the absense of their mothers for life and from the moment they needed them most. Congrats. I feel sorry for you as you are no different from those who consider fathers just sperm donors. You consider mothers just incubators. People like you don’t fight for equity no matter what they say, they have no kids’ best interest in mind.
High fences with shrubbery, oh my! Privacy and a swimming pool……….. GASP!!!
Call the U.S. State Department, these kids have a horrible life in beautiful, Monaco. Not like they would have had had they stayed in CA after the divorce with their mother in a house in Beverly Hills with all their homes with………high walls, shrubbery, swimming pools and desire for privacy. Big, fat, eye- roll. zzzzzzz………..
Don’t they have the same kind of private estates in ‘Murica? You know – private/gated communities with walls, shrubbery and security making rounds every so often.
Wait… is she angry they don’t live in a place where kidnappers could easily get to them?
You’re such a bad parent, Daniel, not living in a open place where people could walk all over your lawn, scale your house and kidnap your kids. How dare you, evil man!
Snort.
Kelly is afraid of all those drive shootings in Monaco, you know all those Range Rovers and Porches speeding away angry about tall green hedges and gated walls blocking their aim.
Fortress ? Why not make it a dungeon with a dragon in it ?
Those evil foreign houses with their scary dungeons are awesome … not at all like American homes that only have basements. Kelly and her news supporters are all dim-witted and crazy. Daniel and his lawyers are taking notes.
Did I miss something or is this woman some major A-list star? I’ve never heard of her outside of this stupid story that won’t go away. She’s not being kept from her children or vice versa, she gets them for the summer and can talk to them on the phone or Skype or whatever the rest of the time. Jeez, she ought to be thankful not to have a couple of screaming, whining kids around most of the year.
Walls and fences are UNAMERICAN!!
Murica!!!
I remember her from years ago when her first wedding was featured in In Style Magazine. Right after she married her first husband he had a stroke and she took care of him for a couple months and then couldn’t handle it and left him. By the time their wedding came out in the magazine she had already filed for divorce. She’s a selfish jackass who only thinks of herself. Nothing changed when she had kids.
The big question is….will she wear white after Labor Day?
Press Release – Thursday, July 23, 2015
July 23, 2015
In response to numerous calls and requests, here is a link to the publicly filed decision in the Daniel Giersch and Kelly Rutherford matter dated July 23, 2015.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES July 23, 2015
http://harris-ginsberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-07-23-Ruling.pdf
Check out the footnote on Page 11. All American Mom isn’t registered to vote anywhere. Ha!
when was kelly on dr. phil? and what did he say about it, did he read the cort papers beforhand or did he just listen to kellys side of the storie?
When did e Wendy Murphy takes Kelly Rutherford’s custody case for her?
Gierch has turned his lawyers loose on her now. “his lawyer, Ira Garr, says:
“Giersch works at facilitating the children’s relationship with Kelly, who does not respond similarly. When they arrived here, he telephoned. She was unavailable. He also sent an e-mail hoping she’s well. Their divorce issue mentions that in front of them she derides their father. Factored into California and New York custody cases is healthy parental relationship.
“No anti-wife, sexist bias exists. California’s 52-page decision by Judge Teresa Beaudet mentions Kelly’s employment, travel needs and income require the boy and girl’s nanny care, whereas
Daniel provides 99 percent availability. Two state judges, two federal judges, plus Monaco’s judge conclude he’s the better parent. California’s lengthy trial awarded the father permanent custody.” http://pagesix.com/2015/08/23/kelly-rutherford-should-have-her-kids-back/
AND ““Daniel isn’t going to take any chances for Kelly to pull this type of stunt ever again,” an insider told Radar. “It was incredibly traumatizing for the kids, and never should have happened. At the upcoming custody hearing in Monaco, Daniel will ask the judge to appoint an independent monitor to supervise the kids when Kelly is with them.”
“He will also ask the judge for an order that Kelly must come to Monaco to visit the kids, no more trips to the United States,” the source continued. “Daniel feared he was never going to see his children again after Kelly refused to put them back on the plane to Monaco.”
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/daniel-giersch-kelly-rutherford-monaco-kidnapping-custody-battle/
The last straw was probably the photo of her loading them up in a car with her boyfriend.
The worm has turned. Media now reporting facts!
“Things may seem pretty cut and dry in Rutherford’s mind, but New York-based international custody attorney, Rong Kohtz, told Star that what Kelly did was sort of tantamount to kidnapping:
“Kelly is going to have less time [with her children] because she disobeyed the court order.
“Strictly speaking, she engaged in parental abduction.”
Who can she mooch off now when she and her bf go to the Cannes Film Festival?