Kelly Rutherford photographed with her kids in Monte-Carlo, did she call the paps?

Kelly Rutherford Spends Time In Monte-Carlo With Her Children
These are photos of Kelly Rutherford and her two children, Hermes, 8, and Helena, 6, out together at a cafe in Monte-Carlo, Monaco on Friday. (We’re sorry for not getting to these earlier but it was a holiday weekend in the states.) Notice how Kelly is color coordinated with her kids’ outfits. At least she’s switching it up and isn’t still going for the all white and cream look.

These photos are curious to me because France has some of the toughest anti-paparazzi and privacy laws in the world as a result of Princess Diana’s tragic death. I wondered whether Monaco’s paparazzi laws were somehow more lax than France’s, but that’s not the case at all. Monaco is so protective of its citizens that photographers need permits to even take photos on the street. I found this firsthand account from an event photographer who writes that paparazzi in Monaco “are about as unwelcome as a rabid stray dog at Crufts.” So Kelly definitely made arrangements to get her kids papped. What’s more is that multiple agencies have these pics. That suggests that Rutherford was complicit in these photos, which goes without saying considering how often she’s photographed in NY and how many times she’s brought her children to red carpet events.

So after her ex repeatedly emphasized that he was so protective of their children’s privacy that he would refrain from even commenting on their custody case, and after she was court-ordered to surrender her children’s US passports and her own passport (a detail which People left out of their recent report) in order to see them while in Monaco, Rutherford called the paps to catch them out together. I guess we should expect nothing else from her at this point.

Oh and Rutherford posted this inspiring message to her Instagram.

A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on

Thinking of my child means working to get along with his dad and seeing him as an ally, not an enemy. Romantic relationships end, but you and your ex will always be parents and you have to find a way to make that work for your kids’ sake. Rutherford wants to “win” this PR battle – she doesn’t want what’s best for her kids or she would have facilitated their relationship with their dad at some point. I get the impression that she doesn’t care whether she “wins” her custody case either, as long as she continues to make headlines. She couldn’t even go a handful of days without calling the paps.

Kelly Rutherford Spends Time In Monte-Carlo With Her Children

Kelly Rutherford Spends Time In Monte-Carlo With Her Children

Kelly Rutherford Spends Time In Monte-Carlo With Her Children

photo credit: FameFlynet

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

158 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford photographed with her kids in Monte-Carlo, did she call the paps?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Aly says:

    So predictable, so unnecessary and so gauche. She is shameless.

  2. minx says:

    Oh, I would bet money that she rounded up the paps.
    No question.

    • DEB says:

      Of course she did. You can tell by the overdone expressions on her face. Just like the poses of her dressed in white and being overly touchy with them, for the benefit of the press and the paps. She will stop at nothing, will she? Her desperatation reeks worse than too much cheap cologne.

  3. Snazzy says:

    I imagine the ex could use this against her in the October hearing, couldn’t he?
    She’s both stupid and insane …

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      Shot herself in the foot twice with this stunt, it shows that he is willing to co-parent even after her last stunt with not handing the kids back, and he can use it against her in court for breaching the kids privacy.

      She is a dangerous combo of nuts and stupid.

    • Sarah says:

      That’s what I would think. The ex should come out blasting the paparazzi, try to get them in legal hot water and let them turn on Kelly for setting up the photos. That would have to be their defense.

      • swack says:

        Really think he is just gathering all this for his bid to get full custody of the children. Which at this point I think he should have full custody and she should only have supervised visits.

    • Suzy from Ontario says:

      Especially if he can prove she called the Paps and arranged for them to take the photographs. He is very protective and she is always parading them in front of the camera. That’s her proof that she’s a good mom…but I think it’ll backfire on her. Wasn’t there some court order about having them photographed? I really hope this blows up in her face. I am sooooo sick of her and her sob story, and worse are the tabloids and magazines that are on her side! They take her behaviour and try to defend it, which is pathetic. Her husband looks like a saint with all he’s put up with. HE is putting the kids first. She is not. And when she posts things like that Sophia Loren quote, it makes me want to puke!

    • anne_000 says:

      I have yet to see a single photo of Daniel with his kids out in public during private times, but somehow Kelly can’t manage to make it a few days without getting pap’d with the kids?

      You’d think that at this point, the paps would know who Daniel is and what his kids look like yet they don’t photograph that set of trio. Why? Is it because he doesn’t set up such things but Kelly does?

      Anyhoo, it looks like in one of the photos, Kelly sees the photographer (or makes sure he/she is there).

      • Crumpet says:

        Because papping is illegal in Monaco. She had to take them to France in order to get them papped.

      • anne_000 says:

        I’m thinking that even if he weren’t in Monaco but in France with his kids, there’d still wouldn’t be a pap call by him.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        If they’re in Monte Carlo, that’s still Monaco.
        So could the photogs argue that it isn’t papping if she requests their presence?

  4. Yoohoo says:

    I’m sure the lawyers and judges will take note of this. She is digging her own grave with a backhoe.

  5. Betti says:

    Of course she did – wonder how she’s going to explain it to the court. I can’t imagine the Monaco judge being pleased that she’s flouting his/her orders. Hope they get tough with her.

    • Sarah says:

      I have long thought that Kelly doesn’t really want custody of her kids. She has gotten her name in the press more often as the “mother fighting for her kids” than she has as an actress in eons. This is PR for her. If she really wanted custody of her kids she would have gone about things very differently. The fact that she continues the same strategy after repeatedly failing shows her true motives.

      • sherry says:

        @Sarah – I completely agree. If I was in a divorce situation with my husband, I wouldn’t be trying to gain public sympathy. I would be asking family counselors, my attorney and the court, “What is it that I need to do so that my children are okay?” and I would be following their advice down to the letter.

        Kelly is only concerned with what the public thinks of her, not whether or not her actions are causing her to lose custody of her children. Narcissist from the top of her head to the tips of her toes.

        And it’s because of that, those kids are better off with their father.

      • I see her as someone who either wants the kids all to herself, or not at all……

  6. danielle says:

    I saw the pics on daily mail earlier and thought , yup, she called the paps!

    • Ursula says:

      I really tried to give her the benefit of doubt. But one of the pictures shows her so clearly posing/ looking out the window trying to find the paps that there is no doubt she alerted them. But hey there is only that one set of photos. In the U.S. there be at least 5 different events she would have taken the kids to so that many more. She is trying, she really is. Not

  7. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    She definitely called the paps, no doubt about it… In Blick magazine, Swiss magazine, and the Abendzeitung -Münche- are stating that the 26th October court will be to address visitation schedules and that Kelly has already lost custody rights?

    • Joaneu says:

      Yes, most probably a pap call. Although there may be some thirsty folks (both pro & ordinary Joes) around in Monte Carlo at any given time, ready for opportunities like this. That can often be the case on the Champs-Elysses.

      CB, it is true that French tabloids are a little more respectful of kids images, for example, as they will blur out their faces and really shoot from a distance. However, they don’t hold back in digging for dirt. Often times, they will do a big exposé — even without hard facts, just to shock — knowing that they’ll get taken to court. When they do and are found guilty, they pay out and then have to use 1/3 – 1/2 of their front page in “apologising” publicly to whomever they smeared. (Sometimes this apology comes 6 months after the fact.) It doesn’t matter … the damage is done.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Do you think she lost that much? It would seem like too much to have taken place in one two hour appointment. The article says she lost and they are staying in Monaco with their father. That could mean that the original custody agreement stands, school year in Monaco.

      Would she have pulled this pap stunt if the judge said “All custody is removed. You will never see your children again if you disobey any terms of the custody agreement”? I think she lost the ability to take them back to NY right now, not that she’s lost all custody. We may not know until the end of October or even until next summer. The EU courts don’t publish court documents publicly do they?

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        I don’t think the whole custody was lost, just that the kids continue with their father. Now, will they ever get back to the US, even just on holidays? That’s still to be decided,,, in my opinion.
        I just stated what was written in the articles…

      • notasugarhere says:

        I didn’t meant it as criticism of you, but of the deliberate vagueness of the article itself. I think, like most of what People writes, it was written to make us think she’d lost custody permanently. Is it a reputable publication or considered more of a tabloid?

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        It’s the swiss People…

      • notasugarhere says:

        Ah okay, that explains a lot. Thanks!

  8. Merritt says:

    I find it paternalistic that she had to surrender her own passport. It is one thing to surrender the kids’ passports, but a woman should not need permission from her ex to leave by herself. That is straight up misogynist bs.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      It could have been the same ruling were genders reversed. The court assessed the risk to the children from her actions as a parent, not a woman.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Posters on another thread were explaining about having multiple copies of an individual passport for visa requests, the kids have two separate passports German and US, etc. Could it have been related to using her passport to get temp travel ones for the kids? I do not know if that is possible, I’m just wondering. IF there was some way that she could *try* to do that, then it makes sense her passport was held.

    • BlueNailsBetty says:

      Not in this case. I’m guessing she had to surrender her passport because she absolutely is the kind of person who would attempt to kidnap her kids from Monaco. By surrendering her passport it makes it harder for her to try it.

      • Merritt says:

        And how does she do that without their passports? She really can’t take anywhere without their passports.

        What taking away her passport does, it take away her ability to work at all. It puts her at complete mercy of her ex. That is dangerous.

        No wonder she is crazy, her ex is a sociopath. Sociopaths are great at getting everyone to side with them and making others seem nuts. My sister’s ex husband did that to her, fortunately they did not have kids together. It was only later that people began to get a clue. But he did nearly kill her in the process because he became so cocky with the police always believing him.

      • lucy2 says:

        I’m pretty sure she only has to surrender it while she’s visiting them for these couple of days, not forever, so it in no way affects her ability to work. And it was court ordered, her ex didn’t sneak in and steal it from her luggage.
        Given her history of kidnapping the kids and not following court custody orders, I think it’s perfectly fair she doesn’t have access to it while she’s with the kids.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Perhaps she could show up at a U.S. Embassy and say she has her passport but her children lost theirs. She’s kept the children from their father before, essentially kidnapping them. The restrictions aren’t only justified, im surprised she got time with the kids at all considering she withheld them last time.

      • Lena says:

        @merrit: there are no border controls between Monaco and France and borders are very lax in most of Europe, so she could easily take them over the border. What she would do afterwards would be the question, but she has behaved irrationally before. And they are not taking away her passport or limiting her ability to work- get a grip! It’s just that she can’t have the passport when she is together with her kids but she can get it anytime she wants to leave as long as she gives the kids back before. There is no sign that her ex is a sociopath and all the things happened are perfect standard procedure.

      • Neah23 says:

        @ Merritt

        What are you talking about this comment makes absolutely no sense. She not living in Monaco she visiting and how does her Ex holding her passport during her visit stop her from working?

        She is free to leave any times she wants to and how is her ex a sociopath? when he wants to make sure she does not try to kidnap the kids again.

      • Merritt says:


        You must be very lucky to have never dealt with men like her ex. They create a facade that people easily fall for and believe. They come across as reasonable and decent. But underneath they are master manipulators and are dangerous.

      • notasugarhere says:

        From what I’ve seen, Rutherford is far more likely to be the sociopath. She is the master manipulator here.

      • swack says:

        @Merritt, I get how you feel with the experience you have had with your sister and her ex. But all information points to Kelly doing everything in her power to eliminate the children from the dad’s life. This began with her not wanting to put his name on the birth certificate for their daughter to her getting his visa revoked (via her lawyer) to the incident this summer where she refused to return the children to the father when she was suppose to do so. Have not seen how he is a master manipulator as he has always been open to her having a relationship with the children and has even paid for her AND her boyfriend to come to France/Monaco to be able to see the children.

      • Pumpkin Pie says:

        I would add another safeguard, at immigration points, alerts can be set in case a person is pursued by law enforcement. Maybe alerts can be set in case a parent might abduct their children?

      • Neah23 says:

        @ Merritt

        You have no idea what type of man he is and all the evidence and his actions say he not the type of person you think he is. You seem to be letting your personal feeling get in the way and the Funny thing is your describing Kelly to a T.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Merritt

        She’s not working in neither France nor Monaco.

        Like someone said upthread, there seems to be no issue of her traveling between Monaco (where the kids live) and France (where the above photos were taken).

        Daniel is not holding her hostage. On the contrary, I bet that if she said she wants to leave and go back to the US, then he’d be ONLY TOO HAPPY to hear that good news.

        And as others here have said, her passports are under the court’s control, not his.

        For two years now, she’s said she’s going to keep the kids against court orders. She tried to do it last summer and she did it this summer. She even went on TMZ and asked if someone would take the kids from their father and bring them to the US and that “if something went wrong, we’re not saying it’s their fault.” This is a very scary statement. Who the hell would be OK and find no fault if “something went wrong?”

        And how do we know that Kelly doesn’t have two sets of passports for the kids with one set which she didn’t turn in or wouldn’t try to get some kind of emergency passports to get the kids to the US?

        She’s told the world that she believes there’s no court order nor law which she has to follow regarding keeping the kids away from their father.

        Also, if you go to gettyimages, under editorial images and Kelly Rutherford, you will see many photos of Kelly, the kids, her boyfriend, and a car with a packed trunk. The captions all read that they are leaving NYC on August 7, 2015. Note that this was the period during which she illegally kept the kids and refused to reply to Daniel’s repeated and daily requests for her to tell him exactly where the kids were during this abduction.

        And note that Daniel has never pulled these kinds of stunts against Kelly, including those MANY that are listed in the Statement of Decision of their custody case (Google Harris Ginsberg Statement of Decision Rutherford).

        I have a feeling you want to say the man is always the bad guy because of what happened to your sister, but it’s not always based on gender.

      • Wonderbunny says:


        You’re obviously free to speculate, just like everyone else here, but you’re looking at the situation from the point of view “something is going on, so the man must be evil and the woman must be good”. Perhaps you shouldn’t judge others of misogyny while holding such misandrist views?

        I get it that going through a traumatic experience can make you see the same pattern everywhere, and I sympathise with that, but it’s better to see people as humans first and men and women second. There are terrible and lovely people and gender has nothing to do with it.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      She is not getting permission from him, she is getting leave of the court and she has to surrender her passport when she is with the kids to lessen her ability to abduct them, which she has already done once

    • Heat says:

      She would be considered to be a high-flight-risk; so, she’ll get her passport back at the end of her stay (or whenever she wants to leave). I’m sure it’s just a precautionary measure. Given her behaviour up to now, I’d say it’s a valid precaution.
      I don’t think she needs her ex’s “permission” to leave…and it is extremely unlikely that he is holding onto it, personally. These are terms hashed out by lawyers.

    • LAK says:

      Not sure if this is applies here, but when i was child,i was added to both my parents’ passports. Eventually i obtained one for myself once i was old enough to travel as unaccompanied minor. i don’t have children so i don’t know if they can still be added to their parents’ passports and i can’t be bothered to google.

      However, when i read that KR had been asked to surrender her passport whilst in Monaco, my immediate assumption is that the kids, despite having their own set of passports, are probably additional travellers in her passport in the same way that i was as a child, and that she’s considered a potential flight risk whereby she could take the children with her even if she surrenders their passports.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      She’s not getting “permission” from her ex to leave. He wouldn’t be holding her passport; a 3rd party can give it to her when she makes plans to go. Since you think her ex is evil, I have to ask, have you read the court documents that are all over the internet to see the pattern of behavior that led to her losing primary custody of her kids? It’s pretty well documented how much she has undermined Daniel’s rights to joint custody and has violated the court agreements again and again. The judges all agreed that the current arrangement is what’s best for the kids, which is their primary concern.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      So basically you’re one of those individuals who completely plugs their ears to facts and goes with the fantastical lie.

      Good luck to the folks taking/wasting their time trying to explain this to you, you’ve already made up your mind in favor of what doesn’t make sense.

    • Fluff says:

      No, it’s because children can travel on their mother’s passport. If she surrendered the childrens’ passports but not her own, there would be nothing stopping her from taking the kids and getting on the first flight to the US with them.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Not anymore. The U.S. requires each individual to have his or her own passport, regardless of age.

  9. Jess says:

    Unbelievable, she continues to do whatever she wants with no regard for what her children need or what the judges have ordered. She’s lucky to be seeing them at all right now, her ex is obviously a decent father and knows the kids need a relationship with their mother.

  10. M.A.F. says:

    Wait, if she had to surrender her passport in order to see her children then how did she fly out of the country? Does she have citizenship in another country and used that passport?

    • vauvert says:

      There is no border control between Monaco and Monte Carlo.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      She had to surrender the passport to the court in Monaco…When returning to the US, she’ll pick it up again at the court…

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Used her US passport to fly to Europe and gets it back to fly back to the US.

    • Chinoiserie says:

      I was thinking about this as well, but obviously she just drove to France instead of flying there. But can you go to France from Monaco without passports? Or does not one just check at the border?

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        You can go anywhere in the Schengen area without passport, though you have to have one for the kids…

      • Lulu says:

        Your passport doesn’t get controlled inside Schengen even if you are taking a plane. And there is also no control on borders.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Eh,sorry but that’s not true. We can fly across EU borders without passports but with an ID issued in the EU. And a US one won’t do! This applies only to EU citizens. So yes, I sometimes carry only my EU driver’s license. But I can’t travel around EU and cross borders with my Canadian one by plane.

      • Fluff says:

        A lot of the time there aren’t even borders. Just a sign on the road saying “You are now in X country.” I got lost driving in Belgium once and was shocked to discover I was in Holland.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She’s still in France or Monaco. You can travel freely in the EU across country boundaries. She wouldn’t need her passport to travel between France and Monaco. Think of it more like driving from state-to-state vs. driving from the US to Canada or Mexico.

      • Lee1 says:

        Monte Carlo is in Monaco, not France so she didn’t have to cross any border at all here. I think the original article has been updated.

      • Celebitchy says:

        Both TMZ and The Daily Mail reported that these photos were taken in France. I’ve corrected the article and am sorry for the confusion!

    • Sixer says:

      No border control in the Schengen area, guys:

      • notasugarhere says:

        BBC had a short report last night on this being the 30th anniversary year. How it will play out with the economic refugee crisis will be something to watch.

      • Sixer says:

        Lots of apocalyptic warnings about Schengen falling apart over the refugee crisis. I think they’ll scrabble together in the end and preserve it, but it’s certainly exposing faultlines within the EU. Not that we here in our would-be island fortress of the UK are affected since we didn’t sign up for it. We’re too busy paying a fortune to build fences in Calais in case 0.000001% of them make it through the tunnel. Sigh.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        stll, the UK apparently is receiving refugees as well.. This whole situation is going to become a major nightmare… For them and for us..

      • Mary-Alice says:

        For us,citizens with valid citizenship and ready documents to prove it, regardless if it’s a passport or a driver’s license or even my health card! Not for anyone anytime. You all here make it sound like once you enter the EU, you’re in Wonderland, documentless and free. Not really. And even less so when flying but last trips to Italy driving, I had to show EU id as well.

  11. aims says:

    She’s psychotic. She can never be low key about anything. She zero regard for her children and their privacy.

  12. NUTBALLS says:

    I forgot what I was going to write after spying that hot photo of Idris up there.

  13. Neelyo says:

    With that header photo, the headline should read, ‘Kelly Rutherford photographed in the Valley of the Dolls’.

  14. byland says:

    Oh, Kelly. Just . . . they’re children, not trophies. Le sigh.

  15. QQ says:

    Did she call The paps??

    Is water wet?

    do Bitches be crazy?

    Is White the color of Innocence?

    Are American citizens pure?

    Can I have a Gifting Suite?

    Are Hampton Garden Parties Not The Best?

    Is Dan Abrahams my Best bud?

  16. notasugarhere says:

    I thought these were taken in France, not Monaco?

  17. funcakes says:

    I wish someone would drop her and Shia on a deserted island.

  18. wendi says:

    Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but in every photo I’ve seen of her son, he’s always dressed in white. Seems kind of strange for an active (presumably) 8 or 9 year old boy. I have a hard time getting my kids’ non-white clothes clean sometimes, but white would be a nightmare.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      The 3 of them are all wearing white and blue, don’t you love matching your clothes and your kids’ clothes? All mothers do that…
      *side-eyeing the matching of clothes*
      When those kids hit adolescence and have their own personal taste in the clothing department, how is she going to do?

      • Anon says:

        One would think by now, her children would have developed their own taste somewhat. My grandson’s favorite color is red, refuses to wear collared shirts, button-up shirts and he’s 3 and half. And although he hates to get dirty, he does…so all white clothing, just no.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        I’m sure they have, but still follow her choices (probably). Teenagers don’t do that…

      • Malificent says:

        Left to his own devices, I’m pretty sure her son would be wearing something with pirate skulls, dinosaurs, or his favorite sports team. I just had to talk my 8-year-old out of wearing his favorite black tank top with a lime green Minecraft “creeper” on the front for picture day at school.

      • jwoolman says:

        Matching hair styles for mom and daughter also… Although the little girl might have wanted it that way. Crazy though mom is, both kids like having her around. The judge in 2013 said both kids were strongly bonded to both parents and the custody arrangement was intended to keep it that way. Seems to be working, despite Kelly’s hysterics.

    • funcakes says:

      His family so rich they can buy 100 pair of those pants and just throw them away when they get dirty.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      What I find surprising is that the boy seems to have nothing but those grey-bluish shorts and that white t-shirt… Aren’t those the same clothes he was wearing in NY, ridding bikes and so on? I think these are the clothes fot the photo-ops…

      • anne_000 says:

        Yeah, I can imagine her saying “These are the clothes that you wear when you’re with me.” Like a mandatory uniform and intended to look good for the paps.

  19. Crumpet says:

    What I want to know is, was this visit supervised? I am dying to know what the Monaco court ruled.

    • anne_000 says:

      Even if it wasn’t supervised, there was probably little doubt by the people involved that Kelly would have the paps following her around and watching her every move anyways. LOL.

  20. OSTONE says:

    I thought that while traveling to a foreign nation, you always had to carry your passport with you for identification purposes. I could be wrong.. I had to renew my Mexican passport last year and they added my husband on it, so some countries do still add immediate family members to the passport. Also, in some countries to renew a passport for a minor, you need to have both mom and dad present or a notarized letter giving permission to the other parent if you will be absent.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      She travelled to Monaco with her passport, there, she had to surrender it to the Monaco court. In Europe (Schengen area) you don’t need a passport, she can travel from Monaco to France without a passport, it’s a 15 minute drive… When she returns to US she goes to court, picks up the passport and leaves..

      • zozigr says:

        You can while you drive you cant when your flying… Airport companies ask passports.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Very questionable, as I said above. Kelly is not an EU citizen and while driving may pass smoothly, it’s not guaranteed. Non EU citizens cannot just cross EU borders, yes they do exist still in relation to security!, just like that. I, as an EU citizen, am also required to always have a valid EU id to prove my identity, although as an EU citizen I don’t necessarily need it to be my passport. She is not a EU citizen, though just as my husband and I know very well what he is required to carry as we travel around Europe regularly.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        One has to be careful with the crossing of borders (non-EU in particular) if you don’t have the passport with you (though in her case, Monaco and France aren’t complicated and she was authorized to be with the kids in the vicinity of Monaco – that includes nearby french towns).
        I’m Portuguese, travel all the time to Spain and I’ve lost track of how often I’d find police patrols on the road and was asked to show my ID. A few years ago, I worked in another town and going trhough Spain was better that through POrtugal (better roads, less miles). So I’d cross the border, drove to the other town trhough Spain and re-enter Portugal. Did this for 3 years. Got pulled over every single week…. People think control is just in borders, it’s not. It’s on roads, etc…

    • jwoolman says:

      I’m sure she can carry some other acceptable form of ID and just direct authorities to the court if they need confirmation of her passport.

    • Wonderbunny says:

      I wouldn’t carry a passport with me everywhere when travelling (and always keep it in a safety deposit box if possible), but I have taken photocopies of the passport to have with me, just in case something happens.

      This has nothing to do with the Kelly story, but just wanted to pass on this little tip 🙂 Another tip would be to have a rubber band across the middle of the passport opening and slip any temporary travel documents underneath it. That way all those little airplane tickets and such are safe from getting lost.

      I don’t know why I felt the need to share this.

      • Bread and Circuses says:

        Well, I appreciate it! I knew about the photocopies, but that rubber band trick will come in useful! 🙂

  21. someone says:

    I’m not a Kelly fan but her daughter sure holds tight to her. I imagine the little girl misses her Mom no matter how crazy her mother is in regards to getting back at their father. Her father may be a wonderful father and her grandma may give her lots of love — but you know she misses her mom. I’m sure the kids wish Kelly would move to Monaco so they could split their time 50/50 with her and their Dad.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      Well, the problem is that Kelly refuses to move to Monaco… Only she knows why, which is a shame…

    • notasugarhere says:

      Since we haven’t seen them photographed with their father in years, she and her brother may cling just as strongly to him. She could simply be a little kid clinging to the known adult when they are in an unfamiliar place around strangers.

      According to Rutherford, their son asked why she doesn’t just move to Monaco to be with the rest of them. She responded along the lines of “you’re not French, I’m not French, why should we live there?” routine. Moving to Monaco doesn’t get her what she wants – cutting their father out completely – so she won’t do it. One day their kids will understand that mommy wanted to “win” more than she wanted to be with them.

      • minx says:

        Ugh, this woman…she CHOSE to have children with a man who is not American. He was just fine for that purpose.
        What a loon.

      • Insomniac says:

        Wow. That truly does say it all about her attitude. Wonder if her son will remember that when he’s older.

      • pat02 says:

        She can’t move to Monaco – or anywhere else – because her sizzling hot career is in the US!

    • sam1011 says:

      Holding close to mum also suggest good parenting from the dad and family. Instead of being vindictive and bash about Kelly to public (and I am sure in private too), DG has ensured and encourage the children relationship with their mother. Quite sure had resident custody was with Kelly, these kids would only knew their father through skype chats.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      I noticed that too and firstly. And it should be the focus of the whole story. I’ve said it before: the hysterics about how bad she is are not in the children’s best interest and thankfully are just online hysterics by total strangers who don’t get it. Kids love parents. When parents are not abusive and dangerous towards KIDS, no matter what they do to each other, kids must have both parents. End of the story. Taking any parent out of the equation will hurt only the kids. P.S. I find the writing here extremely manipulative already and far from any objectivity.

      • GrumpyCat says:

        Yeah, really too bad KR has spent so much time and energy over the last, what, seven years? trying to remove the father from the equation.
        You sure spend a lot of time and energy trying to defend the clearly manipulative individual here. People aren’t calling for KR to be removed from the parenting equation, they are calling for steps that will force her to cease and desist her constant violation of court orders and efforts to keep the children away from their father. I’d think you would be in support of that.

  22. jwoolman says:

    Yes, the kids would be happy to be able to freely move between their parents’ homes. That’s what would have happened if their dad could have stayed in New York. Kelly deprived them of that when she and her lawyer conspired to get his visa lifted on false charges. She can redeem herself by simply setting up a home base in France or Monaco for a few years to make it easy on the kids. Bet they could even get an exception to the usual residency rules in Monaco because her young kids are residents- it’s a tiny place, that could happen, and her ex could help her meet the money in the bank rules. Then she wouldn’t have to leave periodically to meet 3 months here/3 months there limits.

    • Crumpet says:

      My guess is, once she has FINALLY given up on this bid to take the kids away from Daniel, she will move to France or Monaco (with much sighing, sobbing and fainting, naturally). She actually does seem to have a good relationship with the children, and if they could get her to stop slamming their father to them, the children would be better off being able to see her more.

  23. Andrea says:

    Why are they always in white—-for the life of me I have never seen people wear white so often in my life, especially children.

  24. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    It’s sad how predictable this was.

    Legitimately sad.

    Sigh, Kelly is an ass. Maybe she’s a good mother based on her children’s body language around her, but she’s an impossible person to co-parent with. Also, a part of me wonders with all the stunts she pulls just how safe they are with her.

    It’s one thing to adore kids when they’re young and adorable, when they turn into stubborn, rebellious, and frustrating teenagers?

    Yeah I wouldn’t want to be a Giersch and have to be terrified waiting every night.

  25. Cindy says:

    She really should lose custody. With those color coordinated outfits, and the I am so innocent white shirts, it seems she thinks this is all a movie starring her as the heroic mother. Seriously, I do think that’s how she sees things. All about her, her her. I only know of this case from what I read on celebitchy, I wonder if the general public is buying this act.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Celebitchy has been one of the few media outlets to question Rutherford and her actions for a long time. Most, including People, Today Show, Daily Mail continue to support Rutherford’s version of events.

      Real kudos and thanks go to CB for having some Serious Spine in all of this.

      • Insomniac says:

        No kidding. It’s amazing how uninterested most US sites are in finding out why those kids are with Giersch. I’d have never known about that court decision if I didn’t read this site.

    • Izzy says:

      If you read the comments section on People (or “Kneepads,” as it has been so appropriately nicknamed), you’ll see that a lot of the commenters there have also read up on the case and are not buying the garbage that People is writing.

  26. SavageGrace says:

    Kelly? Called the paps? NEVA! If so – I’m shocked – so very, very shocked.


  27. Predictable indeed. There has to be a gag order preventing her or her attorneys from shooting their mouths off. There’s no way she has been this quiet since the Sep. 3rd court date by choice.

  28. Manjit says:

    I’m sure it’s Fame/Flynet that is known to work with the celebs. Iirc, the celeb part owns the images wiith FF and so when they are sold to mags and tabloids the celeb gets a percentage of the money. I would imagine Kelly needs some revenue atm so FF to the rescue.

  29. Izzy says:

    Is anyone else here struck by the stark contrast in her facial expressions here, when she’s with her kids, vs outside the courthouse in NYC, when she was being ordered to return them from her little abduction stint?

    She was ear-to-ear grins in NYC, and smiling away in her subsequent TV appearances, when her kids where torn from her, boo frickety hoo. Now, she’s with them, and she looks miserable.

    That says it all, doesn’t it, about what her priorities really are? This is not about the kids, and never was. It’s all about her martyrdom.

  30. Lotta says:

    I think she looks really tired and worned out in the close up through the window. I don’t think things are working out like she hoped for…

  31. Stacey says:

    Yep, all three of them are color coordinated. Good grief.

    • Betti says:

      And thats how you know she tipped the paps off for a staged photo opp. They are always papped wearing all white.

  32. Sunshine says:

    I don’t think I have seen a photo of her out with her kids without an iPad to parent them for her. There it is again,

  33. Layla says:

    Generally, I am with the CB community on almost any topic of substance. But on this, I don’t know…why do we all gloss over the fact that the state dept found reason to revoke Daniel’s passport? Either due to fraud or dealing in drugs or arms according to reports. I get that Kelly was behind it but is it possible that the man is dangerous, she knows it, and was doing whatever she could to protect them? IDK just seems very one-sided to completely ignore this fact in our discussions.

    • Peanutbuttr says:

      Because there is no proof. If he was really dealing arms or drugs, why hasn’t he been investigated by the German government and arrested?

      If you actually look back at celebitchy’s coverage, you’ll see that cb had initially been neutral, if not sympathetic as the media coverage has mostly sided with Kelly. However, when the actual facts came out, like court docs, that’s when CB changed.

      • Peanutbuttr says:

        PS, as has been mentioned many times, the mere accusation is enough to get your visa revoked.

        During business school orientation, we were told someone in our group wasn’t going to come after all and we later found out that he had the same name as a suspected terrorist so couldn’t get a visa.

    • SavageGrace says:

      Being accused of a serious crime will get a visa immediately revoked; he was accused of a dealing illegal arms, which is considered a terrorist offense and, under the Victory Act, calls for immediate expulsion from the country. No investigation needed first. Anyone who believes the US government would allow a foreigner to remain in their country after they’ve been accused of a terrorist offense is living in a fairy land; same with those who think all he has to do is reapply for a visa and he’ll immediately be allowed back. Only in fairy land, folks – and we’re most certainly not in fairy land.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      NOT glossed over OR ignored. Discussed at great length through the various KR threads, including considerable research, links to appropriate court documents, and general context provided by lawyers who actually work in the field and deal with State Dept. issues.

    • notasugarhere says:

      If any of the lies about them had merit, Giersch would be in prison. He’s a free man because he didn’t commit any crimes.

      He has his passport. What he doesn’t have is a visa to visit or work in the US. Why doesn’t he have his visa? Because she refused to do her part to get it returned. As of 2014, the visa issue no longer matters. She had until January 2014 to do something about it, she didn’t, so citizenship and visa are no longer part of future custody discussions.

  34. Anon says:

    Imho, this is Kelly Rutherford. “Having a narcissist for a mother is a lot like living under the supervision of a six-year-old. Narcissists are always pretending, and with a narcissistic mother it’s a lot like, “Let’s play house. I’ll pretend to be the mother and you pretend to be the baby,” though, as the baby, you’ll be expected to act like a doll (keep smiling, no matter what) and you’ll be treated like a doll — as an inanimate object, as a toy to be manipulated, dressed and undressed, walked around and have words put in your mouth; something that can be broken but not hurt, something that will be dropped and forgotten when when something more interesting comes along.”

  35. Patricia says:

    I pulled up the Children’s Justice Campaign Facebook page (the CJC website didn’t come up) to get a look and found something disturbing. Scroll down to September 2 to see side by side a black and while illustration of faceless beings captioned “American citizen children NOT ordered to leave the US because their mother is here illegally.” Beside it a photograph of the lovely Kelly hugging her beautiful flaxen haired children. The caption “American citizen children ORDERED to leave the US because their mother is American.” Bigotry at its ugliest.

  36. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    The passport thing makes sense if the Monaco court believes she is capable of committing a crime while visiting — that way she cannot flee the jurisdiction without answering to the court first. Although it would be difficult to take the kids to America without the kids’ own passports, what if she did something else with the kids — like get a friend to hide them away somewhere in Europe? She shouldn’t be allowed to leave Monaco under those circumstances, until the kids are safely returned to their dad. Giving her past actions, I think holding her passport (in addition to her kids’) makes sense.

  37. Harrison says:

    Of course she called the paps. A normal person would be on their best behavior fearful at the prospect of losing their children– not this freak show. It’s a fun photo op for her. What a cold-hearted snake.

  38. Kat Matz says:

    Why does everyone hate her so much, if I lost my kids, I’d be despondent. She looks pretty stressed looking out the window at the paps, in my opinion. Does anyone know if he is an arms dealer, btw?

    • GrumpyCat says:

      She hasn’t lost her children. She is unhappy because she has to SHARE custody (as do millions of parents) with their father. A father who has paid all of her expenses for many visits to the country they reside in now purely due to HER actions.
      The ‘arms dealer’ rumor has been dealt with manymany times. Please read the court documents for verification that his visa was revoked due to the actions of KR’s lawyer.
      Most Celeb*tches would agree she isn’t hated. Her ACTIONS, however, are despised. Because they have been despicable.
      What kind of mother tries to keep the father’s name off of the birth certificate for three years, in the face of multiple court orders to put it on there?

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      He’s not.

      Kelly’s lawyer threatened to have Daniel thrown out of the country unless he signed away his parental rights. Kelly herself was listening in when this happened, and she didn’t interrupt it, so the lawyer had her permission to do it. When Daniel refused, the lawyer lied to the state department in order to make good the threat.

      This is all in court documents, by the way. It’s not rumour; it’s a matter of public record. Kelly getting Daniel deported is the reason why a judge gave Daniel primary custody — so the 50/50 joint custody that wasn’t good enough for Kelly could still happen. Daniel lets Kelly see the kids; Kelly would kick Daniel out of the kid’s lives permanently if she could.

    • JaneS says:

      Katz Matz, I’d suggest you read the court documents. Enlightening.

      Lol, I love the ‘I hear he’s an arms dealer’ by the way. You know that’s not true but keep on repeating it and it may become reality!

      • Kat Matz says:

        I could really care less what he does. It was a question, not a statement. My observation is that she looks sad, which any mother would be if she lost custody of her kids, which is essentially what has happened…50% of the time. And no, I won’t read the court documents. The details of their divorce are not my business and, really, who would waste their time? Apparently quite a few.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It isn’t your business and you won’t waste time on it. BUT you come to this thread and try to re-start the long-dead conversation about why Giersch’s visa was revoked.

        Sea lion.

      • Paleokifaru says:

        Given that Ms. Rutherford is spending taxpayers, our, money on this custody battle and wasting the time of the court, it is our business. She made it the business of the American people when she began her media campaign to speak on our behalf and use citizenship as a weapon in her battle against her ex. I don’t want Congress involved in this and wasting time and money.

      • Alice says:

        Well Katz… She dug herself into a hole and is too stupid to stop shovelling.

        Divorce when you have kids usually means that afterwards you don’t have them 100% of the time, one way or another.
        In this case, they were working out a shared custody agreement. Both parents were living in the same city, which would have given both of them a much easier time of being a part of the daily lives of their kids. Someone in Kelly’s camp, be it her lawyer or at her own suggestion, thought it would be a good idea to have his visa revoked on mere accusations so he would have to leave the country, without having thought through the possible consequences. The man is basically a computer techno-geek, not an arms dealer.

        Maybe she IS sad…but she herself created the situation that she now finds herself in and has consistently done things to make it worse. If she had set aside her ego from day one and played nicely, she wouldn’t find herself where she is now.

        I’m sure that maybe the father looks sad when his kids aren’t with him too, but we just don’t see it because he’s made a point of keeping his, and his children’s lives private.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She is a washed up TV actress. She admitted she only worked 6 weeks a year, and that was a few years ago when people were still hiring her.

      She could spend as much time as she wants with the kids, up to 50 percent, IF she accepted the free home Giersch offered her in France. She has instead chosen to spend the majority of her time away from their kids.

  39. Marsha says:

    The Next Steps: Danny Boy gets the kids; KR laments in the media; S***storm dies down; KR feels neglected. KR back on front cover announcing new pregnancy with title “Happiness after Heartbreak”…in 5….4….3…2….

  40. notasugarhere says:

    The DM is still refusing to post most comments on the Rutherford article. They’ve been stuck at 45 for over a day how. Frustrating.

    • pat02 says:

      that seems to be par for the course with the daily mail.

    • SavageGrace says:

      My comments on DM’s articles on this case haven’t been accepted in months, not since I posted a correction to the vast misinformation in their article and in comments. LOL Same with many other biased stories they write. They really must get it over with and change their name to “The Daily Propaganda Mail”. 😉

  41. notasugarhere says:

    She’s returned to the US to attend New York Fashion Week. She chooses this over their kids? Whatever.