Kelly Rutherford ordered to surrender her children’s passports at hearing in Monaco

Kelly Rutherford Goes To Custody Hearing In Monaco
Update: People Magazine has this news and they call it an exclusive despite the fact that Gala had the details first. There are no negative comments about Giersch and just a single new quote from an insider. “Everybody agrees that it’s best that the children be with both parents, and Kelly’s enjoying being with them.” People left out the detail that Kelly was also ordered to hand in her own passport while she was there. A new court date is set for October 26th.

It’s been a day since Kelly Rutherford had an important hearing in Monaco in her custody case. As of publication time, only a single German outlet* has news about the ruling, which is bizarre considering how press-hungry she is. (Story has been updated to reflect People’s coverage.) It was widely expected that Rutherford, who kept her children in the US in violation of a court order this summer, would lose 50/50 custody and get supervised visitation. It was also believed that Monaco would establish jurisdiction over the case. Rutherford’s lawyers have repeatedly tried to claim that this is a Hague case, or an international kidnapping, and Rutherford has testified twice on Capitol Hill claiming as much. As most of you know, Giersch was granted physical custody of the children by a California court after the judge witnessed Rutherford’s lawyer call the State Department to have Giersch’s visa revoked. This is not a Hague case by any stretch and multiple courts have rejected that argument. reports that this case has been postponed until October, that Rutherford must surrender her passport and her children’s passports to Giersch (she will get her passport back when she needs to return), and that she is permitted to see the children for six days. Gala is calling this a “cease fire”. That was a very lenient ruling and she’s lucky that her ex isn’t half as vindictive as she is.

Giersch has consistently tried to bar the press from the court, has issued very few statements except to mildly defend himself against crazy, and has stated that his children’s privacy is his first concern. My guess is that Giersch requested a gag order for Kelly and that the Monaco court ruled that there would be no press present. The last stories about this case in the US celebrity outlets involved Rutherford entering court yesterday. She has not instagrammed or tweeted any information since. So until the US outlets pick up this German story we might not be hearing anything. I’m interested to see whether Kelly’s lawyer, Wendy Murphy, issues a harsh statement against Geirsch as usual. If she doesn’t, I will assume that some kind of gag order is in place.

Yesterday, Rutherford Instagrammed some photos of her kids along with a cute wish list that her daughter, Helena, 6, made. (She has since removed that list.) You can’t really see their faces, which I guess is her way of not openly violating court order to shield their privacy. She sure brings them to enough swag suites and red carpet events though. This woman is lucky she’s still being allowed to see her kids after all the stunts she’s pulled.

A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on


A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on

*Thanks Nighty for the tip!

Rutherford is shown out in Monaco yesterday with her friend, Caroline Lagerfelt. (Her mother was also with her but is not pictured.) At least she dressed appropriately for court this time. Credit: FameFlynet

Kelly Rutherford Goes To Custody Hearing In Monaco

Kelly Rutherford & Caroline Lagerfeld Spend Time Together Ahead Of Custody Hearing

Kelly Rutherford & Caroline Lagerfeld Spend Time Together Ahead Of Custody Hearing

Related stories

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

157 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford ordered to surrender her children’s passports at hearing in Monaco”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Crumpet says:

    Ah, a gag order would explain the silence. And, are Birkenstocks still a thing?

    • sienna says:

      yes, the seem to have made a comeback. I got a pair this summer, because my flip flops were killing my feet!

    • OrigialTessa says:

      Birkenstocks have been back for a few years now, mostly with people that wore them and loved them the first time. The 25+ crowd is sporting them again for sure.

      • Shirleygail says:

        A comeback? No….they never went away here in Vancouver! I have 2 pair and LOVE them. No other foot gear gives that kind of support. Especially not the copy cats! Birkenstock’s Rock!

    • Yoohoo says:

      Funny you ask! Last weekend I was told by my youngest sister in law that birkenstocks are making a come back and are in style with late teens early 20 somethings. Who knew?

    • Betti says:

      Yes and with the younger audience too – they do them in all sorts of colours, patterns now.

    • Little Darling says:

      Zipper mouth gag order evidently. Not a word from her when she has literally had leaky gut syndrome of her mouth. She was definitely ordered to keep it quiet, but I do bet this is just until either after October, or after she gets back on US soil. Which she will eat and proceed to have even worse jingoism-indigestion. Where she will then vomit up a hailstorm of trigger speak, destined to get every American who doesn’t look beyond the surface on her side. .

    • Wren says:

      I don’t recall Birkenstock’s ever not being a thing. At least in California you saw them all the time all over the place. They’re all my mom wears, so maybe I’m biased.

    • littlestar says:

      Hell yes! Bought myself a new pair of Birks in the spring for my Europe trip this summer and wore them every day – they are damn comfortable and I think they look pretty laid back and cute too! :)

    • Ursula says:

      I sure hope so. I wear them all the time but now that I see her in them I might have to change that.

    • nikko says:

      Yes they’ve made a comeback. I bought some for my 2 teenage grand daughters, (gold and white). I was shocked that they wanted a pair. I never liked them and I’m from California.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      Love my Birks. My kids call them my “Bahamas Birks” because they are all I wear when we’re in the Bahamas. Heading down there in an hour or so!!!

  2. tracking says:

    I have no doubt that she loves her children, but she’s also a vindictive narcissist with completely whacked priorities. I agree she got very lucky here.

    • Birdix says:

      And yet, parents do far worse in the US and get to keep their kids part-time after a divorce. She crossed a line not returning the kids. But compared to some of the stuff my friends’ exes have pulled, this (before the latest stunt) was nothing. She’s not a good person, sure, but lots of not great people still get partial custody. It makes me uncomfortable that so many are calling for her to lose custody altogether–how is that good for the kids?

      • Naya says:

        I’m afraid people seem to think that removing a parent from a kids life punishes the parent. I was raised in a single parent home and let me tell you, I always felt the loss. There are very few circumstances in which I would wish that on a child. And I do mean VERY FEW. Its an absolute last resort and we are not at that point yet. Keeping the kids over your allocated time is terrible but not enough to justify bereaving those kids. Because when your parent leaves your life, you grieve like they had died.

      • CTgirl says:

        Umm, she had her ex-husband deported in a bid to get full custody and is now all butt hurt that it didn’t work out the way she anticipated. Kelly is a little bit crazy. I don’t think that she should lose 50/50 custody because most people go to the mat for their children. But I also don’t have an issue with a gag order and the surrendering of her passport based on her past actions and current state of mind with all of the Hague nonsense.

      • Naya says:


        I don’t know whose comment you are responding to since nobody in this thread is disputing today’s court decision. We are just saying that removing a parent from a child’s life can never be used to “punish” the parent because of the kind of impact it has on the child. Its an absolute last measure and fortunately for those children all the courts involved have recognized this. Loss of custody is not a chastisement stick which is what a lot of people seem to think.

      • Paleokifaru says:

        Naya I don’t know that people view it as a chastisement stick. A judge considers the safety and well being of the children. Kelly has openly called for kidnapping and in fact did kidnap the children herself by not returning them to Monaco.
        I was fortunate to grow up with two loving parents in the same house. But I am now a step mom of a child who is part of a 50/50 custody agreement. And the term agreement is used loosely as his mother spends all her time trying to”win” with a split that would skew even slightly in favor. This often results in yanking SS around. We only push back when it’s a bigger issue that we don’t want to have as precedent later but I can tell you it’s exhausting for us to constantly shield him and it’s heartbreaking to watch her emotional problems impact his life. We’ve consistently made the decision to be respectful of her presence in his life but we would be crazy to not wonder if we’re doing him harm by that. From all of his reported actions Daniel Giersch seems to have the same beliefs and is simply asking for measures to protect. That said, it’s frustrating to be in a situation or watch one where a person consistently breaks a legal agreement to the detriment of their children and doesn’t even get a slap on the wrist. It means they never learn and feel justified in their delusional “fight” for their children. And that doesn’t help anyone. I have seen it firsthand and wish judges would crack down more on this and at the very least add some fines either monetarily or in small amounts of time like spring breaks or holiday weekends. That might make these parents pause and recognize they need to learn to coparent.

      • Samtha says:

        I don’t think she should be cut from their lives, but I do think she should get supervised visitation only, as least until she proves she can parent them without trying to alienate them from their father.

        Her actions are emotionally damaging to her kids, and they should be protected from that as much as possible.

      • ctgirl says:

        @Naya, re-read my comment. I don’t think that she should lose 50/50 custody either. Oh, and I was responding to Birdix.

      • Naya says:


        Sorry for what you are going through and good for you for taking the high road. I think a lot of people do think of removing custody as punishment, you see it all the time with comments that contain the phrase “she deserves…..” People are way to casual about what losing a parent in this way really means for the child. The courts can/should /do exercise the right to fine a parent or even give them a few days in a jail cell for contempt. That is the proper response.


        Supervised visitation could be an idea here too. I’m not opposed to monitoring her parenting, just eliminating her from their lives based on just her actions so far. She’s been bad but nowhere near how bad she would have to be to justify that.

      • I think that if Kelly were a man and Daniel were a woman, and she was pulling the SAME shit, no one would bat an eye if she lost custody of the kids. Obviously it would hurt the kids, because that’s their mother…..but she did it. That’s on her. If that DID happen, I doubt that Daniel wouldn’t ever let her see them again–it would probably be her going to Monaco to come see them. My cousin’s doing the same thing–his ex girlfriend lost custody of their son because she failed her drug test, didn’t go to any parenting classes–he did all of that. He has full custody. He won’t let her take their son with her (she lives in a different state), but he has her come and stay for a few weeks whenever she wants.

      • swack says:

        To all, this is my take on it. Even if she loses custody she will still get visitation rights. What losing custody means to me is that she can’t have the children by themselves without any supervision. It is not eliminating her from their lives completely. The father has stated time and time again he wants her in their lives. She is doing things that are going to lose her the 50/50 custody, the newest by not returning her children when she should have. She is the one that has made the situation what it is. She obviously cannot keep her mouth shut and who knows what she says about the father when she has the children by themselves.

      • paleokifaru says:

        Yes, I think the frustration in watching this is seeing, as I do in my own life, that although Kelly isn’t winning her court cases, she also doesn’t seem to be “losing” enough to stop her from continuing dragging her kids and ex through the system. And let’s be honest – all we’re seeing is the stuff that’s going through the courts and that she’s splashing on the media. I guarantee Daniel is putting up with a barrage of miscommunication, refusal to communicate and then crazy town rants. Most of us try to avoid court and do what we can to just work it out or pick our battles. It’s really frustrating that when people ARE drug to court over nonsense that there aren’t enough judges slapping some punishment on the parents abusing the system and making people miserable. Daniel doesn’t want to be the person who has to cut Kelly out of his children’s lives and he’s trying very hard to coparent. It is up to the court to slap her with fines and supervision, and frankly with losing some of her visitation. I don’t think anyone is calling for a complete shut out but personally I think if courts would use things like taking a holiday away instead of monetary fines these people won’t pay that would be more effective. No long term damage to the kids because the parent isn’t cut out but it might be the slap they need to stop the nonsense that will damage the kids.

      • K2 says:

        I don’t think she is losing, in one sense. She’s constantly in the media, she gets to posture on Capitol Hill with a lot of important people taking her seriously (before they do their research, anyway) and she gets asked to red carpets. Someone who was on Gossip Girl in a supporting role a few years back wouldn’t have this profile. Her kids have given it to her. I do think she loves them, but I don’t think she is unattracted by the appeal of her tragic heroine role, either.

    • kcarp says:

      I have the solution. Even though they aren’t twins, I think they should just Parent Trap the kids. Each parent gets a kid, they can draw straws. Seems Reasonable Right?

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        Nope and I hope you’re just being sarcastic…

      • FLORC says:

        The sarcasm is obvious to even me here. And that would be funny if this case weren’t so sad. Still, kinda funny.

      • kcarp says:

        @Solanacaea……I was using sarcasm to point out how absolutely ridiculous this case is.

      • someone says:

        How about if they cloned the kids and each got a set. Then they could meet back up in 20 years and see who did a better job raising the kids.

      • paleokifaru says:

        I don’t think English is Solanacaea’s first language (although she does well with it!). And you know there have been enough twin studies that you’d think the courts would consider toxic emotional behavior instead of just outright physical abuse or neglect.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        @Kcarp Sarcasm is not always readable :D And considering I’ve read some really crazy comments in different sites, I wasn’t sure if it was sarcasm or not..
        Good that it was… :D

        @paleokifaru, you’re right, English is not my first language, but my 3rd… And thanks for the compliment on me doing well with English. :D

      • FLORC says:

        Well, i feel rude in my comment solan! You’re doing just fine. Also not my 1st language, but i consider it a tie as my 2nd. And you’re right. Sarcasm is not often easily readable!

      • Birdix says:

        Perfect. And then Rutherford can play herself in the (made for TV) movie. Off topic-do you know there were 3 sequels to the original Parent Trap, even before the Lindsay Lohan version? Rutherford’s career seems to be in an appropriate place to get hired for Parent Trap V, a made for TV special.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        @Florqui sweety, no, you didn’t sound rude… :) Kisses…. :)

    • evermore says:

      Wonder if She and Halle ever talked about baby daddy drama?

    • Dr M says:

      SHE HAD HER HUSBAND DEPORTED ON FALSE GROUNDS !! Who is alienating who here? And the children’s father has been extremely restrained, has bent over backwards to accommodate her as his children’s mother (paying her flights, paying her accommodation etc). It is an unusual situation to have the children domiciled with the father in another country. You can be d**n sure the judge didn’t do that lightly. KR is a nasty, vindictive, selfish human being. She has only herself to blame for the situation. The fact that no US court will intervene is also very telling. She should be ashamed of herself that she presents such a risk that the court feels she is not to be trusted with her children or her own American passports. Just appalling behavior and attitude.

  3. Tiffany says:

    Daniel initially wanted the kids passports with a neutral third party and now he has them. If he gave as much as he got he can make life hell for Kelly. He won yesterday.

  4. NUTBALLS says:

    Why would she be in possession of her children’s passports while in Monaco?

    • The Original Mia says:

      She has their American passports, which would allow her to take them back with her to the States.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      The american passports Nutballs, the kids’ mum has their american passports and she could leave Monaco with them and run away…
      The dad has with him the german passports

    • Maum says:

      I presume she’s in possession of the U.S. Passports and he has the German?

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        Now, for these days, Daniel has both… US and German, but yeah.. each has a passport…

    • NUTBALLS says:

      I guess that makes sense. I just figured whoever is traveling with the kids would be in possession of both passports, not the parent *receiving* the children in their home country.

      • bluhare says:

        He asked for hers too. That means he’s afraid she’d leave with them, and perhaps even have extras of the kids’ passports, right?

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        He’s right to be afraid, which is why he asked for a neutral party to hold their passports before. How could you have extras of passports? One to a customer.

      • zinjojo says:

        bluhare, that’s what I’m thinking too. Why would he ask for her passport when he has the children’s unless he thinks she will still pull something (although I don’t know how you have an extra copy of a U.S. passport unless it’s a fake as they’re controlled documents by the state department, but perhaps someone can shed more light on that).

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        It’s not impossible to have two valid passports from one’s country of citizenship. For example, in my neck of the woods (Houston, Texas), many energy executives who travel a lot have two passports because when they apply for a visa to visit a particular country, they must turn a passport in to that country’s consulate. While they often use visa expediters, there is no guarantee that they will get their passports back within a set time period. So they have two passports so that (hopefully) one will be available to them at all times.

        Another reason is that some countries will NOT allow you to enter if you have previously visited Israel. I have seen countless passports from Middle Eastern and central Asian countries that said quite explicitly “This passport is valid for all countries except Israel.” I remember when I visited Israel the immigration official at entry gave me the option of having my actual passport stamped or having a piece of paper stapled in my passport stamped with the entry/exit stamps. Some countries also will not give you a visa if they see you have visas from other countries. Having two passports enables people to get around these restrictions.

      • Pumpkin Pie says:

        Having read BearcatLawyer’s post (i LOVE your screen name and posts btw), is it possible that the father’s legal team check if KR/children have two US passports?

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Bearcat thanks as always for the good information. I remembered too late that the US also issues passport cards in addition to passport books (if you want, for a fee) for land crossings (Canada, Mexico) and some Caribbean trips maybe.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        I haven’t checked recently (and am too lazy to slog through the Department of State’s website right now), but I seem to recall that if you are applying for a U.S. passport for a child, both parents must sign off on the application. Or you have to provide the original or certified copy of any court order that gives one parent the right to apply for the passport. So even if Kelly tried to claim that the passports were stolen/illegally seized by the Monegasque court, she might not be able to get new ones issued to the kids without Daniel’s cooperation.

      • SisterMorphine says:

        Not only must both parents sign, they must both be present as well. I figure if one party can’t enter the country they’d have to go through the consulate in France or Monaco.

      • FLORC says:

        Add me to the list of people who are glad for your comment insight here!
        The 2 situations are not similiar, but it was much easier for my path becoming an american citizen. No doubt much has changed since. And I only needed proof I was a child of an american citizen.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Echoing everyone else’s thanks for shedding light on this, bearcat. I had no idea you could have duplicate passports issued.

  5. Neah23 says:

    Don’t you just love how her face like lights up when ever a camera or reporter is around, even when heartbreaker and devastated.

    She so brave and inspirational #FreeKellyRutherfordamericancitizenkids

    • Shambles says:

      My thoughts exactly. She looks simply heartbroken, in a smug, not sad at all type of way.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The photos of her in the black dress are on her on the way IN to court. The after court photos are a different matter. No histrionics but it was clear things didn’t go her way.

  6. The Original Mia says:

    She got off easy if the only stipulation was handing over her passport as well as theirs for her visit.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      That’s because it’s not about punishing her (despite temptation); it’s about the best interests of the children. This way the children can safely remain in Monaco and still have time with their (crazy) mother, and we don’t know about restrictions placed on her visit – supervision etc. If there are no restrictions, what are the odds their dad has a private investigator to shadow?

  7. Anniefannie says:

    She’s the ultimate “entitled American”!
    There has to be a gag order which is so disappointing because her ” could someone drape a ‘merican flag over me as I nail myself to a cross’ statements always deliver.

  8. Freddy Spaghetti says:

    I can’t believe how nice her ex is being. Imagine, a parent who thinks about his kids! I hope Kelly stops her nonsense–but I’m pretty sure she won’t.

    • What was that says:

      Why would she?…It ‘s the only publicity she is getting and you know the saying
      ‘All publicity is good publicity ‘?
      I truly believe others view that she is a narcissist …

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      As I read it, he’s not being nice to her, he’s being nice to their children.

      • swack says:

        How is he not being nice to her? Is he bashing her in public like she does him? Has he kept the children when it is their time to be with her? I don’t see where he is not being nice.

      • K2 says:

        I think what Who ARE is saying is that he is being nice to the kids in letting her off so lightly, and that is his priority. He’s not doing it to be nice to her; that’s just a side-effect of his children’s best interests.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Yes k2 that is what I meant…thx!

  9. NewWester says:

    I am rather shocked she is not wearing all white. Hopefully Kelly being quiet after this latest court ruling means she is coming to terms with her actions. Maybe she will decide it’s time to work at co parenting with her ex, if she wants to be in her children’s lives?

  10. Catherine says:

    I’d never heard of this woman until I saw the posts on this site, that may explain why the European press haven’t picked up on this story.

    • What was that says:

      Well she is just in a so so American TV show and not a lead part so why would you..many of these shows are on cable or satellite for view and it’s like the U.S. contributors knowing any of our over hyped’soap’ “stars” from the UK..

    • Wonderbunny says:

      I remember her from Melrose Place. I’m that old.

  11. Fan says:

    Why is she being denied of her children? Why favor much of the other side? Is there something wrong with her? I don’t know much about this case.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      You can read the long history of Rutherford’s dealings with both the court and media by clicking Celebitchy’s articles on her. There are also links to the judge’s custody ruling in the original California case. It is very revealing. She is not being “denied” her children, she has joint custody but the children are living with the father as primary custodian. They do that because Rutherford arranged – unethically and perhaps illegally – to have the father’s US visa revoked. He cannot return the US whereas she can travel. He pays for her to visit regularly and helps the children have a regular daily (if long-distance during the school year) relationship with their mother.

      There is no favoritism, only courts following the law and doing their best for the children.

      And yes, the consensus is that there is very much something wrong with her.

    • FLORC says:

      There is such a timeline of evvents with this it’s not a simple answer.
      To try though… There was a break up. Kelly got her ex deported under false claims of terrorism that have been proven false. That still messes with his visa though. He still tried to coparent in spite of that. Every time Kelly had the kids she kept them in secret locations or flat out refused to hand them over to their father under court orders. She made claims, but with no proof of harm at all.

      She’s acting unstable and her children are the victims in all this. Their father seems to not engage their mother and keeps their lives stable.
      Her justification in all this is without logic and ranting to even a judge. And i sht you not. Her arguments have boiled down to Because she’s an american and a mother and that trumps everything.

      People are so in favor oof the father for good reason. And so against Kelly’s argument for equally good reason.

    • swack says:

      Also want to add to the other comments that she did not want to put his name on the daughter’s birth certificate.

    • qwerty says:

      ” I don’t know much about this case. ” – it shows…

      They were supposed to split custody 50/50 but she wanted the kids all for herself with no contact with their father so she made some calls and got him deported. The judge saw through her plan and decided the kids should live with the father if he’s not allowed to enter US as that would mean he would never ever see them again till they’re 18 – the mother has shown enough ill will to know that she’d never make it possible if not court-ordered to do so. Her plan backfired terribly and now she’s playing the martyr. Also, she refused to put her kids on a plane back to their father in Europe last time they came to visit her.

    • Ennie says:

      … And if she went and lived in France or somewhere nearer, she could see and enjoy her children practically daily.

    • jwoolman says:

      Just read what the judge wrote in 2013 when setting the custody arrangement, it will explain a lot:

      Easy to read and very interesting. The judge clearly was trying to give both parents as much access to the kids as possible, there was no favoritism for one side or the other. This was the arrangement that worked. Kelly did things that made anything else impossible. She and her lawyer have been repeatedly lying about a lot of things to the media and other people who don’t know much about the case, but the actual Decision should clear that up.

  12. Betti says:

    Please, as soon as she’s back on US soil she’ll flout the gag order saying no court on the planet can trump her American Citizen rights. There is no way in hell that she’s going to let any court or judge get in the way of her press tours.

  13. NUTBALLS says:

    Could to postponement be due to reviewing all the evidence of her violations in order to settle jurisdiction and established supervised visits that Daniel may have requested yesterday?

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      It does seem like they dealt with the immediate situation and maybe will next turn their attention to the deeper, longer-term issues? Watch this space!

    • notasugarhere says:

      That makes a lot of sense. She pulled a lot of stunts in the last few months and that is a lot to review. First things first, passports. Next up, establishing Monaco’s jurisdiction beyond a shadow of a doubt. (I know, but I don’t think she’s giving up on this one yet.).

      I’d be looking at permanent gag orders for Rutherford and her lawyers. Firm reminder about not using children in the media including personal social media accounts. Re-examining medical authority, supervised visits, permanent holding of passports by third party anytime Rutherford has the kids in the US, Rutherford required to give proof of kids physical whereabouts at all times.

  14. meme says:

    she can see her kids for six days so what happens that?

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      They go back to school as they do every fall. If Kelly is so work-free that she can hang out in Monaco after that, she might as well move there (or to nearby France) and consider the kind of co-parenting that would actually be healthy for her children.

      • jwoolman says:

        Their school is in France, she could get a reasonable apartment in the area and the. she could see them every day after school for a while and have plenty of overnights on weekends. Really, she is missing such an opportunity to explore the benefits of having a home base in Europe, as an actress who speaks both US English and French. The kids will be young for such a short time, they’ll be on their own in just a few years. She’s wasting those years trying to keep them to herself, when she can’t keep them anyway. Little birds have to fly away from the nest some day.

  15. debra says:

    The dad already had possession of the children’s US passports, as they were given to his mother when she picked the children up in NY after Kelly (abducted) refused to send them back. It’s good she has to surrender her passport while she is visiting, though, ..

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      Did you read that she had to surrender the US passports when the kids went back? The children do have German passports too, so they can travel even without their US ones. I’m just curious. I’ve been glued to this story, but it’s easy to miss things!

  16. anne_000 says:

    I can see why she would remove that list. It’s the wishlist of a teenage girl, not a six year old’s who’s still in kindergarten. *Somebody* might not know exactly what a kindergarten-er would actually want (like toys, stickers, dolls, coloring books, etc.)…

    But I think overall, the older female-specific items might have been Kelly’s way of saying the daughter needs her mother more than her dad as he, being a man, wouldn’t be good enough to deal with such items.

    That’s a weird tunic. Very low cut. Is the cleavage shot what she likes most about that photo?

    If I were him, I wouldn’t want to hold onto her passport. I’d want her to be able to leave as quickly as possible.

    It’s unfortunate that the case was held off until October. I wonder if she’s the one who caused the delay so that she would have more months of playing victim all over the media and get more donations for her and her charity.

    I don’t think the 3rd woman in turquoise is her mother. I’m thinking it might be Helen Chaitman that Lagerfelt mentioned in her Instagram photo.

    • kai says:

      what didthe list say?

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        computer, iphone, high heels, eye shadow, mascara, red lipstick, and other things I can’t recall…

      • Nanea says:

        @ Solanacaea (Nighty): Thanks for that!

        Isn’t it a bit strange that kids of someone who’s involved in the development of all kinds of software would want a “computer”? I should think that Giersch’s house is filled with all kinds of gadgets, including the latest in tablets and smartphones.

        High heels, mascara, and the other items you mentioned surely sound like a typical 6 year old’s wish list!

        Nice try, Kelly!

      • notasugarhere says:

        The list is still up on yesterday’s Daily Mail story. Links won’t go through for me but you can find it under “Kelly Rutherford shares sweet pictures of her children before making a glamorous arrival at in court to continue bitter custody battle with ex-husband”

      • lucy2 says:

        Yeah that list is…odd. A five year old would want toys, not mascara.
        And even if she did write that, why would a parent post that online, in September?

      • FLORC says:

        It’s not all that odd of a list. I had a barbie (i think) makeup kit as a kid. It was fun. Kelly probably has played makeup and dress up with her mom before and wants her own stuff over borrowing her moms. Especially with huge gaps of time away from that makeup supply.

        Agree though. Timing is odd. And I never understood the need or desire to post things for strangers to see.

    • holly hobby says:

      I read on US (I know I know) that some of the commenters said Kelly was the one who wrote that list, not her daughter. She must be lurking in those sites and removed it after she read the comments.

    • jwoolman says:

      A kid whose father is in IT and makes phone apps doesn’t already have all the computers and iPhones she could possibly use?!? They Skype with their mom every day when not with her. Do they use carrier pigeons?

      Were stickers on the list? Her dad says it was his daughter’s idea to include stickers in that app he made for sending postcards from your phone with any picture you choose (his son’s idea for sending a postcard to his mom when they weren’t near a post office). The little girl said she liked stickers. I have heard that a person can never have too many stickers.

  17. lucy2 says:

    Very glad those kids have at least 1 parent who cares about their well being and privacy. Given that Kelly essentially kidnapped her own children, I hope she does have to have supervised visits until she gets herself together and stops this pointless battle.

  18. Betti says:

    The thing with narcissists is that getting their own way is never enough – they will always want and take more. He’s playing a good game – she’s too stupid to realise he’s playing her but all you need to do is give the narcissist enough rope and their ego will do the rest.

    She will end up in prison as the more she is told no the more extreme her behaviour will become and if the press attention dies away she will do something very very stupid to grab those headlines again – like running away in Europe with those kids.

    • paddyjr says:

      Daniel has been playing a very strategically smart game: he (and/or his attorneys) have realized the best way to deal with Kelly is to not respond and to continue promoting Kelly’s involvement in the children’s lives. Her words and actions (and those of her attorneys) are the best evidence against her. She is so caught up in playing the victimized American mother whose kids have been sent to the third-world hellhole known as Monaco by the big bad courts, she can’t see the damage she is doing.

      Interestingly, the children seem to be fairly well-adjusted and happy (certainly well cared for) despite the crazy. I do hope that continues to be the case as this matter shows no sign of ending soon.

      • jwoolman says:

        I think we can credit their dad with their well-adjusted demeanor. He is very likely doing what my mom did, explaining the crazy parent’s actions in the best possible light to keep the kids from getting too confused and worried and never saying anything negative about the crazy parent. All you need is one parent who doesn’t play the crazy game, then kids can deal with a lot.

  19. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    Check out buzzandgossip… they have a comment on the ruling from yesterday

  20. Ella says:

    Not surprised she took down the list because it reeked of fake. The International School of Monaco follows the French curriculum to a certain degree. I texted friends who attended when they were children and teenagers, all three said they had learned cursive handwriting straight away, French style. However, they are now young adults so things may have changed since. Still, I’d be surprised.
    Another red flag were all the misspellings (every. single. word) but especially those a child raised also in French would likely not make such as “mascera” since it is properly pronounced “mascAra” in French as well as in German, the language she likely speaks at home, including with the very present and involved grandmother who likely acts as a mother substitute when Kelly is not around.

    I would vote for that list having been taken down because it could cause her some serious trouble as it was an outright fake and her legal team in Monaco somehow managed to give her proper advice.

  21. YT says:

    The worst punishment Kelly can get is a gag order. She must be ready to explode with her BS. That Wendy “lawyer” too. October will be here soon enough.

  22. Ana A. says:

    I have a question though for someone who has better knowledge of this. Couldn’t she just go to the US-embassy or consulate and get emergency documents issued. The ones you can get immediately when yours are stolen or whatever in a foreign country? That way she could leave with the kids in hours. Or does the embassy refues to issue them for an American citizen in this case? On which ground?

    • notasugarhere says:

      That is a good, and worrying, question. Would she be able to convince the US embassy to do that, in violation of a Monaco court order? I have no idea.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      U.S. passports are always the property of the U.S. government. In theory she could go to a U.S. consulate and claim that her and her children’s passports were stolen/illegally seized by the Monegasque court. The consulate could demand that the passports be returned to them and then give them back to Kelly if they so desired. The consulate could also issue new U.S. passports.

      HOWEVER, given the high profile nature of this case and the fact that the U.S. is a signatory to the Hague Convention, it is highly unlikely that either scenario would occur. Besides creating an international incident and a political minefield for the consul, the Monaco court has a mirror order in place AND legitimate reasons (her prior custodial interference and public statements regarding kidnapping) to limit her movements and ability to travel abroad with the children. It also says quite clearly in U.S. passports that U.S. citizens MUST obey the laws of foreign countries while under their jurisdictions and that “Dual nationality may hamper efforts to provide U.S. consular protection to dual citizens in the foreign country of their other nationality.” Since the children are EU citizens, the U.S. consul may not be able to do much while the kids are in Monaco.

  23. DEB says:

    I find the pictures of her and the kids together just TOTAL overkill – sickening. Way overdone. And now we’re doing the dark sunglasses routine … okay. *huge eye roll*

  24. EM says:

    I have actually grown to dislike her (as a result of her actions and personality) that I am disappointed that the ruling was so lenient. I know the father is thinking about the children but you sometimes want bad people to get what’s coming to them.

  25. Vampi says:

    Is it ok that I want to punch her face every time I see it? Because I DO! Ok….I know it’s not OK for me to think that. Violence is NEVER the answer…. But the shizz she has put her kids through…..yeah. Lemmie have one swing, just ONE swing! And only in my mind people! I would never..but… There’s no crime in daydreaming. Makes me wanna scream.
    “I’m tired of injustice, I’m tired of the schemes! The lies are disgusting, so what does it mean, damnit!”

  26. SavageGrace says:

    She is sooooo lucky she is dealing with a patient man (though I’m sure he’s only patient because she’s her own worse enemy); anyone else would have nailed her to the wall long ago.

    But, passports or no passports, I really hope he has people shadowing her and the kids. I don’t trust her. At all.

  27. NewKay says:

    Is that her mother with her? I feel like this will not end well. Like Kelly is teetering on the edge.

  28. Jeanette says:

    I understand that her lawyer called about the husbands visa, and the state department revoked it. The charges were bogus, so why is it that she has any kind of power as to him getting it back?

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      She and her lawyer were ordered by the CA family court to assist Daniel in obtaining a new U.S. visa. They were supposed to file affidavits recanting their prior statements which alleged that Daniel was involved in illegal activity. Neither Kelly nor her attorney did so within the allotted time, probably because to do so would open them up to federal criminal charges of lying to a U.S. government official, conspiracy, attempted extortion, etc. If either of them had provided the required affidavit, there is no guarantee that he would have gotten a new U.S. nonimmigrant visa (because visas are benefits, not rights), but it certainly would have removed one of the obstacles to reapplying which he still faces: proving a negative, namely that their allegations were, in fact, untrue.

      • Vampi says:

        BearCatLawyer… I dunno if you are a man, a woman, a cat, or a bear! All I know is I LOVES you, and SO appreciate your posts! Damn! *smiles big*

    • Ennie says:

      getting a visa after being revoked one is a very tricky thing, it is like a limbo, it may happen it may not. They never give reasons and he was accused of serious things, her lawyer made sure of that (without any proof, the accusation was enough), so he may have to wait a whole decade to try for a new visa, but it is irrelevant now. Him not getting a visa is not important for the custody fight.
      HE just lives overseas without a commitment to eventually get a visa to travel to the USA, that is off the table. And I bet he would be scared to come to the USA, I imagine she would fabricate something to get him in jail or worse.

    • notasugarhere says:

      There was also a court-set deadline to get that resolved for good. They had until January 2014 to do the paperwork, otherwise it would/could not be used as part of future custody discussions. Like getting the mirror order in NY, the paperwork wasn’t submitted.

  29. jwoolman says:

    I doubt that Daniel would restrict her time with the kids, since he wants to encourage her relationship with them. But he would be wise to ask for restrictions that would prevent a repeat of the past two years, especially the last incident. It is not unlikely that she had plans to skipperdee somewhere with the kids this time. She was dressed as though she was not intending to be in court that Tuesday, when she appeared with the kids in violation of the clear order from the judge. She also had been hiding them since the previous Thursday and sent for them only after the judge had a private chat with her. I would definitely not trust her at all at this point – she needs something to keep her from abducting those children. Maybe holding on to her passport and someone else keeping the kids’ passports will be enough.

    It would be nice if supervision of her time with the kids would also be required, since I think she is making sure they hear her talk trash about their dad and she is deliberately making them anxious, hoping for a scene at a transition. I wonder if the kids revealed something of interest to the court, either to a judge or a therapist or whomever. But unfortunately plenty of non-famous parents do that to their kids, also. But this last incident made a huge difference in how her nonsense will be dealt with in future. Family court judges don’t like it when parents do such things. And if I can figure out that the way she was dressed when she came to court in New York minus the kids meant she hadn’t planned on coming and might have been ready to hit the road with kids in tow – I’m sure a judge can figure that out also. She is a huge abduction risk now.

  30. CRRRR says:

    I am surprised at the viterol about Kelly R. Unless one knows her and all the facts, I think it’s in poor taste to attack her mothering skills IMO. I also am beyond perplexed that a foreign government can demand the passport of American citizens who are minors of German and American parents. What right do they have to do that – the children are American, do not have dual nationally and are subject to the jurisdiction of Monaco court in regards to custody? Not a supporter of either parent but aghast that this can happen to two minor US citizens. Chilling. These children need to have their rights protected. That should be the focus of both parents irregardless of the state of their relationship.

    • skippy says:

      Have you read the facts?
      Google Kelly Rutherford.
      Those are the court docs.

    • Alice says:

      The kids have dual citizenship.
      It’s not a “foreign government” asking for the passports, it’s the Family Court which has jurisdiction who is requiring her to hand them over to her ex-husband for the duration of her visits. They clearly feel that this is necessary to avoid having her attempt (or organize a third party attempt) of leaving the country with the kids in defiance of the custody arrangement currently in place. Not surprising given that she has publicly called for an “American hero” to abduct her kids and bring them to the US. That right there would have me questioning her parenting skills. It’s not difficult to imagine the terror those kids would feel had someone snatched them and bundled them out of the country. Those kids would have been traumatized for life.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      CRRR–what ever made you think the children don’t have dual nationality?
      I’m truly curious about this one, as even Dan Abrams (a lawyer and ABC news reporter!) had trouble getting it right.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The original custody agreement about these dual citizenship children, which is still in place, was handed down by a court in California. That’s right, a US court made the decision to uphold 50/50 joint custody but award residential custody to Giersch in Europe. The US court made that decision knowing it was unlikely that Giersch would ever be able to get another US visa after the lies Rutherford and her lawyer told.

      After Rutherford kidnapped THEIR children in August, she should have expected restrictions on access to the passports. By getting both the US and German passports held, it means she cannot flee Europe with THEIR children against the custody agreement established by a US court.

      • YT says:

        What? But that would mean The Hague would also deny her. Oh, my. Poor Kelly. All of her scheming is a GIANT FAIL!

        Their children are German citizens who live in Monaco despite Kelly’s versions of the truth. She had open visitation and access to them before, but she might now be restricted because of her own selfish, irrational behavior.

    • FLORC says:

      What you’re stating are not the facts.

      I think it could explain a lot if you read the court documents on this case. There are links above that explain things easily.

      Now, from observation, actions, and her own words she’s created a state of anxiety for her children. Refusing to tell the courts where they are when she was required to bring them to court to return to monaco where they’ve primarily lived. The constant emotional rollercoaster. It’s not healthy. And by all accounts when the children where brought to court they were joyful to see their paternal grandmother and excited to return to Monaco.

      Also, If Kelly agreed to coparent from the start and not kidnap the children or have her ex deported under proven false (without a shadow of doubt) claims of terrorism this would likely not be happening. Everything now is as a measure from Kelly’s extreme dismissive nature for the law and the children’s father whom they love.

      • notasugarhere says:

        pssst, FLORC. Happy royal news from Sweden. I was hoping CB would post but they haven’t so far.

    • K2 says:

      If they aren’t German citizens, how do you imagine they have German passports as well as US ones? Of course they’re dual nationals; under German law they were from the moment of birth, and the US acknowledges that law and resulting nationality.

      The French government aren’t demanding anything. The family court hearing the case is demanding it. The kids are primarily resident in France, and have been for several years now, so the courts there have jurisdiction. That fact was acknowledged by courts in California and New York, who refused to take the cases on those grounds and then sent the children home under Hague. “Home” being Europe.

      I’m not sure what is “chilling” about all the courts in all nations and states unanimously agreeing that the parents should have 50/50 time, or as close as possible, and that Kelly needs to learn to play nicely and share. She has them for a large chunk of the year, and the only reason they now live overseas is her campaign to remove their father from their lives forced that arrangement. She said, after getting him deported because he wouldn’t sign over his rights of custody and access completely, that they didn’t need to ever see him at all and her suggestion was that they didn’t.

      You really think those are the actions of a child-centred, loving parent?

      AMERICA is a dog-whistle word, it appears.

  31. YT says:

    People Magazine is suggesting that Daniel has asked for sole custody. Since they also quoted legal-eagle Wendy in the article, there is no telling if it is true or not. Kelly has given plenty of reasons why Daniel should have sole custody though.

    Kelly’s “American citizen” spiel is embarrassing.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I think People is grasping at straws, since their sources (Rutherford, Wendy) have clammed up. My guess is this two hour court date was to get things like the passports and medical emergency contact shifted. If big things are going to happen, it will be at the new date in October. I’m still hoping the NY courts file something against her if they can.

      • YT says:

        I’m surprised NY has done nothing. If Daniel had pulled the same stunt, he would have been jailed.

        I agree with what probably happened at this hearing. Daniel would have filed documents and evidence of Kelly’s behavior shortly before this hearing, and time is needed for the court to review everything. Kelly has left a wide trail of bad behavior and crazy statements, so I don’t expect any rulings to be in her favor. She’ll do her best to ignore rulings from Monaco just as she has with rulings in the U.S.

      • YT says:

        NY would have put Daniel in jail for the stunt Kelly pulled.

        The court in Monaco needs time to review all the documents and evidence Daniel has submitted. Kelly’s behavior and statements are a gold mine for Daniel.

      • Elliott says:

        They may have sent a hearing transcript of the time the press was out of the room. Or Monaco could have requested it. That is when the arse chewing took place.

  32. Wookie says:

    I strongly disagree with 99.9% of the comments on here. Daniel is an evil piece of work and I wish Kelly gets sole custody and those kids are kept from that man. The comments posted here by women make me sick. In my view , women that write crap about Kelly, only do so because they think Daniel is hot and they should all be ashamed of themselves, and also every one of those commented should have their children taken away. Evil women, cold and heartless, sucking up to the rich guy.

    • Elliott says:

      Hi Kelly. Read the court decisions if you haven’t already. Talk to a real lawyer and maybe listen. Stop emotionally exploiting your children splashing sad photos of them in the gossip media. Or did the Monaco court already tell you to do that?

    • jwoolman says:

      Where’s the crap about Kelly here? Many of us have read the 2013 Decision by the California judge, and Kelly’s actions have been in violation of that custody decision repeatedly. The discussion is about those actions and how the court is likely to respond to it. She hid her children for several days after she failed to send them back home to their father on schedule. This is not allowed according to the decision, even ten minutes late is subject to penalties. She also violated a direct order from a judge to bring her children to court, which is also not allowed. This is why she is in deep trouble now. She’s lucky that her ex isn’t really an evil piece of work, or else she would be in even greater trouble and her contact with her children would be affected.

      Family court is going to want to make sure that the risk of Kelly abducting her children again is reduced to zero. I strongly suspect she had no intention of going to the hearing in New York at all but some friend or family member pushed her into the car at the last minute – she was not dressed for court, she was wearing dirty sneakers and Capri pants. She might have been planning to travel away from the city with the children, to make them harder to find. This is a milk carton scenario. She is jeopardizing her current joint custody, designed by the judge to give the children as close to half time with each parent as possible. Her ex wants her in the children’s’ lives but she has gone off the deep end and can’t be trusted to maintain the custody agreement. She clearly wants to push their father out of their lives, and that simply isn’t allowed. Divorced parents have to share time with their children.

    • The Original Mia says:

      Oh, please. People are reacting to the facts of the case and not merely siding with Kelly because she is the mother. Daniel’s actions speak to a parent, who is putting his children first. Not a parent, who seems to treat them like possessions that should not be shared.

    • snowflake says:

      How do you know Daniel? She is the reason her kids are in Monaco. She got his visa taken away. Poor Kelly. Had to kidnap her kids because her ex won’t let her see the kids, he will only let her come to Monaco,put her and her boyfriend up in house while theyre thre, has paid for her and her boyfriend to have a vacation on him. He sends the kids to the us to see their mom, only to have her not send them back. Poor, poor Kelly, she can’t have the kids all to herself, poor Kelly. She’s had it so rough! Sob!

      Gmafb lady. Kelly is the stuff nightmares are made of. He has done everything to coparent with her, and not said one bad word about her. She invited people to kidnapkidnap her kids, putting the kids in danger, and you feel sorry for her! Wow! Tell Kelly we said hello

    • notasugarhere says:

      What has he done that makes him “evil” in your eyes? He was a stay-at-home parent and main caregiver to their son. His visa was revoked because of Rutherford’s lives. She refused to put his name on their daughter’s birth certificate until ordered by a judge. He has consistently pushed for her to keep having access to the children instead of going for the throat as many people might.

      Rutherford is a danger to those children. It is not about the kids for her, it is all about winning against her ex. She’s already instagrammed another picture their daughter today, when she was forbidden to use them in the media. She cannot control herself. They are better off where they are, with their father living a quiet life in Europe.

      He looks like 90s teen actor Andrew McCarthy and that means, no, he’s not hot.

      Everyone who commented against Kelly should have their children taken away???? Say goodnight, Wookie.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Wow, truly world-class trolling!
      Not everyone who posts here is female.
      How would we even know the father is hot? Unlike KR, he doesn’t violate the court order and exploit the children by posting instagrams and/or pap walking every other day.
      You keep using that word.
      I don’t think it means what you think it does.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Plus I just have to add–I find it really annoying that such an idiotic post is put up by someone using the moniker Wookie!

    • Ennie says:

      One of the things that made me sick is the way she treated her first husband, how she dumped him when he needed her the most, just after swearing an oath of love and commitment at their wedding.
      I know that some huge disgraces are blessings in disguise, but for that young man, he unknowingly wasted his time, money and heart in falling for this undeserving woman. She cannot even bend her pride to go and live near her two young children. It has to be her way or no way.

  33. Anon says:

    Yeah, People. I’m sure Kelly now agrees (reluctantly) that the children need both parents when she’s alienated everyone with her actions. Make no mistake, if this woman could get away with the children never seeing their father again, she would….and she’d want to be on the front page of every magazine crowing about it.

  34. TotallyBiased says:

    On another note, Dan Abrams has been strangely silent on Twitter regarding the passport handover.
    He is spending his time promoting his media interests and showing his lack of comprehension re the NFL’s CBA.

  35. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    And NEW ARTICLE on the Daily Mail.. there she is again having breakfast with her two children at a patisserie in the south of France…Because she loves to keep her children away from the press…

    • YT says:

      That’s great! She is giving the court in Monaco more proof that she cannot follow the original custody rulings. Just sit back and watch her bury herself with her insatiable need for media attention. The children are only her props.