One of our most commented stories of the year was Kelly Rutherford’s not-unexpected parental kidnapping this summer, when she refused to return her two children to Monaco after a scheduled visit. Kelly had threatened to do this the previous summer, so her excuse, that her children were upset to leave, rang hollow. She didn’t impress the judge either, especially when she didn’t even bring the kids with her to court as ordered. Kelly was ordered to immediately return the children to their father in Monaco, where they have resided since 2012.
When Kelly lost primary custody last month (we only heard the news recently) and was only granted visitation in Monaco, it was not a surprise. She was also awarded €3,000 a month from her ex, the children’s father, Daniel Giersch, to presumably pay for her visits.
Kelly has been posting photos from Florence and Milan, Italy, along with random selfies. People Magazine has reported that she’ll still be able to see her children for Christmas, so it’s assumed that she’s in Europe for that reason. (Milan is about a four hour drive from Monaco or she can just take a direct flight to nearby Nice.) I’m also assuming that she’s blocked from talking about the case or putting the children’s faces on social media. Given that we’ve seen paparazzi photos of Kelly in Monte Carlo with the kids, I think that she may try to pull that move again once she’s with them, but we’ll see. It’s possible that the Monaco ruling also stipulated that she not be photographed out with the kids. (Although she can’t control that, right?) Of course Kelly has already been papped in Milan, too.
Here’s a photo Kelly instagrammed from Milan, where she was out with a PR person named Matilde Carli and another friend.
Kelly has also posted many positive messages about staying happy and embracing changes. She seems like she’s doing just fine now, and that’s great that she’ll get to see her kids for Christmas. It’s also great that the court recognized the parent who will give them the most stability.
Also, I just want to say that I agree with this sentiment.
Are those new lips for our most Innocent American mom I’m spotting on that last pic? cause this one is the definition of dishwater limp park avenue oatmeal white lady and those lips look distinctly not hers?
Roaring laughing at this! Definitely thought the lips look plumped too
I was so distracted by the duck pout, I hardly noticed that they DO look a little bigger.
um, it’s called a pucker..
Enough with the selfies, grow up, lady.
So she gets to hang in Italy and then spend Christmas in Monaco. The horror I tell you, the horror.
Countdown to her putting on airs of having become cultured and European…
Seriously, this is what “penniless” looks like to a woman with a major supporting role in Gossip Girl.
why doesn’t she just pretend the kids are at a fancy french boarding school and come home during summer etc. before they are being shipped to summer school? if the ex is that rich indeed, then she can live like a sane version of daphne guinness.
there are many high-society ladies who barely see their kids yet still love and care for them.
Most of those “high society ladies” only “breed” to continue the family name. Sending away your six year old under highly avoidable circumstances (say to a boarding school) would rip a loving mother apart.
Which means she’s fine, because Kelly Rutherford is a raging narcissist who doesn’t care a whit about the kids’ wellbeing.
The only person keeping Kelly from her children is Kelly. Her ex has always said he wants the children to have a good relationship with their mother and has been more than willing to give her more time than the courts has said. I see the black is back in her clothes.
See???? It’s not so bad, is it?
I don’t think she ever had primary custody of the children, that is what she was trying to get all this time. She had joint, with the children residing primarily with Daniel.
And yes, she seems to be doing JUST fine. And QQ, you slay me. 🙂
Oh dear god. I keep waiting for the credits to start rolling, and maybe a special voiceover from Tori Spelling or some other Lifetime Movie Network alumna. What would this “film” be titled? Come on CBers..indulge me and let’s come up with a great title!
‘Not without my publicist, oh, children.’
“Murica, Bring the Children Home”
3,000 Euros Does Not Cover This: Plan B
mother may i serve you with a restraining order
Mommy Nearest?
Isn’t she supposed to be broke? How can she afford to go over there early to vacation? And wouldn’t you try to spend that extra time with the kids?
I’m being too logical about this…
That’s what I thought. Her lifestyle – which she is not shy about flaunting based on all the selfies – seems to contradict her claims of being broke. Let me see, multiple trips overseas to places the kids AREN’T, dining and wining at all the poshest places in NYC, designer clothes and accessories, the list goes on. What resources does she have to support this lifestyle? Does she still act or does she have other sources of income (besides mooching off rich friends). By resources, I mean in addition to the support payments she receives re: the kids.
And that’s what bothers me in some of these cases of support. There’s no checks and balances so some get away with using that money on themselves rather for or to see the kids. It’s always frustrating to encounter the people who abuse the system and make the ones with real troubles suspect or diminish their issues.
Hey, keep her happy. Maybe she can make contacts in her travels that could result in some acting work, so she would see having to always visit the kids only in France or Monaco will be an asset to her career. Really, it’s to everybody’s benefit that she relaxes about being in Europe and sees the advantages of making it her home base at least until the kids are adults.
They probably have a schedule for the holidays and her turn with the kids will be later.
Absolutely do not understand why this woman was allowed that much money per month and she doesn’t even have the children. I could see him being ordered to buy her transportation and lodging for visits but that’s it. Not make it a monthly stipend. Name of movie should be ‘How To Screw A Wealthy Man 50 Different Ways’!
The $3k/month is supposed to go to the maintenance and schooling of the children.
I have a feeling that every time the school tuition is due, she’ll claim she doesn’t have the money and Daniel will end up paying for everything.
I’m thinking he still pays for her 3-bedroom residence, car service, air fare while she’s in Monaco. I guess the maintenance would be paying for food, clothing, and such while they are in her care.
I think Daniel considers himself fortunate to only pay her that much and is not blinking an eye at paying for everything child related. My assumption is that the 3,000 Euro/month is for travel expenses, and small things like her paying a babysitter or taking the kids out for lunch.
He has full custody so he picks up all the bills. Not sure what the rules are in Monaco and in the case of “normals” that would not be fair, but if all it costs him is money, I bet Daniel is ok with it. After all the drama, it is both good and ironically hilarious to see her enjoying herself in Europe without calling for “heroes” to kidnap the kids.
@ vauvert
I agree that it’s cheaper to keep her content and out of the courts but then her lawyer said they’re appealing the Monaco decision, although I wonder if that was actually about the US Appeal’s Court decision that came down against her recently.
The DM posted an image of the Monaco decision and it says maintenance and school, nothing about her own travel expenses. This is why I think he’s paying for her travel expenses separately.
Yeah, it is ‘ironically hilarious’ to see her so happily roaming around Italy while the drug and gun runner, kidnapper, tax cheat, child drowner, child abuser, children frightener, wife abuser, (did I miss anything?) has her children in his evil, mother-hating grip. Isn’t she worried sick? Not even in the same country as the children she can’t bear not to be near.
So over her. No soup for you…..NEXT
this is the absolute FIRST time ive ever seen a lip job that = improvement 🙂
Isn’t she a bit old to be pulling the ‘duckface’?
Everyone over 3 is too old to pull a duck face.
Please give up on being an actress and move close to your children.
Aaron Katersky (a correspondent from ABC news) tweeted that Daniel is suing Vanity Fair over ‘untrue and defamatory assertions’ in that article.
FInally, I was wondering why they didn’t challenge VF on the obvous lies and untruths/reimaginations.
according to the legal papers filed by his German legal team (thanks to the person on People comment section for the link ) Vanity Fair is only the beginning of whats to come. Now that the custody is basically settled (for now anyway) he is going after all the untrue stories and people publishing pics of the kids… at least the ones in europe which with the internet someone could write a story on a desert island and it could go global. here is the link copied from the People mag. commenter. The pdf has the english version after the german version.
preubohlig dot de
Just klick on any link under “Aktuelles”, you will then see all press releases. The document from 23.12.2015 is the right one
His demafation against VF docs.. they’re both in English and German..
http://www.preubohlig.de/deutsch/presse/pressemitteilungen/151223_Giersch_vs_Vanity_Fair_Pressemitteilung_Press_Release_Verfuegung_Landgericht_Hamburg_Injunction_Regional_Court_of_Hamburg_DEUTSCH_ENGLISH.pdf
This comment, with thanks, is from poster ‘goodnuff’
“Yes, that injunction may well have been a bit of subtle genius. By filing a very narrow request for injunctive relief focused only on Rutherford’s claims as quoted in VF – and having a court grant it based on sufficient prima facie evidence, he basically puts the media on notice that those statements are lies, a court agrees and printing them again will clearly support a libel claim.
It’s really clever. I gotta give the guy credit. He just managed to wipe out the media’s plausible denial in one tiny motion. They could say they didn’t know what she was saying was untrue when it was just her word. They can’t say that once a court has already enjoined another publisher from disseminating those same claims though.
Honestly, just speculation and opinion but I think the real goal and big win for him is that he just forced pubs to fact-check Rutherford’s claims whether they want to or not.”
He’s a very smart guy… And she gave him all the cards for him to win..
This is from a People regular, goodnuff:
Yes, that injunction may well have been a bit of subtle genius. By filing a very narrow request for injunctive relief focused only on Rutherford’s claims as quoted in VF – and having a court grant it based on sufficient prima facie evidence, he basically puts the media on notice that those statements are lies, a court agrees and printing them again will clearly support a libel claim.
It’s really clever. I gotta give the guy credit. He just managed to wipe out the media’s plausible denial in one tiny motion. They could say they didn’t know what she was saying was untrue when it was just her word. They can’t say that once a court has already enjoined another publisher from disseminating those same claims though.
Honestly, just speculation and opinion but I think the real goal and big win for him is that he just forced pubs to fact-check Rutherford’s claims whether they want to or not.
Thanks gn,
Heartbreaking for these children.