Kelly Rutherford lost custody of her children due to ‘strong risk’ of abduction

Exclusive... Kelly Rutherford Doing A Photoshoot For The Blue Ocean Film Festival
As we heard earlier this week, Kelly Rutherford lost custody of her two children, Hermes, nine, and Helena, six, to her ex husband, Daniel Giersch. The children have lived with their father in Monaco since 2012. Kelly was awarded €3,000 a month maintenance and can no longer have the children visit her in the US. She will be allowed to visit with them in Monaco for about half of their school vacations. This seemed like an inevitable ruling by the Monaco court, which only recently gained jurisdiction over the case. Kelly previously kept the children with her in New York past their scheduled visitation time this summer, deliberately causing them to miss their plane. She also did not bring the children with her to court at first as required, although she eventually surrendered them when ordered by the NY judge.

We reported on the news as obtained by the Daily Mail. The ruling took place in Monaco on November 26, suggesting that there may have been a gag order in place or else Kelly would have played it up in the press by now, right? (So far we have no evidence of that and it’s just conjecture on my part.) I’m also assuming that The Daily Mail found the court ruling on their own, as their papers were dated 12-14.

TMZ obtained additional information in which the judge ruled that Kelly posed a “strong risk of abduction” to her children:

Rutherford lost custody of the children in August to battled ex-husband Daniel Giersch, who is a resident of the country. In a written ruling, obtained by TMZ, the judge said there was “a strong risk of the children’s abduction and retention in the United States” — translation, there was a big chance she’d flee with the kids

[From TMZ]

I don’t really understand how Kelly supposedly lost custody in August as TMZ claims when the ruling on The Daily Mail is dated November 26. Plus the last we heard she was ordered to surrender her passport and the children’s US passport while visiting and her case was heard in Monaco this September, not August. Then, in October, multiple outlets reported that no decision had yet been made in the case. So their reporting doesn’t add up but maybe Kelly lied to the press.

Regardless it’s true that Kelly posed an abduction risk. Not only did she commit parental abduction by keeping the children with her this August, she made multiple threats that she would abduct them. She even spoke to TMZ with her lawyer and encouraged other people to take the children on her behalf. She said:

I think it would be wonderful for somehow to show how much they appreciate US citizens. I think whoever brings my kids home is going to be pretty much a hero. I mean they’re going to be doing the right thing for children, for citizens of America. It’s a very pro-America thing to do. If something went wrong, we’re not saying it’s their fault, we’re saying we really need some help here.

[From CB story of TMZ video]

Later, after she was ordered to surrender the children this summer, Kelly made the ridiculous statement that “When you’re an American citizen you’re not required to obey a foreign country, especially a foreign country where you have no citizenship.”

So the Monaco judge made a ruling based on Kelly’s behavior and her statements on-the-record. There’s no provision in the ruling posted on The Daily Mail for a monitor to be present during Kelly’s visits but it seems more than warranted in this case.

Blue Legacy Awards

Patti Labelle and OneRepublic perform live at The Angel Ball

Exclusive... Kelly Rutherford Doing A Photoshoot For The Blue Ocean Film Festival

photo credit: and FameFlynet

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

155 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford lost custody of her children due to ‘strong risk’ of abduction”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. lilacflowers says:

    Not surprising. And her visitation will probably be monitored. Deservedly. The children deserve a better parent than that jingoistic bigot who refuses to vaccinate them.

    • Audrey says:

      She should be monitored because she clearly talks about what’s going on with her children and upsets them by talking about continuing to fight for them, etc.

      I’m sure the kids were upset at the end of their summer visit and I’m also sure it had a lot to do with what she said to them or in front of them.

      She doesn’t care about any mental or emotional damage, she just wants to win

    • raincoaster says:

      The fact that someone wants their children badly does not mean they are the best custodial parent. I’m astonished the media has been on her side the way it has been. She abducted her children and flouted court rulings made for their benefit, because she wanted them, period.

  2. Miss M says:

    Does it mean a third party is holding their US passports?

  3. Nancy says:

    As a mother, I can relate to her agony…..but she pushed the envelope with her theatrics, I think anyway….Not Without My Daughter. Hopefully her ex has a heart somewhere and will allow a relationship with she and her children albeit long distance. I’d move to be near them, but that’s just me.

    • swack says:

      He has always been the one to be wanting a relationship between her and their children. He hasn’t prevented her from seeing the children or communicating with them.

    • lilacflowers says:

      If her ex didn’t have a heart, he would have sought to terminate her visitation rights completely or limited contact even further. She has abducted those kids twice. She has refused to comply with court orders. She has asked the general public to kidnap her children. All that would and should weigh against her. So far, there is still shared custody. She still has a voice in decisions affecting their education and health care, despite the fact that she stupidly refuses to vaccinate them.

      • Nancy says:

        Lilac: Thanks for educating me. She sounds mentally ill, but I’m sure she’s been analyzed time after time. At some point, she has to have acceptance or she is doomed.

      • Suzy from Ontario says:

        She’s lucky she wasn’t cited for parental alienation, because if I was her husband, I’d also be very concerned about what she was putting into the kids’ heads about their father. She has hinted to the press that the children have said they were fearful of being sent back to their father, etc. when there’s no evidence that he’s been anything but a good father. He has been beyond patient in trying to work with her and have her in the kids’ lives and she has done everything she can to manipulate the situation and parade the kids in front of every camera possible. She drags them to all kinds of events when they are in the US so she can be photographed with them instead of simply spending time being with them and enjoying their company. I’m not sure this isn’t more about her winning over her husband than her just loving and missing her kids. She is so off the deep end with her rhetoric and actions that I’m glad the judge made this decision. She scares me and I would worry that she may do something drastic to hurt him and take the kids away from him forever. I do hope her visits with the kids in Monoco will be monitored as well. The kids are getting older and they love their Dad and the life they have there. She will eventually lose them if they keeps this up because she is putting them in the middle and that’s never a good place for the kids to be. If she really loved them, she’d want what was the best for them to keep them happy and healthy.

      • She also made vague threats against his safety. Remember that weird ‘if something should happen…’ part of her begging people to kidnap her kids for her?

      • Canafian Becks says:

        Delusional as Kelly, she is not stupid.

        It surely has not escaped her that should Daniel die, say, by the hands of an extremist who took her public comments to heart, she would be sitting pretty, with no one standing in her way to get those kids.

        I think she could be THAT vicious.

    • original kay says:

      Don’t bait the troll.

      • Nancy says:

        i’m not baiting kay, at least I hope not. I just don’t want her kids to be motherless. They will be fine now, with an opulent lifestyle, but later on in life, they will want to know every single detail. I don’t know the full story, don’t want to, but ugly relationships never end up with happy endings. Not just her….Suri, Courtney Love’s kid and so on. Ai yi yi.

      • K says:

        She isn’t being a troll she is asking a legit question. Clearly she hasn’t read every article on this and was just saying while the judge did the right thing hope the father let’s her be in the kids life. There was no baiting just not a detailed knowledge of all the facts of this mess.

        personally I don’t understand why she won’t move or admit what she did so he can get his visa back and then all them can come back to the US if that is what they think is best. she has a career that is more nimble she can travel for work she doesn’t have a 9-5 where she has to live where her job is all the time.

        Honestly those poor kids are just accessories to her, there is a reason she named her son after a luxury leather brand.

      • Suzy from Ontario says:

        Plus the kids won’t be motherless. She still has visitation and is in their life just as much as many fathers who see their kids. It’s up to her to make her presence in their life something they enjoy and want to continue. With her past antics she is pushing them away, she just doesn’t realize it yet.

      • FUTMZ says:

        The kids won’t be motherless…… “new mom” will see to that.

      • Fluff says:

        >>The kids won’t be motherless…… “new mom” will see to that.

        Eh? There’s no stepmother in the picture, is there?

      • notasugarhere says:

        FUTMZ is all over the People thread, trying to get someone to bite about their fan fiction regarding Giersch. I’d advise checking their posts on People yourself, so you can decide whether or not you want to engage with them given their behavior over there.

    • Belle Epoch says:

      I would have moved in a heartbeat and gotten a job canning fish if that’s what it took. What is this glorious career of hers in CA that is so important? I really dislike the woman. Her brain is scrambled eggs.

      • Zip says:

        She’s got a new rich boyfriend, no?

      • Fallon says:

        Exactly, Belle Epoch. +1000

      • Lurker says:

        Zip, her boyfriend is a department manager at Chanel in NY. I think it’s Chanel. Anyway, he’s a retail manager at a fancy designer store. Not exactly loaded.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Menswear manager at a Gucci in Manhattan.

      • Erinn says:


        If it were me, (I’d never be in this circumstance because I’m not nuts, and am not married to a nutter either) as soon as I realized the kids would be spending a big chunk of their time in another country – I’d be doing whatever I could to live in that country, or at least in an adjacent one. I’d change careers, pack up and go, and I’d do anything I could possibly do to be with them. I realize you can’t just up and move to another country – but if she’d spent half the time researching her opportunities as she had on a smear campaign, she would be so much further ahead, the kids would be happier, and everything would be less stressful for them.

        Yes, she’s an actress – but when it comes to seeing the kids you supposedly love so much you’re willing to kidnap them, and having at the very least more means than the average joe – I don’t think it’s unreasonable to sacrifice your career for your kids. So many regular parents make incredible sacrifices for their kids every day of their life – but she’s a complete narcissist, so no wonder she hasn’t thought of it.

      • lucy2 says:

        Exactly, Erinn. People have been wondering for a long time why she didn’t just move to/near Monaco to be with the kids, especially when her ex offered to buy her a place to live. But it’s all about her winning.

        Her career is basically a few guest spots on TV shows a year. She could easily live elsewhere and fly in for the occasional job, or spend time in LA for pilot season or whatever, and live the rest of the time near her kids.

      • supposedtobeworking says:

        I would too, but getting into Monaco as a resident is incredibly difficult. You have to deposit between 300 000 to 1 million euros into a bank account as part of the application process. I am not sure if she has ever been held in contempt of court or anything, but a criminal record would render her ineligible.
        She would have to live in a neighbouring country, which would also require immigration approval.

        She really just should have refrained from trying to get him deported in the first place.

      • Veronica says:

        I’m with you. I’d be doing any and all jobs if that’s what it took to be near my daughter.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ supposedtobeworking

        She could probably live in France near the border to Monaco and be about a half-hour from her kids, and she could look for work in England, which is also not too far away from France/Monaco. Or she could live in England and work there like Lindsay Lohan does. If Lindsay can do it with all her baggage, then why can’t Kelly?

    • Fluff says:

      The ex has gone out of his way to accommodate her, for example buying her a home in Monaco and giving her an insane travel allowance to allow her to fly over as frequently as she wants. Honestly if it was me, I’d have tried to put a stop to her long ago. He must be superhumanly nice to continue putting the kids’ relationship with their mother first, despite all the evil and criminal things she’s done to him.

      • sills says:

        Absolutely, he has gone above and beyond to keep things above board and keep those kids in contact with their mom, as well as refraining from any trash-talking in the press. If I were in his shoes, I honestly do not think I would have been as patient or calm as him.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Okay about that insane travel allowance, am I reading it wrong? 3,000 Euros wouldn’t even pay for one first class rt ticket. You could get two rts on coach for that if you bargain shop, but yesterday someone called that amount “whopping.” It’s pretty modest for a New York- Monaco lifestyle.

      • Lisa says:

        He must have the patience of a saint, really great lawyers and, most importantly, love his kids a lot to be willing to work with the nutjob that is their mother. He appears to be putting his kids’ interests first and foremost despite the slanderous lies and actions their mother’s been undertaking. I hope her visitation is supervised as I feel the kids could be in danger is alone with her. If she doesn’t change her tune and admit her mistakes, she might do something desperate just to get back at their father. Yes, I think she is that delusion and vindictive.

      • vauvert says:

        I wouldn’t call 3,000 Euros insane but it is definitely sufficient to cover travel expenses including business class tix for every visit – she gets the kids during school holidays, it’s not like she can get them every weekend. (I go to Europe form Canada every summer. Business class to London and Paris are around 3,000 Euros. If she goes four times a year, she has the money from the other 8 months to pay for hotel, car, travel from Paris to Monaco etc.)

      • minx says:

        I know, can you imagine? A home in Monaco? I’d be there in a heartbeat.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That isn’t listed as a travel allowance in the decision on the DM. That amount is for schooling and maintenance for the kids. There may be other previous arrangements regarding her travel expenses.

      • Zwella Ingrid says:

        Just imagine how you would feel if your ex had abducted your kids, and was a constant threat of doing so again. This man is a saint. We some how have given her somewhat of pass since she is a woman, because if a man had done this, we would be all over his sh!t.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        The “insane travel arrangements” have nothing to do with the 3000 euros/month. He was paying for her to fly to Europe whenever she wanted to see the kids. it was not a court ordered thing, it was him being a fully functioning adult who knows how to behave and wants what’s best for his children.

      • Fluff says:

        You can fly return NY-Paris for like £300, £400 economy.

        Though the other commenters are right, the $3,000 aren’t anything to do with the travel allowance. I think he offered her the use of a private jet or something.

    • Sam says:

      She’s made some terrible insinuations about her ex. She’s stated in the press that he has an “usually close” relationship with his mother (implying that there may be something incestuous between them) as well as implying he is some kind of super-criminal (which has never been proven or validated in any way). So she is really, genuinely awful in this.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Nancy

      He pays for several visits per year, including airfare, residence, and car service. She’s taken advantage of them by bringing her boyfriend along to the three-bedroom house that Daniel got for her stay and she’s spent her time there going to the Cannes Film Festival.

      She’s told the media that she’s visited the kids 80 times, so that’s one proof that he’s very accommodating when it comes to visiting the kids.

      He’s sent the kids to the US to be with her even after she’s said told the US courts that her only remedy might be to keep them against court orders, after telling TMZ that somebody should kidnap the kids from their father and she won’t blame them if anything goes wrong, after telling the media that he’s a bad father and that the kids should not be with him but with her, etc.

      He has the kids Skype Kelly (on a daily basis, iirc) when she’s not in France/Monaco. He writes her letters to update what is going on with the kids so that she regularly stays informed about them.

      His and his lawyers have continuously stated that he wants her to be in their kids’ lives and would never be against it because he knows they love her. He’s said he’s going to continue this pattern even after all of this mess she’s still doing.

      He’s proven to the custody court judge and the court-assigned experts that he is willing to co-parent with her.

      So, imo, there’s nothing to show that he will not keep pushing for a relationship between her and the kids.

      I know you said you don’t want to know much more about the case, but if you do, just search for: Statement of Decision Kelly Rutherford

      • ERM says:

        @anne – your summary just makes me angrier on his behalf and sadder for those children. Rutherford is in it for herself – she has demonstrated time and time again that she wants props not children and is incapable of putting their welfare above her wants.

    • Tarsha says:

      She was the one who said she intends to raise the kids without a father. She was the one who created a lie to get him deported, and out of the children’s lives. She was the one who tried to destroy any chance the children have of having a relationship with their father. He was the one who went above and beyond to ensure the kids still had a relationship with their mother.

    • Breakfast Margaritas says:

      Agreed . I would move to the same city to be in my children’s lives regularly. Hopefully she can find work in Monaco so that her kids will not grow up without their mom.

  4. LAK says:

    it needs to be remembered that this august’s kidnapping wasn’t the first time she kidnapping the children. she kidnapped them in 2014 too. And told Federal court she would do it again – writ large in the court documents.

    i think everything that has happened over the course of the year since that court case has been a test to see how far each side would go. She escalated and made good on her threat and Daniel took steps to prevent her making good on said threat.

    • Celebitchy says:

      LAK Do you have a link for the 2014 kidnapping charges? From what I can find she only threatened to kidnap them in 2014 and didn’t do it until this year.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Looks related to not returning them on time in August 2014. I couldn’t find if charges were filed.

        Kelly Rutherford Could Face Kidnapping Charges In Custody Battle With Ex — His Lawyers ‘Preparing Response’ To Her Latest Salvo
        Radar Online
        August 2014

      • LAK says:

        The Federal court papers were on radaronline, but have since been removed. They were embedded within the article below. Article appears to have been re-written and only this paragraph from the papers used.

        “As children, Petitioners’ only option short of obtaining relief from this Court would be to have their mother retain them in the United States in violation of the California order, and have the the California court (or other jurisdiction) hold the mother in contempt and/or impose sanctions,” her court filing read. “Such an option would deny the children a meaningful remedy and expose the mother and her children to unjust punishment.”

      • Celebitchy says:

        LAK I did reference that in the original story. She didn’t kidnap them in 2014 she just threatened to. It’s still bad, but not the same.

  5. swack says:

    TMZ reporters aren’t the brightest, so I take whatever they say with a grain of salt. Maybe when she comes to visit she will have to hand over her passport to a judge so that she can’t leave. Let’s hope they will not allow overnight visits with her at this point.

  6. NewWester says:

    Been following this custody case for awhile and I have to ask: Did Kelly have shoddy legal advice or did she just refuse to listen to her legal team? Did this woman have any family or close friends sit her down and tell her that her behaviour/actions could affect her keeping custody?
    It is almost as if Kelly wanted to lose custody of her children. It will be interesting if she makes an effort to be in her children’s lives in the future

    • lucy2 says:

      I got the impression it was both. She’s delusional and a narcissist, and I think her lawyers like the publicity all this drama brought.

      I would be thrilled if she’d just go away now. I don’t want to hear anymore from her about America or citizenship or how “cruel” the courts are to her children. They’re safe, happy, and loved, and she brought this all on herself.

    • LAK says:

      given the actions and or words of the 2 lawyers we know she had, i think she had some bad advise from this army of lawyers AND she retained lawyers who would go with her crazy plans as opposed to lawyers who would give sensible advise and advise following the law.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I think the fact that she has gone through multiple lawyers during this fight indicates that she was refusing to listen to her legal team or demanding to pursue courses of action that were extremely unlikely (e.g., sole legal and physical custody in the U.S. with her and only Skype contact with Daniel). Most courts will not release a lawyer from representing a client unless a) the client has secured new counsel and no longer wants the prior lawyer to represent them or b) there is a serious ethical problem with the lawyer continuing to represent the client. Refusing to obey court orders or ignoring the lawyer’s advice are two excellent reasons for an attorney to ask to be removed from a case. By the way, not being paid is NOT usually a valid reason a lawyer can seek to withdraw from a case. I have seen more than one judge refuse to release a lawyer in that situation!

      • lilacflowers says:

        And family law cases generate the most complaints of and investigations for legal malpractice because nobody is ever happy in a family law case so they blame the lawyers.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      “It is almost as if Kelly wanted to lose custody of her children.”

      I think you may be right. After all, how is she going to keep her name in the press and get interviewed if she just quietly cooperated with family court in the first place? She basically has no career other than starring in her own version of a reality show, which we can call The Kelly Trials.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        True, but conversely how long will anyone be interested in interviewing her?

        Kelly’s problem is she’s wrong. If you want to sympathize her (as some media outlets have) then you have to completely abandon any facts from the case in favor of focusing exclusively on her sob story. That only works so many times.

        Sob stories only appeal for so long and already the tide of public opinion has begun to turn on her. If it was her plan she’s shot herself in the foot twice.

    • anne_000 says:

      She’s had at least 10 lawyers. She’s had one private investigator who found nothing she could smear on Daniel (and whom she refused to pay in full so he sued her for non-payment). She was given a choice by the judge to release one of the lawyers who called the State Department on Daniel and threatened to accuse him of kidnapping. But she chose to keep this lawyer (whom she later said she barely knew at the time, iirc) and dump the other lawyer who had been working 18-months on her case at the time.

      A US Weekly article has her quoted as saying that her family told her that she can’t keep this up. Nobody can because it’s a money pit. She said she was living in a friend’s maid’s room at the time.

      So no, crazy doesn’t know what’s crazy and so she doesn’t know when to stop being crazy.

    • Santia says:

      Her attorneys sounded as arrogant and delusional as she did. it was a match made in hell that she found them. Frankly, I still feel sorry for her. In her mind, she believes she is right and that she is actually fighting FOR her kids and what’s best for them. It sounds like she was surrounded by enablers and yes people.

      • Michelle says:

        Oh I believe Kelly calls all the shots. If the attorneys don’t follow her gameplan, they are gone. That’s why she is left with those only after publicity and $$$, not applying the law and giving good advice. Daniel has had the same attorney throughout it all, while she has gone through a dozen.

        This case does make her attorneys look extremely incompetent.

  7. original kay says:

    Be hard for her to spin this one.

  8. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    She was an idiot for refusing to bring the kids to court, even with refusing to send the kids back at the appointed time if she had just brought them to court I think they’d have let her slide again.

    But directly ignoring and being stubborn with a judge? Yeah, sad to say judges hate when they get disrespect even if they don’t always exercise proper judgement regarding a case. I’ve seen cases go against a person because the judge perceived a lack of respect from them.

    But you can’t tell a narcissist anything. The good thing is her kids are safe from her nonsense.

  9. Kattttt says:

    A friend of mine on Facebook (who clearly knows Rutherford in some personal way) was saying last night how terrible this ruling was and how she was going to e mail her. I really wanted to jump in and ask what Kelly had been telling her because how anyone in possession of the facts can’t think this conclusion wasn’t writ large after her refusing to send the children back to Monaco is quite foolish.

  10. MonicaQ says:

    Well you thumb your nose at the law, this is what you get. Unlike some of the more kind people here, I *don’t* feel sorry for her. Those kids were a way for her to get press and now she’s going to be on Fox and Friends pleading for Obama to declare war on Monaco because this is just like Benghazi or something convoluted and dumb.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I WISH I could be deported to Monaco to live in a mansion!!!

    • Size Does Matter says:

      That’s what I’ve been thinking, too. There are plenty of people out there who agree that the kids should be in the USA (because MURICA) with Kelly (because MOTHERS) and this ruling will just add fuel to the fire. Those people don’t care about the specific facts of the case.

    • bluhare says:

      Ha, MonicaQ! I can see Albert getting all puffed up over that.

      Save the Pennsylvania Princeling! (That’s for LAK)

  11. tifzlan says:

    ““When you’re an American citizen you’re not required to obey a foreign country, especially a foreign country where you have no citizenship.”

    Nothing makes my blood boil more than “America is the center of the world” statements like this.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      Yet the minute someone from a foreign country steps foot in the U.S., everyone expects them to “follow our rules or get out.” There are MANY countries that do various things much better than we do, so I don’t get the “America is the best and greatest in all the world and the only country that matters” mentality.

      • MonicaQ says:

        Because Back to Back World War Champions. /sarcastic flex.

      • @MonicaQ both times the Yanks only came in at the last minute. Easy enough to claim to be the winner when you weren’t in the game slogging it out for years first. Which is why when people make that comment seriously my eye twitches.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Mentioned by someone else on here, the brilliance of Eddie Izzard on WWII:

        By the time America came in – you were watching a US cavalry film. The US cavalry always comes in towards the end of the film. “OK, let’s go, America. I love the smell of Europe in the morning. How are you?”

        We were going, “F-ing hell, where’ve you been?”

        “Having breakfast. So, what’s going on?”

      • MonicaQ says:

        @Tenticle Kitten, I know, I teach community college history, hence the “sarcasm” part of that.

      • Robin says:

        1941 was hardly “the last minute”.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Britain had been in it for two years at that point.

    • Zwella Ingrid says:

      That’s what makes me so mad. Americans don’t need any further helped being portrayed as entitled idiots.

  12. Fluff says:

    This is a woman who made a false report to the authorities about terrorism, just to get her ex deported, and to this day refuses to formally withdraw it (which she needs to do before he can re-apply to visit America). She’s extremely lucky she wasn’t arrested or charged for that. I doubt Homeland Security take a positive view of people faking information about terrorism just to influence a petty domestic squabble.

    • Izzy says:

      What’s more, she really can’t withdraw it, can she, without facing legal consequences of her own for it?

    • Robin says:

      I don’t get why the State Department cares whether she withdraws the accusation or not. Why not just process any visa application from Daniel Giersch on its own merits, and forget about the lie his ex-wife told?

      • Bearcat Lawyer says:

        Because a terrorism allegation is a permanent bar against entry to the U.S. and it is difficult to prove a negative. There is no waiver process for people to get visas to the U.S. in this situation. The only way for Daniel to get around it is for Kelly and her attorney to formally recant the allegations, and even then the State Department would be well within their rights to still refuse to issue him a visa. Kelly and her attorney would open themselves up to criminal charges and civil liability if they recanted as well.

      • Ferris says:

        Could he sue her to get it removed? Making false statements about him.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Sure, he could try to sue her and her former attorney, but it would be a difficult case for him to prove and win. More critically, it would likely require him to open up all of his past and current financial records (both business and personal) which is probably something he does NOT want Kelly and her insane attorneys to have any more access to than absolutely necessary. Besides, even if he did prove that they lied to get his O-1 nonimmigrant visa revoked in a civil trial (where the burden of proof is only “more likely than not”), that does not mean that the State Department would automatically grant him future U.S. visas or that he could ever collect any monetary damages from Kelly and/or her former attorney. So he can spend a lot of money and energy to sue and open up his entire life and history for scrutiny BUT STILL be no closer to legally returning to the U.S., much less getting any money from Kelly and her former attorney for all the damage they wrought.

    • Santia says:

      That’s so bizarre to me. Doesn’t the State Department have to investigate before deporting someone? If it’s that easy, half of all legal residents would be deported already. Not to take away from her shadiness/craziness, but it seems odd that they would just take her word for it. People on the suspected terrorism and no-fly lists can still get guns, but he can’t be in the country at all?

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Not really. The State Department has a LOT of discretion in whether to grant a visa to someone. As long as the consul does not do something way unconstitutional or illegal (e.g., telling the applicant, “I am not giving you this visa because I don’t give visas to black people), you cannot appeal the denial of a visa application.

        Also, the State Department did not deport him. It revoked his O-1 nonimmigrant visa because of the allegations raised against him. The only way for him to legally return to the U.S. would be for him to file a new application for a nonimmigrant visa, at which point he would be forced to prove a negative – namely that he is not a terrorist or illegal arms dealer or whatever Kelly and her attorney claimed. Even if he completely opened up his entire financial and business history for State to review, there is no guarantee that they would issue him a visa because they simply are not obligated to give ANYONE a visa.

        Frankly, if I were his immigration attorney, I would NOT recommend that he apply under the current circumstances. So in effect, unless and until she and her attorney formally recant their false statements, there is really no advantage to him to apply for a new nonimmigrant visa to the U.S.

        Moreover, if I were his divorce counsel, I would strongly recommend that he NOT EVEN TRY to apply for any kind of U.S. visa (nonimmigrant or immigrant). If by some miracle he were to get a U.S. visa issued to him, it would give Kelly a very good reason to modify the custody arrangement. Essentially she would be rewarded DESPITE her prior false statements, blackmail attempts, and refusal to recant her allegations against him. As terrible as it seems on its face, at least this way Kelly suffers some consequences for her and her attorney’s prior behaviour.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The January 2014 deadline has passed. He doesn’t have to try to gain a visa at any point now. Rutherford let that deadline pass, another of her missteps.

    • Pumpkin Pie says:

      Good point made by Fluff. Why wasn’t she arrested for making false allegations?

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        The burden of proof in a criminal case is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Kelly and her attorney seemingly lied about Daniel to get his O-1 nonimmigrant visa revoked. However, it would be extremely difficult for any U.S. attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of making false statements to a federal government official, especially if the statements were oral and no recordings of their conversations with the State Department or the Department of Homeland Security were made or nothing was put in writing. Even if the federal government had good evidence of what Kelly or her attorney actually said about Daniel, the U.S. attorney would still have to prove at trial that their statements were made with knowledge of their falsity, that is, that Kelly and her attorney KNEW they were lying but made the statements anyway. That can be very difficult to prove. Kelly and her attorney will likely never be charged with, much less convicted of, any crime in conjunction with getting Daniel’s visa revoked, unless some seriously good written evidence that can be traced back directly to Kelly and/or her attorney magically appears.

      • Pumpkin Pie says:

        Thank you Bearcatlawyer. This situation is pretty much mind-boggling.

    • justagirl says:

      The visa issue makes no sense. Yes terrorism allegations are serious, but I’m sure the State Department doesn’t just rubber-stamp “visa revoked!”…otherwise the tactic would be used ALL over the place in custody battles, business dealings, etc. Regardless of her other crazy behavior, the description of the visa situation just does not make sense at all.

      • LAK says:

        Santia/justagirl: after 9/11 new anti-terrorism laws were put on the books which mean an accusation is enough. No proof needed. It’s upto the revoked person to prove they aren’t a terrorist, but it’s nigh on impossible to do so and the govt retains the right to keep you revoked should they wish to do so, after you’ve proved that you aren’t a terrorist.

        I think in the USA your anti-terrorism law is the Patriot act. Passed in 2001. Extended in 2010.

        The other issue is that when a visa is revoked for whatever reason running to mundane to extremely serious reasons, you are put in time out whereby you can’t apply for a new visa until that time has passed. Time out is a scale of a few years to banned depending on the reasons you were revoked. For someone like Daniel, who was accused of a serious crime which led to his visa being revoked, chances are high that he is at the extreme end of the time out.

        Kelly being asked to participate in the application for a new visa increases his chances of getting a new one, but between the time out and the govt’s right to refusal, he may still be refused one.

        If he can make a living without entering the USA, he may judge that it isn’t worth the hassle of acquiring a new visa.

      • Jwoolman says:

        Even before the insane reactions to 9/11, the US government routinely denied visas for political reasons. A friend was told point blank by the US embassy in Honduras that they wouldn’t give him a visa to even just stopover in the US while on his way to a medical workshop in Canada, because he was vocal about the illegal contra camps maintained in Honduras by the US to attack Nicaragua, which were in violation of both US and Honduran law. He was told to shut up if he ever wanted to visit the US again (where he actually had received his MD). He was a physician and saw the results of displacement of farmers by the camps in his clinic. Their children were malnourished because the displacement drove them into the city and into poverty, and malnourished children are at great risk from simple childhood diseases that well nourished children manage well. He was also denied visas to go to Puerto Rico to talk about his specialties (especially malnutrition in children) and to the US when invited to talk about the situation in Honduras by citizens concerned about the illegal wars and their effects.

        The U.S. Government also denied/delayed visas to two East German scientists who were invited to give a plenary lecture at an international conference back in the 1970s or so when it was held on my campus. Their government wasn’t the hangup. They were very famous in that field so people here were quite disappointed (and puzzled if they had never realized this is commonly done in the land of the free). What harm they could do in the middle of Nowhere, Midwestern USA I don’t know…. Visa delays are another tactic used to keep people from participating in events while blaming it on “bureaucracy” rather than on censorship.

        So yes, it’s quite arbitrary. There are no restrictions on visa denials. The government is quite aware that people are falsely accused by vengeful ex-spouses and others, but it’s easier to just deny or revoke the visa these days. The expense isn’t worth it to thoroughly investigate every case. If Kelly did as ordered by the judge and wrote a formal letter supporting Daniel’s visa application, that would at least put the matter on a different procedural path, but she refused. The judge set a time limit, after which the matter was off the table and Daniel did not have to futilely try for another visa, since those children would be full grown before he even had a slim chance of success . Daniel obviously didn’t do anything they were worried about or else they would have arrested him. But the accusation was enough to get his visa revoked. People also lose their visas for pretty trivial reasons – just do a bit of googling. Once lost/denied, it’s pointless to try again for quite a long time.

  13. BearcatLawyer says:

    I wanted to clarify something that I read in the actual document translations (which I assume are accurate) as posted on the DM site which is being misinterpreted in the media: Kelly has not lost her parental rights nor has she lost her *physical* custody rights in Monaco and France. She still has the right to see them and live with them part-time; the only difference is that she can only exercise her *physical custody* rights in France or Monaco and nowhere else. She still has rights regarding schooling, religion, and healthcare, but she must make these decisions jointly with Daniel (cue another 12 years of fighting). She does not have the sole authority to, say, change their school when they are with her.

    Nevertheless, I stand by what I have said all along: she brought this on herself.

    • lilacflowers says:

      And all of that is quite generous. Given her repeated attempts at abduction, Daniel could have moved to limit those rights and probably would have prevailed on some items.

    • K says:

      So basically she has to coparent? Shocking only not this is what people do. They have kids if they don’t work out romantically they COPARENT.

      Also if she wasn’t a kidnapper she wouldn’t have to reside in Monaco to have physical custody periods (although seriously it’s Monaco not Syria here not a massive hardship) but the reality is they could have been in the US if she would have just coparent with their father in the first place. Karma is a bitch.

    • bluhare says:

      This is what happens when you overplay your hand. If she’d have tried a more low key long game, she might have had some luck at it. Instead, Daniel has what she wanted. I wonder if Daniel did ask for sole custody and got shot down on that.

      • Izzy says:

        He didn’t get shot down; he does have sole custody. She has visitation only.

      • bluhare says:

        I don’t know divorce law, but if they are coparenting how is that sole custody? I thought sole custody meant you got to make all decisions and it says that’s not the case here.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        I don’t know Monegasque or EU family law and am not licensed to practice in the EU, but it seems her losing the right to have the children with her in the U.S. or take them on vacations anywhere except France or Monaco is being translated as “loss of custody.” No. All she has lost is the right to reside with them anywhere but France and Monaco and some of the time she had with them under the original CA court order. She still retains parental rights to the children (that is, she is legally still their mother and has all the responsibilities that being their mother entails). She cannot unilaterally make certain decisions (schooling, religion etc.), but she didn’t have the right to make those choices without consulting Daniel before.

        The meaning of “sole custody” can vary greatly between jurisdictions. In some places, sole custody means that only one parent retains all parental rights over the children and the non-custodial parent has zero rights to make decisions but may or may not have visitation rights. Contrary to what is being publicized, Kelly appears to have new, more stringent restrictions on her original joint custody arrangement thanks to the Monegasque court order. But she has not lost ALL custodial rights.

    • Birdix says:

      That’s a helpful clarification. The judge is trying to keep both parents in the kids’ lives while reducing the risk of abduction. So basically she’s being asked to choose between a life with her children in Europe and the life she’s used to in the U.S. without them. Will be interesting, now that push has come to shove, to see what she chooses. One other question–have the kids not been vaccinated because she’s put her foot down? I wonder if that will be another battle.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Thank you, Bearcat, I’ve been getting annoyed at all of the ‘she lost custody!’ headlines. The amount of time she gets to have the kids is less than 50% (it’s only half of all vacations–so their school isn’t disrupted) but she can have them in residence with her as long as the residence is in France or Monaco. And the ex offered to buy her a house there–I bet that offer still stands. She can see them outside of those time frames, but I didn’t get a sense of any time limitations. This does NOT equal Griersch got sole custody!

    • notasugarhere says:

      He may have gained rights over things like getting them vaccinated, or being the first person called in an emergency. At one point, I think she was still requiring that she be the first person called. He’s the parent who is minutes away from them, but she would be notified first if they were sick at school. I think these issues may have been decided quietly at the August hearing, for which we never got news or documents.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ notasugarhere

        I read somewhere that he will get the children vaccinated per French law. I don’t know if it was People or the DM, but hopefully it’s true. I have a feeling that Kelly’s anti-vaccination stance was in the hopes that it would hurt the children’s ability to be admitted into school and possibly in the hopes of making it harder on Daniel to ensure the kids stayed healthy and use it against him in his worry over that. Like a bargaining chip.

        I think it’s ridiculous that Kelly wanted to be the first person called in case of emergencies with the kids. Again, possibly another bargaining chip she thought she could use over him.

  14. Hannah says:

    Let’s face it, had she really wanted to abduct the children to be their mum, she could have taken them to the middle of nowhere, dyed all their hair and moved on.

    This has always been about celebrity. The woman is deluded.

    • FingerBinger says:

      If she wasn’t a famous she would have kidnapped them. Parental kidnappings happen every day. Her celebrity made it hard to get away with.

      • ERM says:

        I don’t think she was willing to give up her celebrity status to kidnap the children. She’s a mother for the “status” that it brings her – I’ve seen animals behave better than her.

      • Hannah says:

        Oh come on, she is not famous enough to not be able to vanish. That’s what I am getting at. Her celebrity wouldn’t prevent her from kidnapping the kids. Her desire for celebrity does stop her from moving to Monaco and making a life there with the kids and amends with their father.

  15. Neelyo says:

    I loved her in HOMEFRONT (anyone recall that show?) and always rooted for her to have a bigger career. Maybe her insanity is what held her back.

  16. minx says:

    I can’t even stand looking at her smug crazy face.

  17. Anon says:

    Wonder if Kelly shared her thoughts on international laws with Amber Heard? This is so sad and scary for the children. At this point, she is causing so much trauma, and its clearly about her not about them.

  18. grabbyhands says:

    God, this woman makes my blood boil.

    She has absolutely no one to blame but herself for this situation-and she sounds more unhinged with every statement. What kind of lawyer thinks it is a good idea to put their client into the media and stand next to them while they declare that strangers should try and abduct her kids for her because it is “a very America thing to do”???? JAYSUS. There is nothing pro-America about encouraging people to kidnap your kids for you.

    America and some some Americans need to get over the idea that they get to operate completely free of rules and regulations no matter where they are and unfortunately that attitude, which has always been a problem in this country, is just getting worse. I don’t know if she honestly believes that just because her kids were born here that she gets to do whatever she wants or of she is just milking it because she knows it will draw a lot of attention and support to her side from the nationalists in this country.

    Thank god her visits are going to be supervised. They should probably be monitored by armed guards at this point.

  19. kri says:

    Jesus, this woman! She is a real time Lifetime movie. Just make her the network mascot.

  20. Triple Cardinal says:

    I’ll lay odds that she’ll become pregnant next year.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She’s 47.

    • vauvert says:

      .?? Not unless she finds some other gullible, rich non-American guy…. And by now you’d hope they all got the memo!
      When you see pics of them in the early days of marriage, Daniel looks young, naive and hopelessly in love with her. I know, I am extrapolating from photos. It just looks that way to me. She could have had a fantastic life with a rich guy who adored her, adored the kids and would have done anything for his family.
      Instead she played a stupid game of let’s find a loaded sperm donor who I can then cut out of the kids’ lives. He will go away, but send me money every month, enough for me to pose with the kids in virginal white and do my annual People cover where I talk about how hard it is to be a single mom, how they come ahead of work – look how few roles I accept, and I was so devastated when my ex proved to be a terrible father and husband, yet here I am, bravely moving on. Guess that didn’t work out very well…,

  21. The Original Mia says:

    She told everyone what she planned to do if she got the kids again. It is no surprise she was finally…FINALLY! stripped of her rights to have her kids with her. Those kids deserve better from Kelly than waging a war against a father, who loves them and wants to be in their lives. He wants his children and she just doesn’t care. That’s not a good parent. I don’t care if she did birth them.

  22. Mayamae says:

    Does anyone know why Daniel chose to settle in Monaco? I know it’s his choice, but it sounds like a sacrifice on his parents’ part, and I’d much prefer raising children in Germany than in Monaco.

  23. notasugarhere says:

    From the Daily mail

    EXCLUSIVE: Final blow for Kelly Rutherford as US Court shoots down her last ditch appeal to regain custody and bring her children back home after Monaco judge grants full custody to her ex

    “The US Court of Appeals has shot down Kelly Rutherford’s attempt to appeal the previous court’s decision to return the children to their father”

    Date on denial is December 16th.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ notasugarhere


      Hopefully, she’ll accept this and not keep appealing every court decision here in the US and in Monaco. If she does, she’ll find peace of mind. If she doesn’t, then crazy deserves what it gets.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      The US Court of Appeals? Thanks for wasting my tax dollars on your frivolous appeal, Kelly. Because you and your jingoistic vendetta are so much more important than all the other cases those judges could have been reviewing

    • swack says:

      From what I can tell (and any lawyer out there please correct me if I am wrong). when reading the order it states that her case will not be heard in the US. It does not say she cannot appeal in Monaco. I’m not sure WHY she appealed in the US as the decision handed down the other day was from Monaco. I know very little about the appeal process hear and nothing about it in Monaco.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ swack

        The DM article says the appeal was over the NY court’s decision to deny her request to return the children to her.

        It says that she was trying to get the case re-opened in the US by saying that the lower court’s decision was wrong not to follow the federal law’s International Child Abduction Remedies Act implementing the use of the Hague Convention (‘on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction’).

        I don’t know if she’s going to appeal in Monaco though. She might. She’s crazy and obsessed. Obviously, there aren’t enough courts in the world that can tell her that she’s always wrong to make her stop.

      • swack says:

        Thanks anne. Still a little confused because I thought the reason it was in Monaco was because he filed a mirror order in Monaco as he was advised to do. New York would not take the case because CA was were the original order was given and Kelly should have done a mirror order in NY when she moved to NY and didn’t. It’s so confusing. She should have just learned to coparent in a nice way.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        I cannot log into PACER right now to pull up the original petition and order, but if I remember correctly, Kelly filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus or some such in NY federal court last year to try and stop the NY family court from returning her children to Monaco. The NY federal district judge slapped that down really quickly because her federal law claims were all BS (e.g., kids were “deported” from the U.S.). This order basically means that the federal district judge’s order denying the petition was correct and Kelly has not raised any legitimate appealable issues.

      • Elliott says:

        I am starting to think that she is simply too stupid to understand any type of legal procedure beyond her initial forays into denying access to her ex. Anything much beyond “…but I’m the mom” or “they were born in the US” is beyond her. International treaty, jurisdiction, co-parenting, dual citizenship, etc is something she can’t or won’t understand.

  24. Snowflake says:

    Where is Kylie today? 😄

  25. Lurker says:

    Has anyone heard from Dan Abrams yet?

    • anniefannie says:

      Thats a really good point. Where are these so-called journalists ( I put the VF writer) in this lot.
      I blame them for perpetuating the myth of the entitled American & maternal exceptional ism agenda she was pushing. Here’s hoping a little more research goes into the next cause they support!!

      • Lurker says:

        I just checked his Twitter. No mention of anything. And he tweeted something else 11 min ago. Huh. Maybe he finally knows she’s a loon.

        Update – nope, he did respond to someone who thinks she should give up. He responded with “She should give up? I don’t care what you think about the law or decisions, that’s absurd advice.” And she was copied on it.

      • Lurker says:

        And Kelly is busily wishing people happy birthday on Twitter.

      • Sam says:

        How does a lawyer say, “That’s absurd”? Lawyers tell clients all the time to give up. Lawyers are bound by an ethical duty to be honest. If a case has no merit, the lawyer needs to tell the client, “This is hopeless, the law is not on your side, you’ve damaged the case severely.” At this point, Kelly’s best hope would be to drop the legal stuff and co-parent, amicably, with her ex. Do that for a while and then possibly breach the topic of letting them visit the US, accompanied at all times by people of his choosing. Her ex has always stated he will not stop her from seeing them in an appropriate way. She should be grateful to be able to see them at all. The court could have terminated her rights at this point.

        She has gone through at least a dozen lawyers by most counts – which means most of them are being honest with her and she can’t deal with that. At this point, representing her would solely be for the money, and I as a lawyer would feel wrong for taking such a case and wasting a client’s funds. It’s disgraceful to represent her at this point, to me.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Lurker

        Abrams sounds like a nut.

  26. Tiffany says:

    You would think this will be the time for her to regroup, get her family life in order and then focus on her career. She really could get TV work if the motivation is there.

    There is nothing that has been shown that her ex is not encouraging a relationship with their children or making it difficult through the legal system not to gain employment.

    But I know people like her, thriving off being a martyr is some area of their life.

  27. Tarsha says:

    It really pisses me off that she is still allowed *any* visitation. Imo she should have all parental rights terminated.

  28. Canafian Becks says:

    **She fought the law and the law won.

  29. anniefannie says:

    OMG!! Some hack was just on the Wendy Williams show riling the audience up by pushing the
    Rutherford selective facts and major omissions agenda! These talking heads prefer to exploit people’s ( particularly mothers) emotions related to mothering rather than the facts.
    One of the reasons I love this site is the posters were on to Kelly’s game immediately and guess why? RESEARCH. And commitment to the TRUTH!!!

    • swack says:

      I cannot stand to watch Wendy Williams. She seems like such an airhead (she may not be but does not come off to be very intelligent).

      • anniefannie says:

        I’ve only seen her show twice but in fairness Wendy seemed to be reserving judgement. The talking head she had who was masquerading as an attorney was the real culprit. It’s demoralizing watching someone with such large audience mislead and misrepresent such an important case.

  30. geneva says:

    I don’t really know the story but I do feel that she may have had this false sense that the judge would always side with the mother, etc. But, it somehow feels like the Kingdom of Monaco is an odd place to rule on an American mothers right to be with her children…despite her celebrity, etc. If she was not a celebrity (who overplayed her hand a bit) but just an American mother who wanted to raise her kids in her home country..they might have said..yeah, that makes sense. It feels like Monaco- in its own way – wanted a publicized win. somehow don’t feel like the kids best interests were served here…or maybe just reflecting on the famous children of Grace Kelly raised in Monaco … they seemed to all find it suffocating.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      If you do not really know the story, then you should start by reading the court documents which are available here on CB in earlier threads (search “Kelly Rutherford” and you can find it ALL).

      The principality of Monaco is the exact right place for this case to play out because Kelly has done everything in her power to ensure that no family court in the U.S. can assume jurisdiction. She moved from California – the state where they were married and divorced – to New York but failed to seek a mirror order in New York family court EVEN AFTER BEING ORDERED by the CA family court to do so. She and her attorney got her ex-husband’s U.S. nonimmigrant visa revoked, which prevented him from maintaining any kind of legal immigration status or residence in the U.S. Prior to moving to the U.S. and marrying Kelly, her ex-husband had lived in Monaco for many years and his mother lives there as well. He has been living in Monaco with the children when they are in his custody.

      The Monegasque courts had little choice but to limit her access to the children after the stunts she pulled earlier in the year. Fortunately for Kelly, the court will still allow her to live with and be deeply involved in her children’s lives, but only in Monaco and France and nowhere else.

      • anniefannie says:

        Has anyone else noticed that anyone advocating for Kelly starts their posts by saying they haven’t really read much about the case or they’re coming in late to this issue blah blah blah…
        That exactly the point! And until you do don’t bother with your 2 cents!!

    • lilacflowers says:

      ” It feels like Monaco- in its own way – wanted a publicized win. somehow don’t feel like the kids best interests were served here…”

      These two children, like most children, have TWO parents. Just because Kelly pushed them out her whoha does not make her the better parent. The father has just as many rights as she does and courts, both in the US and Monaco, do not care to hear that ridiculous, unconstitutional “Murica” argument. The government of Monaco has no interest in this ridiculous case involving this jingoistic bigot.

  31. why? says:

    When she or her spokesperson bragged about how she was appealing Monaco’s custody decision, I thought that she had petitioned the courts in Monaco, but what she really did was petition the courts in the US, who already threw out several of her appeals, including the one she filed in August immediately after the courts sent the kids back to their father after she refused to send them back. Kelly just wasted her time yet again. I don’t understand why she didn’t petition the Monaco courts for an appeal. She sounded so proud of herself. Kelly thought that she could trump Monaco’s custody decision by having the decision that sent them back to their father in August thrown out, in which she was the one in the wrong because she didn’t return the kids per her agreement with Daniel and then she defied the judge by not showing up to court with the kids. Kelly has her priorities and focus all wrong.

  32. Michelle says:

    It was rather infuriating when Harry Levin was commenting about this yesterday on his TMZlive tv show. I would expect him to be more informed because he is an attorney and usually smart. However he completely was on Kelly’s side and couldn’t understand how this happened. Huh??

    When will the media catch up with the facts??

  33. JRenee says:

    Seems like she thought she could treat her husband as a sermon donor and walk away with her kids without any repercussions. When that failed, the games began .
    This is now the performance of her lifetime, kids be damned.
    Very sad for the children!

  34. pinetree13 says:

    At first I thought it was absurd but now I’m starting to agree more and more with the posters that feel Kelly has Narcissistic Personality Disorder and ONLY cares about her children for the ‘status’ they bring and their use as pawns. I am starting to believe that she wanted ‘to win’ and ‘to save face’ but ultimately doesn’t really care about her children just wants them to look and act nice so they positively reflect on HER.

  35. Jenna says:

    Just move to Monaco. I don’t understand why her children aren’t her #1 priority. Leave the US, get over your xenophobia, and move to Monaco to be with your kids. Geez.

  36. Dido says:

    Um…. I’m pretty sure that Hermes’ name references the Greek god, not the “luxury leather brand.” Geez.