Kelly Rutherford’s ex blocks her from kids: ‘concerned they are in imminent danger’

Early this month, Kelly Rutherford started a White House Petition urging President Obama to somehow bring her children back from Monaco, where they have lived since 2012 with their father, Daniel Giersch, a German citizen, and their paternal grandmother. Rutherford and Giersch’s children, Hermes, 8, and Helena, 5, see their mother every few weeks – when she is flown to visit them on Giersch’s dime – and over the summer. Rutherford’s many attempts to have the custody ruling overthrown have failed, including on the federal level.

Rutherford’s flawed argument both in the WH petition and in her overturned federal case was that her children have been deported and that their rights as US Citizens are being denied. She repeated these claims in a bizarre interview on TMZ live last week, stating that “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..”

Throughout Kelly’s ongoing and attacking statements to the press, her ex has remained admirably quiet. Giersch has finally responded through his lawyer and he states that he’s concerned for the children’s safety. He’s also blocked Kelly from seeing the children until she turns over their US passports to a neutral third party. This seems perfectly reasonable, Giersch’s lawyer states that it’s part of the custody agreement, and the children can still visit the US as German citizens, they’re just limited to a 90 day visit (Update: this is incorrect, they can stay indefinitely as they’re also US Citizens, but can’t be removed from the country.) Kelly arrived in Monaco yesterday, Thursday, and Giersh’s lawyer tells the NY Daily News that “We are concerned that the children are in imminent danger and need to be protected, and as a result the school and the police have extra security measures.” I don’t blame them, given everything Kelly has said. Here is the relevant part of the News’ report:

We’re told Rutherford arrived in Monaco… on Thursday. But [Giersch] whom she divorced in 2010 after a four-year marriage, refused to hand off the kids until she coughed up their papers.

In an interview with Confidenti@l, Giersch’s lawyer, Fahi Takesh Hallin, confirmed the development.

“We are concerned that the children are in imminent danger and need to be protected, and as a result the school and the police have extra security measures, which they have anyway at this time because of the Grand Prix in Monaco and the Cannes Film Festival,” she said.

“Daniel is requesting per the terms of the California judgment that a neutral party hold the children’s passports while mother (Rutherford) has custody of the children abroad,” she added, “and that is simply carrying out the terms of the California order, and is also a very neutral thing because of the very deep concern given the statement that she made.”

The actress appeared on “TMZ Live” May 13 and said, “I think that, you know, whoever brings my kids home is going to be pretty much of a hero.”

Giersch responded Thursday with a statement from Takesh Hallin saying, “Her statement that anyone who brings the parties’ children back to the United States in violation of the custody orders would be considered an American hero is not only false, as this would be an illegal and criminal act, but it creates a very real and present risk for the children’s safety.”

A source close to Rutherford told us, “There’s no order against Kelly talking about her case. She has followed all of the court orders. Daniel is upset that the truth is coming out.”

“This is to distract from the fact that he still hasn’t applied for a visa and all of the orders he has ignored in both California and Monaco,” added the insider. “The California order says California would retain jurisdiction, but he asked Monaco to take jurisdiction.”

In 2012, Giersch, a German citizen, argued he could not enter the States because his work visa had been revoked, and successfully petitioned California Superior Court Judge Teresa Beaudet to let him take their children to live in Monaco. Rutherford has visited them about 70 times.

[From The NY Daily News]

You know how I feel about this. I feel sorry for the kids, not because they’re living in Monaco with their dad and Oma, but because their mom isn’t co-parenting reasonably. It’s understandable that Giersch is requesting that Rutherford turn over the children’s US passports to a neutral party, that seems like a necessary safeguard against having the children kept in the US indefinitely. Remember, Kelly filed an emergency custody petition last summer to keep the children with her in the US (which failed), and she threatened to do so against court orders, although she didn’t follow through. She recently claimed that her ex has filed a case in Monaco to strip her of parental rights. Given all the many ways she’s attempted to do that to him – by having him deported, but threatening to keep the children – it seems more reactionary than vindictive on his part. I’m interested to see if Kelly is eventually allowed to bring the children with her to the US for the summer. I bet she will be able to despite everything she’s said. I’m also interested to see how this case turns out.

Oh and Kelly started a crowdrise campaign to raise money for her legal expenses, but she’s since deleted the page. You can still contribute to her “Children’s Justice Campaign.” Because a woman who can throw fundraising parties attended by celebrities needs strangers over the Internet to give her money.

Note: Several outlets are running a photo of Kelly purportedly with Giersch in 2010. I don’t think that other guy (photo on E! and NY Daily News) is actually Giersch but maybe he got surgery or something.

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

128 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford’s ex blocks her from kids: ‘concerned they are in imminent danger’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. candice says:

    All of the pictures of her with the kids seem contrived and staged v.s. spontaneous and natural. Just an observation…

    • FingerBinger says:

      She has no makeup in one of these pictures. That looks staged?

      • dina1258 says:

        Yes it does. Idk how many “natural settings” have a logo backdrop.

      • ISO says:

        Why is everyone here so justified and hater about two small children whose mother lives a continent away? Whatever she did or did not do the children are without their biological mother more than half their lives. It’s tragic and I am ashamed for those who hate on her efforts.

      • QQ says:

        I think is the Always wearing white thing

      • Becks says:

        @ISO: The mother and the father share 50/50 physical custody. You can’t get any fairer than that. The fact she CHOOSES to live a continent away from her precious children is entirely ON HER.

        In an ideal world, the two people who got together and brought forth these kids into the world would be living together under one roof creating a safe, happy home. But in real life people get divorced, and even with 50/50 custidy, kids have to live with one of the two parents. Why can’t it be with the father as much as the mother?

      • Bridget says:

        ISO: those children live a continent away directly because of Kelly’s actions, which she further compounds by threatening to kidnap her children. She has done such a piss poor job of handling her divorce and co-parenting, that she is the only one responsible for these consequences.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ ISO

        I think that if one does the numbers, the time split between the parents is as close to 50/50 as fairly possible, considering all the maneuvers that Kelly (allegedly) instigated in the custody battle.

        Kelly gets to have the kids every summer and David has to pay for her transportation including flight and car service and stay for her to come to see the kids in Europe – six times per year. So that adds up to at least 9 months of visitation.

        If Kelly had played nice – allegedly someone from her party or herself made accusations against David of crimes that got his US visa revoked – , then he could have stayed living in the US, which would have given Kelly more time with the children because there wouldn’t have been the travel issue.

        If Kelly hadn’t repeatedly refused the court’s order to put David’s name on the daughter’s birth certificate, then maybe she wouldn’t have seem so antagonistic to the court.

        If Kelly hadn’t filed for that emergency petition aka sued the Federal government including Atty Gen. Holder and Dept of Homeland Sec. Johnson aka kept the children past their agreed upon summer visitation in addition to this publicized call for a “hero” to kidnap or take the kids from their father and spirit them away to the US, as well as labeling their time with their father as a ‘deportation,’ then maybe…. just maybe… the father would have agreed to more visitations for her.

        It seems that the more Kelly has done to try to get more than what’s ‘fair’ to both parents, the more she has lost. If she had just accepted the joint custody situation from the start, then she could have had more than she has now.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      1. Those children are without their mother because their mother got their father kicked out of her country, in an apparently impulsive act of spite.

      2. Those children are without their mother because their mother refuses to go live where they live, which (BTW) is a really, really nice place that also has their (biological) father and other family members.

      3. Biology is a how the species perpetuates itself; mothering is what she should be focused on instead of vengeance and American Citizening.

      4. No one hates her efforts. People just find them misguided, untruthful and self-centered. Apparently, a series of family-court judges, who have had access to all the documentation and all the legal arguments, have concluded exactly the same.

      • anon33 says:

        BOOM.

      • LVN says:

        Why doesn’t Kelly go live where children live? She needs to stop the public fighting w her ex and she and the ex need to go make peace.
        I HATE when couples do this, make a spectacle out of a child custody fight.

        Kelly go live w your children, someone has to make peace, so why not be the bigger person and go to them?

    • pikny says:

      weird situation

  2. aims says:

    I think it’s very smart on him to insist on a neutral person to have the kids passport. Kelly has exhausted every possible court , legal cases she could . She has no more options, She’s played her hand. Desperate people will do stupid things, someone has to be on alert about these things.

    • paleokifaru says:

      Absolutely. I’m surprised he didn’t push for the enforcement of the third party holding documents last year when she kept trying to throw up road blocks to return them and publicly threatened to keep them. At this point Kelly privately and publicly alienated her ex and I would think any judge looking a this case would be very concerned with what she is doing and saying in private considering the awful interviews she’s giving.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        It must have been hard for him to confront the fact that someone he loved enough to marry and have 2 kids with was actually that immature, impulsive and self-centered. There might have been warning signs but he created a life, and then new life, with her anyway, so this must have made it hard for the scales to drop. Glad he’s being smart and getting good legal advice now, dealing with the person she is and maybe not the person he thought she was. Also, isn’t he younger by a bit?

      • paleokifaru says:

        I definitely get that as my husband really struggled with that during his divorce. They were getting a divorce so obviously he knew there were problems and she certainly had not been stable in their relationship but he was in his 20s and Giersch was in his 30s when he married Kelly. I still see your point but I do side eye someone in their 30s getting involved with an obviously unbalanced and malicious person more than someone who started a relationship at 19. That said, I definitely know my husband went through first a period where he had to acknowledge those things about his choices and his ex and then had to grapple with whether or not he thought she would hurt their child. And that’s become would it be intentional or not and does that matter?

        The other layer of issues here is that anything going through the court takes so freaking long. It’s easy to tell yourself and others that by the time it got through the court system you could potentially sort it out with them and not waste the money. It’s really hard to realize someone is never going to attempt to co-parent, you’ll spend your life fighting and you have to learn to pick what battles should be taken to court. So frustrating.

      • Bread and Circuses says:

        @paleokifaru, comment directly above

        Narcissists can be very charming; it’s part of what makes them so toxic. And Kelly sure is laser-focused on what she wants, regardless of what’s good for the children.

      • paleokifaru says:

        @Bread and Circuses I get what you’re saying but Kelly had already had an extremely cold and poor reaction to her first husband’s illness and that was well publicized. I’ve seen her work and she’s not a very good actress so I can’t imagine how she explained that away and why anyone would believe her!

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I heard that she was supposed to hand over the kids during the co-parenting set up when they were in the US, and she held on to them for longer than she was supposed to. I think if a parent ignores orders and doesn’t adhere to the court ordered schedule, it is absolutely reasonable not to trust her in the future.

    • Audrey says:

      He’s nicer than i am. After what she pulled last year and what she said recently, i would have filed for her summer visit to happen in monaco. She’ll definitely try something again this year.

  3. Greek chic says:

    Kelly Rutherford thinks she’s Lily Van der Woodsen and can do whatever she wants. That’s all I got.

  4. funcakes says:

    Wow, didn’t see this coming. (Sarcasm)

  5. Hannah says:

    They’re both idiots. Poor kids, trapped in the middle.

    • Elisa the I. says:

      Why is he an idiot? From what I’ve read, he is acting quite responsible…

    • Palar says:

      Agree, they’re both idiots. The “imminent danger” line has convinced me he’s as idiotic as her.

      • Nicole says:

        Besides the fact that ‘imminent danger’ is legal speak to push something through courts, I do think there is a reasonable case that the kids really are in imminent danger. Her ‘American hero’ line could be interpreted as a call to action by mercenaries/crazy people. I’m not even joking. She’s a hollywood actress. They have crazy stalkers trying to impress them. That’s a freaking nuts thing to say given the audience of millions she’s saying it to. And it demonstrates exceptionally bad judgment.

      • Chaz says:

        Completely agree.
        This article is biased, as always towards Rutherford in a negative way.
        If you look at from the perspective of a woman trying to desparately get her children back, yhen the irrational actions and choices make more sense. He just happens to be smarter and have a better legal team.
        Both parents are playing the same selfish games. ‘Right-fighters’
        Whilst they continue to do so there will be no peace or stable environment for those children.

      • Chaz says:

        @Palar
        Completely agree.
        This article is biased, as always towards Rutherford in a negative way.
        If you look at it from the perspective of a woman trying to desperately get her children back, then the irrational actions and choices make more sense. He just happens to be smarter and have a better legal team.
        Both parents are playing the same selfish games. ‘Right-fighters’
        Whilst they continue to do so there will be no peace or stable environment for those children.

  6. tmc says:

    If – and I dont know – someone felt that the guy was so bad (and maybe this is just post the horrible break up), if he or she had some reason to believe that this person should not be around the children – well, yeah, there might be some issues with co-parenting. And then the worst nightmare comes true, he gets total custody – which I admit I do not understand sending the kids to another country – because it was not a game that could be played. So I feel like CB is being a bit hard on her, but I have not followed her or her life carefully – but then again does anyone really know if they are not in that persons shoes?

    • original kay says:

      so, you admit without knowing the information, you’ve formed an opinion that Kelly is somehow right in all this, even to the point where CB is being hard on her.

      That’s how she got 100,000 signatures :(

      Google is a marvelous tool- all sorts of information after just one search.

      • tmc says:

        Hi original kay, I think I was pretty clear in my sentences up until the last one on where I stood in relation to a situation like this without the specifics. And, I would think sending to another country from the country the children were born in and lived and where one parent lived would only be done if you found that something had been done very wrong by the parent in question -to- the children involved. I read some, enough, I get the case and situation.

        I never said Kelly was right – you are reframing what I said to suit your argument – and I said that CB is being a bit hard on her and I still do.

      • Becks says:

        @tmc:
        You were wrong about a few things (eg, you said the father got “full custody” when he shares 50/50 custody with the mother). The custody arrangement is a very basic fact that most people already know. If you don’t know this , then original kay is perfectly justified in calling you out on it. You can easily get the facts before forming your opinion.

        And I completely agree that forming an opinion before knowing all the facts is how she got 100,000 + signatures.

      • Bridget says:

        TMC is allowed to comment without being “called out”, and it’s a little absurd to expect that everyone sufficiently research before they make a comment on an internet forum

        Part of the issue is that Kelly has escalated this beyond any reasonable level and it’s now impossible to see past her really poor judgement. Here’s what we know:
        Kelly left Daniel when she was pregnant with their son, and had to be forced by the courts to even add the father’s name to the birth certificate.
        When the custody dispute wasn’t going in her favor, she had her lawyer call in a tip to Immigration that Daniel was dealing arms and got his Visa revoked. (She’s acknowledged this).
        He eventually moved to Europe because he is a German citizen and has no US Visa
        Now, he’s supposed to apply for a US Visa every year to try to get back in, but hasn’t done so yet.
        He now flies Kelly out to Europe on his dime to see the kids every few weeks, but since he’s no longer able to live in the US and have true 50/50 custody, the judge saw fit to have the children live with him during the school year, since Kelly was the parent that was more likely to not comply with the parenting plan and because she was likely going to try to alienate the kids from Daniel.
        Kelly has now started threatening to kidnap the children.

        It’s entirely possible that Daniel isn’t a great guy, but unfortunately Kelly’s incredibly poor choices have managed to overshadow anything else in this dispute. She should be a case study in how not to handle a divorce or custody dispute, and yet she’s trying to turn it into this flag waving cause.

      • Jesmari says:

        Bridget could you post the link to her admission about his visa? All I have ever heard is speculation that she or her attorney called to report him. I haven’t seen specific evidence yet. I would love to actually read what happened. Thanks.

      • Bridget says:

        You’d have to thumb through the zillion CB posts on the subject, but she’s admitted that it was her attorney that called in the tip.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Well, he is not following court orders by not applying for a US visa, why would I trust him? I don’t.He clearly doesn’t want to return which leads me to doubt his willingness to support the mother-children contact. I also don’t know if he is actually flying her six times a year and even less so if he is indeed covering all expenses there. I think in their hatred towards this woman, too many people are ignoring his arrogance.

      • LAK says:

        Mary-Alice: do you really think she wouldn’t publicise the fact that he wasn’t covering her expenses or flying her out?

        She’s publicised all his transgressions as she sees them.

        If he wasn’t covering her, we’d know about it.

        Plus, it’s not very hard to search travel information to verify the 70times he is claiming. 70 times since he was awarded custody in 2012. You do the maths.

      • Bridget says:

        Mary-Alice: it kind of doesn’t matter. Kelly has bungled this so badly that her bad choices utterly overshadow anything her ex-husband could have done. He’s clearly getting and taking good advice and complying as much as possible, while she’s literally just asked that someone kidnap her children for her. We do know that aside from the Visa question he’s completely complied with the custody arrangement.

    • ISO says:

      This man isn’t an American citizen bit the children are! F the men’s rights groups that dicknatiz people into allowing this to seem plausible and Hating on the natural mother.

      • LAK says:

        His children are German citizens like their father!!!!

        Why is it that in a case of dual citizenship, the American one matters??!!

      • Lauren says:

        The kids aren’t only American citizens they are citizens of their fathers country too. They can live anywhere in the EU.

        Kelly reminds me a lot of my brothers ex girlfriend who would go out of her way to try and manipulate situations all because she was the natural mother. She still pulls stunts to this day but has never actually gone to court to try change custody agreement because she is just blowing hot air. I know damn well that my brother is a good father and loves his daughter and the courts know it too.

        So what if Kelly is the natural mother? He’s the natural father and he loves his kids. There does not need to be an automatic bias in favour of mothers just because they are the moms.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Well folks I think the terms “dicknatiz” (sic) and “natural mother” should be enough to alert us not to waste too much time on this.

        It’s hard when one tries to move from the general to the specific. The level of intelligence on this board shows we can distinguish between the case that men generally have more power and rights in our society, and this particular instance of this particular woman trying to have more rights than she has earned. If she proved herself trustworthy and held to the custody agreement, this wouldn’t be happening. It’s like dealing with adolescents – she hasn’t proven herself to be responsible.

      • Detritus says:

        ISI:
        Yeah, no.
        Being a woman doesn’t make you the better parent by default. As a feminist I firmly believe this. There is no genetic superiority in parenting and mother’s should not by default get greater custodial rights.

        No one is hating on her because she’s a woman. It’s because her actions paint her as unstable.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        How come these children are automatically German citizens? Is that the law in the USA? Because I am European, married to a Canadian and my child is Canadian which citizenship the child got by being born in Canada, not based on any of our citizenships. In order for the child to get my citizenship, I would have to go to my country and specifically apply, with the child present, etc. Wait and so on. Why is everyone talking about the kids being German??? Were they German when they were sent away from the USA? If yes, how did they get his citizenship?

      • CK says:

        @ Mary-Alice, Citizenship is determined by the laws of the Country. Like U.S. citizenship, German citizenship is inherited by the child if their parent is a German citizen. This makes the kids Dual citizens. Your country may be different in those regards.

    • Becks says:

      @tmc:
      You were wrong about a few things (eg, you said the father got “full custody” when he shares 50/50 custody with the mother), and original kay mentioned you can easily get the facts before forming your opinion.

      And I completely agree that forming an opinion before knowing all the facts is how she got 100,000 + signatures.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ tmc

      “And then the worst nightmare comes true, he gets total custody – which I admit I do not understand sending the kids to another country – because it was not a game that could be played.”

      They have joint custody. He doesn’t have “total custody.”

      The kids spend every summer with Kelly in the US. The father has to pay for six visits for Kelly to visit the kids in Monaco, which includes air fare, car service, and residence.

      The kids are allowed to live with their father in another country because the father’s visa allowing him to live in the US was revoked – allegedly by Kelly or someone in her party.

      Also, it’s probably because of all of Kelly’s shenanigans including repeatedly refusing to follow the court’s order to put the father’s name on the daughter’s birth certificate, refusing to accept joint custody, and her showing the court that she will do anything to make sure the father doesn’t get his fair share of time with the kids.

      So I guess the court doesn’t trust that if the custody situation were reversed that Kelly would adhere to the plan like the father has been doing.

      Instead she’s refused to send the kids back last year after the end of their summer visitation. She allegedly got the father kicked out of the country so that she could get full custody. She’s been publicly asking for a ‘hero’ to kidnap her kids from their father. She’s sued the federal government and called their time with their father as an illegal ‘deportation.’

  7. Sherry says:

    At this point, I don’t even think she cares about the children. It’s all about her. It’s about her winning. It’s about her getting publicity. It’s about her, her, her. If she really cared about the children, she would have wanted them to have a good relationship with their father, instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to cut him out of their lives. She would be trying to co-parent with him instead of creating all of this DRAMA.

    • SnarkGirl says:

      Exactly. All that nonsense about anyone kidnapping her children and bringing them to the States illegally being “heroes”, not to mention petitioning the White House. It’s all about her.

      If she really cared about her children, she wouldn’t be splashing this all over the media. She obviously has no consideration of what all this is going to do to the kids, especially once they get old enough to really understand it all. No, she is all about HER wants, HER needs, one of which is obviously to try and make her ex suffer.

      • paleokifaru says:

        I agree with all of this, especially the point about trying to make her ex suffer. It seems she couldn’t get a judge to alienate him and because of that she’s not able to be entirely successful with her children on that front. So she’s trying to get the public against him and I would bet she shows her kids the freaking petition and the crazy comments about being American citizens and how cruel their dad is. Ugh.

      • anne_000 says:

        True. With her latest request to possibly unstable strangers to kidnap the kids, it looks like she’s more about creating drama than being a good mother.

        And then if it really happened, Kelly would put all the blame on the father for not being good enough to keep their kids safe from kidnappers. It’s a no-win situation for everybody involved.

    • Mich says:

      +1 My thoughts exactly.

  8. Bridget says:

    I have never seen a person handle their divorce and child custody so badly. I just want to shake her and tell her to stop making it even worse for herself.

    • Santia says:

      For real. I’d move to Timbuktu if I had to in order to be a part of my child’s life. She can work on getting the order overturned from Monaco, but what she’s doing is a little extra.

      • Bridget says:

        And the kids are stuck in Monaco because she put up every single roadblock possible. Instead of just sucking it up and figuring out how to co-parent, she’s tried her best to completely cut the father out. It seems like she hooked up with him so she could have a sperm donor.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        I’d like to be stuck in Monaco, but that’s just me ( and I’m an adult).

      • Elisa the I. says:

        As I’ve written before: Monaco is one of the safest places in the world. And it’s such a beautiful area – you are in no second in the south of France and in Italy. And it’s tax-free. If I was rich, I would totally live there.

  9. Kat says:

    The photos on E and NY Daily News are definitely not her ex-husband. Does no one edit these stories?

    • Celebitchy says:

      The photo agencies did identify him as Giersch so I get why they posted it.

      • Kat says:

        True, but you would think they would check. I work for a media organization and it’s a big deal for us. It cracks me up when the Daily Fail posts pictures of people who are obviously not the person they identify them as.

  10. icy says:

    #Team Ex-Husband

    • meme says:

      +1

      She’s insane.

    • Elly says:

      i don´t know what goes on between them, but he definitely comes across as the sane one here. Simply because she talks about her! pain in every talk show and attacks him while he stays silent and reasonable. I bet it drives her crazy that he seems so unimpressed with her attacks. He doesn´t fight back in tv, he doesn´t make a clown of himself. Only his lawyer gives statements.
      Rutherford has no idea how to handle PR.

  11. Maddie says:

    Kelly just invited any nutjob to kidnap her kids….claiming its a heroic thing to do!?!??!! She is running into crazy lady town…..sorry but now is the time for a mental valuation with this woman, you don’t make statements of that kind to the mass media….

    • original kay says:

      scary eh?

      those poor children :(

    • greenmonster says:

      That’s pretty much how I read it, too. She is asking people to kidnap her kids and bring them to her. That is beyond crazy!

    • Miss M says:

      That’s exactly how I see it. Let’s not forget her attempts in parental alienation not only privately , but now publicly trying to make an uninformed audience against her ex-husband – the FATHER of her children. I justcan’t with this woman…

    • Lola says:

      And to do it in the name of ‘America’. The woman is very disturbed.

    • Norman Bates' Mother says:

      Exactly. I’m surprised that he managed to remain so civil after hearing this. If I were him, I would probably lose it and demand a mental evaluation before every visit and the psychologist present during. Doesn’t she know how many freaks are out there? And she just encouraged at least 3 potential groups of freaks – kidnappers, pedophiles and radical nationalists. Good parenting…

      • pinetree13 says:

        I was thinking the same thing. Now some nut job is going to see this on tv, think it is his ‘calling’ and try to kidnap these children to ‘rescue them’ to America. WHO WOULD SAY THIS?!?!?! This to me really shows where her priorities are. Not the health/happiness of her children..>WINNING. She wants to win. If they are forced back she wins! Who cares if it’s the most traumatic thing possible as long as she ‘wins”. She’s a terrible mother.

        Yeah getting divorced and the other person moving away would suck (I’m going to ignore for now the fact that his move was her fault) but guess what? You pull up your big girl panties and you make the most out of a bad situation. If this happened to me, I would move. I would mourn the loss of my current career and start looking into what I could do over there. I would clean toilets if I had to for the time being. Whatever it takes. Eventually making friends, learning the language and getting a better job/living situation. It would suck in the beginning, I would cry BUT THAT IS WHAT YOU DO TO BE NEAR YOUR KIDS. THAT IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOUR KIDS ARE #1 IN YOUR LIFE like she claims they are. End rant.

  12. Ashley says:

    I think the ex is handling her as best as he can. She’s basically dropped giant hints that she would abscond with the children, given the chance. Although I doubt she’d bring them back to the US – they’d have to wind up in some smaller country that doesn’t much honor international judicial decisions.

    I hate how she’s turned this into some USA patriotism thing. If you’re such a patriot, why marry a foreigner in the first place? Marrying internationally creates unique issues for kids. My sister is married to a Russian man who wants the kids to be able to travel back and forth to visit his family and spend time in Russia as well as here. That’s what happens when you marry internationally. Did she expect her ex to give up all his connections outside the US when they married? How ridiculous.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Sorry but you sound chovinistic, to put it mildly. Traveling is a good thing and hundreds of thousands of families travel in order to visit family abroad,. Broaden your mind a bit. Like marrying Joe from the other coast will spare you the issues if Joe is a jerk. Not.

      • paleokifaru says:

        I don’t necessarily think Ashley was saying that traveling internationally is a bad thing, rather that it should have been anticipated in this scenario. And she’s pointing out if Kelly were as isolationist as she now seems to be in her nonsensical supposedly patriotic rants that perhaps she wouldn’t have been inclined to marry someone from another country in the first place.

      • snowflake says:

        right, so why can’t she travel to see her kids over there? she’s the reason he got his visa revoked. he pays all her expenses since she played the “I can’t afford to fly there for visits” card. what’s her excuse now? People had no problem telling gabe he could visit his kids in france. how is it chauvanistic to suggest she cooperate with her ex in parenting their kids. I bet when it was all lovey-dovey she was okay with the dual citizenship and the idea she and the kids might visit/live outside the US. she wants them in the US now so she can control things. I wouldn’t be surprised if she dipped with the kids. She seems like the I’m the mom, they belong with me type. she needs to grow up and share custody and travel over there. It’s not like she can’t get off from her 9 to 5 job, like ordinary people. tired of people assuming b/c it’s the mom, they should be accomodated more the husband. Very sexist, anti-equality view. They have two parents, not just one. Kelly needs to stop playing games, I can understand his fear that she will alienate him from the kids. She already got him kicked out of the country by having her lawyer imply he was involved in drugs/arms. all so she could get custody. now that that didn’t work, she’s trying a new angle. grow the f*ck up Kelly.

        ashley is not being chauvanistic to suggest the kids get to visit/live with their family. aren’t they dual-citizenship. that’s what mature people do so their kids get to know both sides of their family. mary-alice, you’re wrong imo.

    • The Other Katherine says:

      Ashley, you are absolutely correct about international marriages creating unique challenges. I am an American married to a Brit (one of the easiest “mixed marriages”, since the two countries have a close relationship and share a language), and it raises all sorts of issues even without children — where to live, how to handle taxation, whether to apply for citizenship for the non-citizen partner, etc.

      I am currently expecting our first child, and I fully expect that we will be together throughout his childhood and beyond. But, if not, I would continue to live near my child’s father even if it was at great personal cost (financial and/or emotional). I became a British citizen in part for this reason. Barring child abuse by a parent, children need ready access to both their parents to the greatest extent possible. That can mean sacrifices; and, if you’ve married someone from another country, it may mean living in a country not your own, at least part of the time.

      I don’t know if Rutherford could get a residency visa for Monaco, but I doubt very much that she’s tried. Instead she prefers to whine, over a situation that is largely of her making. Lots of side-eye from me.

  13. renee28 says:

    She was just on The View going on and on about how her American children were deported and her ex won’t co-parent with her. She has completely distorted the truth. She really is insufferable.

    • paleokifaru says:

      Does anyone on these shows push back? I would feel so sketchy having to sit there and listen to this nonsense and disseminate her bull to the public.

  14. Lucky Charm says:

    I don’t blame him one bit. If she hadn’t behaved like an idiot and threatened to basically kidnap the children to keep them from him, none of this would be an issue. She shot herself in her own foot.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I agree with you. I think she has made it clear that they are in danger of her vanishing with them if she could.

  15. Jeanette says:

    The situation is horrible, but I just cant imagine being so far away from my kids. Its bad enough not having custody..I think she is just grasping at straws…honestly I probably would too.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      To work through cause and effect in the sequence of the custody agreement…

      1. Her actions resulted in the children living outside the US for most of the year.
      2. Her actions resulted in there being far fewer straws to grasp.

      If she changed her actions, things would improve for her, the father of the children, and above all for the children.

      Not her priority.

    • anne_000 says:

      If those straws includes asking strangers to kidnap the kids, then that’s going way too far.

    • pinetree13 says:

      Yeah getting divorced and the other person moving away would suck (I’m going to ignore for now the fact that his move was her fault) but wouldn’t you pull up your big girl panties and make the most out of a bad situation?
      If this happened to me, I would move. I would mourn the loss of my current career and start looking into what I could do over there. I would clean toilets if I had to for the time being. Whatever it takes. Eventually making friends, learning the language and getting a better job/living situation. It would suck in the beginning, I would cry BUT THAT IS WHAT YOU DO TO BE NEAR YOUR KIDS. THAT IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOUR KIDS ARE #1 IN YOUR LIFE like she claims they are. To me, her unwillingness to move shows that SHE’S number 1 in her life the kids are second. So she should really stop going on about how they are the most important thing in her life. Actions speak louder than words.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Me too. And I find the extreme attitude against her here very disturbing. Not to mention that the advises are totally unrealistic and obviously coming from people who have never actually moved to another country with a different language. And the writers… oh.

      • Genny says:

        I’ve moved to another country with another language. It’s not that bad. If you love your kids, you’ll get over it. Monaco is a nice country and it’s so easy for US citizens to travel and even gain citizenship. It’s a lot easier for us than a lot if populations in the world. Please check your facts.

  16. Sunnyside says:

    Parental alienation is a terrible thing and it sounds like she has been trying to systematically remove their father from their life. She comes across as unstable and I am glad that their father currently has primary custody. These court moves he just made do not raise any red flags for me.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Someone above was attacked for not knowing the father has only 50/50 custody but I see you, being on the “right” side are left alone. Hypocrisy. What I admit freely is that in fact, he does have primary custody and can play whatever music he wishes.

  17. Ellie says:

    He’s right to be worried, she’s escalating the crazy because her past crazy hasn’t got her what she wanted. That she’s having a huge campaign in the US supported by z list celebrities and their idiotic supporters, running a hate campaign against her ex through social media, telling everyone her kids need to be removed from their fathers custody, inviting wannabe ‘heroes’ to go get them for her, petitioning the President etc is beyond disturbing. More so that she is getting away with it.

    I really hope she doesn’t get to bring them to the US this year. I get the impression that she feels that she will have enough public support to keep them in violation of a court order. And if she doesn’t get to keep them all to herself she’s the type of personality that will figure nobody should have them.

    I feel so much for the father right now, he must be terrified for his children’s safety. They’re so lucky that he is strong enough to fight to keep them. I hope he wins this. For their sake.

    • anne_000 says:

      I agree with you.

      And it’s very telling that she still hasn’t handed over the kids’ US passports to a neutral third party like she was supposed to by the California’s court’s order.

      It just shows that she’s up to more tricks in the future.

  18. Velvet Elvis says:

    This is a sad situation but it’s least disruptive for the kids, in the long run. If they lived in the US they would have to be constantly flying in and out of the country for visitation with their father. No one should want to put their kids through that. As a mother I would fight tooth and nail for my kids to be with me, which is what she is doing and I understand…but at some point she needs to accept what’s best for the kids, not herself.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      The trouble seems to be that she *thinks* she’s fighting tooth and nail to be with her kids, but that fight exists only in her own mind. The courts see a woman fighting tooth and nail to a) avoid inconvenience, and b) get back at her ex- through their kids. Sadly, if she hasn’t accepted it at this point, what will it take? The courts are not going to tell her, “Well, if you really really really really want it, then we’ll get you the pretty toy.” That she seems to think she’s above the law says a lot about her mental status.

  19. Tinkerbell says:

    Monaco is a beautyful place to live where only rich people can live. She could live there easily with his money and be with her kids all the time until the battle goes on. She doesnt work much and wont in the future with this negative press . Nobody will hire her now i guess

    • Elly says:

      Monaco is very strict when it comes to foreigners moving in. If i remember well they want to see your bank account and evidence that you earn a special amount of money a year…. they don´t want poor people ;)

      So, Rutherford alone has no chance. But i think as long as her kids live there and she has shared custody she could get a special permission till they turn 18 maybe….if she and her lawyer try. Or she moves to southern France 2 km away.

      What i don´t get is that she seems to have no money left… i mean her Ex is rich and sure still pays for his ex-wife and the kids when they live with her in the USA.

      • Linn says:

        I don’t know if she has the chance to get a permanent visa, but her chances to spend a lot of time with her children are good, if she would actually make the effort.

        As an american citizen she should be able to spend 90 days in a 180 day periods without any problems and spend the other 6 month of the year in the UK, so the children (as EU-Citizen) can visit on some of the week-ends and holidays.

        Her situation isn’t ideal thanks to her own actions, but she could certainly work something out, if not for her own sake than for the sake of her children’s well-being.
        She just needs to give up on the notion that she can live in america with her children and completely cut out the father.

  20. Jesmari says:

    Does he want their passports when she visits in Monacco or when they are here for the summer? It doesn’t matter if they travel here without their U.S. passports. Once they are here they don’t need U.S. passports nor are the bound by the 90 days for Germans because they are American citizens too. There are Americans who have never had a passport.

    • Miss M says:

      As far as I know, when you enter a country you are required to show a passport regardless of your citizenship. I think he wants a third party to be responsible for their US passport because once they entered US as citizens of US, she can kidnap them or try the last minute move she did last Summer to prevent them to go back to Monaco. If they enter US with their European passports is garantee she needs to return them within the time period that immigration graced their entry/stay in the US.

      • Jesmari says:

        Miss M, that is just it, there are no limits put on how long U.S. Citizens can stay in America. These kids are also American citizens so they are not bound by the 90 day limits of regular German citizens. The only reason it would make sense to keep her from their U.S. Passports is to keep her from fleeing to another country.

      • Miss M says:

        But aren’t they also German?!

        I am not sure, but i think what you said can apply only for US citizens. But like i said, i dont know…
        I do think his biggest fear is if she kidnaps them somewhere else. I don’t know if she said something privately that would hint she would do something like that. But , in the public, she is coming across as completely unstable.

        edit: just read what you said to B&C. According to section 215 of the immigration, if the kids havedial citizenship and one of the parents is a foreigner they can enter and leave US using the other passport (he is basically making them enter in US wittj the european passport, so they are not allowed to leave with a US passport). You ate correct. Yhe gistt is he is afraid she will take them with her using their US passports.

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      Not having passports means she can’t take them out of the US, which is good for the ex, because US courts will uphold the custody agreement.

      His concern is obviously that Kelly not circumvent the custody arrangement by kidnapping the children and taking them to a country she won’t be extradited from.

      • Jesmari says:

        B&C, I get the not being able to take them out of the U.S. I was referring to CB saying the lack of U.S. passport would prevent them from staying in the U.S. indefinitely which isn’t true. Also the article states that without their U.S. Passports they would be limited to 90 day visits as Germans. This is false because they are also American citizens.

    • Celebitchy says:

      @Jezmari – you’re right about the 90 day visit limit, I’ll fix that!

      • Jesmari says:

        Thanks CB. I was confused about that at first. I still think that having a neutral third party have the passports is probably a good Idea with most of these international family law cases.

    • anne_000 says:

      I’m glad you all were able to clear up the issue about the 90-day limit.
      ……………..
      “Does he want their passports when she visits in Monacco or when they are here for the summer?”

      I’m thinking that because of the tricky stuff she does, he would want their passports held by a third party when the kids land in the US, then handed back to the kids or whomever travels with them when they fly back to Monaco.

      I think the whole point of having a neutral third party to hold the passports is to make sure they’re not ever in Kelly’s hands.

      She might say the passports got lost or destroyed when it was time for the kids to go back to Monaco. Or she might fly the kids out to a third country without permission by the courts and the father.

      For the California court to order that a third party hold the passports and for her to have not followed that order yet makes her look sketchy.
      …………………….
      On another topic, for Kelly to have visited the kids 70 times, it shows that the father is willing to comply with the court order for Kelly’s visitations and to pay for her expenses to see the kids.

      I’m not sure Kelly would have done the same if the shoe were on the other foot.

    • Jesmari says:

      Yes Mrs. M that reason actually makes sense.

  21. Queen B says:

    I found a copy of Kelly’s family court order on PACER with her federal petition and it states that when the children are not traveling, the passport is to be held by a neutral third party in either New York or France preferably a licensed attorney not to be released without the joint written consent of both parties or court order.

    According to People, Kelly told the magazine that Daniel requested that the passports be held by his attorney who is not neutral and there is no court order that allows him to cancel her visits if the passport is not turned over by a date certain. The order also states if the parents did not agree on the third party neutral, the Minor’s Counsel will select the individual to hold the passports in November 2013 so Daniel’s conduct is not in accordance with the court order.

    Rather than filing a papers in California family court regarding the passport issue before Kelly landed in France, Daniel is resorting to self help and blocking Kelly’s parenting time which Dan Abrams believes she could use as evidence to modify the parenting plan as it shows he is no longer willing to facilitate the children’s relationship with their mother.

    I always felt that Kelly lost the relocation issue because she did not “play the game”. As a family law attorney, the parent who appears more friendly or cooperative often wins . Daniel like Kelly has violated court orders such as not applying for a new visa which the State Department confirmed to People. Daniel could be just as mean spirited or vindictive as Kelly is believed to be but because he does not make talk show appearances or comments to the press he is considered superior.

    I do not think Kelly is dangerous or mentally ill. She is just a mom who does not want to fly to another country every month to see her children because the US government decided Daniel is not allowed to enter. If I were Kelly, I would forget about talk show appearances, federal court, Wendy Murphy, and the White House petition and focus on building a strong case under the CA Family Code or International Hague treaty which may govern international custody disputes.

    • Miss M says:

      You are telling us that something that was determined in 2013 has not been done yet (the third neutral party)? I am not defending him. But he is probably requesting right now because last year she try to keep the children here and it was time to return them home.

      And she does come, at least, emotionally unstable. I hope for her kids’ sakes, she goes through the legal channels you suggested.

    • paleokifaru says:

      Did Kelly counter offer a neutral third party to hold the passports? Was the counsel for the minors advised that they need to choose a third party and did they do so? From what I’ve seen of going through the court system it can easily take years to get one party to follow through with an initial court order and it’s even easier to keep it stalled if you think it suits you to not have a decision in place. It’s bad enough if you have to use a parenting coordinator (PC) or some other type of mediator and have that recommendation go to the court but in my experience it takes even longer if you’ve still got attorneys involved on both sides as they seem to have here.

  22. DrM says:

    The woman is a whack-job. I’d have extra protection too.

  23. Talie says:

    I saw her on The View — I mean, she had a lot of support. I think she’ll get what she wants eventually. If anything, she has media support in a big way.

  24. Queen B says:

    I have so much compassion for Kelly as you can see from her interviews that she is heartbroken about the custody issue. I do not how you can share joint custody with someone in a foreign country and it is unreasonable to insist that mother fly to France every two weeks.

    If I were the judge I would have seriously considered alternating custody every other year so that both parents have the opportunity to have primary custody in their home country.

    I think Kelly is really angry that the burden is on her to travel back and forth while husband does nothing to get his visa restored. The judge intended for the relocation to France to be temporary pending reinstatement of the visa and he is not even trying to do so.

    If you research judge Teresa Beaudet you will find that another mother is claiming that her child was sent away to live in Germany with the father effectively ending any visitation. Family court judges do not always make the right decisions.

  25. Queen B says:

    Based on the court order issued, it suggests that Daniel could possibly get his visa reinstated.

    Daniel was ordered to reapply by 2013 and Kelly was ordered to cooperate and to submit an affidavit in support of the visa application. The parties were to retain an immigration attorney who be the court’s expert to evaluate if both sides complied with the orders.

    Apparently, Daniel has not submitted the application even though failure to pursue a visa constitutes a material change of circumstances per the order that could shift residential custody to Kelly.

    I honestly believe Daniel has no intention of returning to the U.S. He has a great life in Monaco, physical custody of the children and wealthy parents. Even if the CA courts reverse the relocation order, Monaco may not enforce it and he wins. He played the game well and Kelly may not be able to reside in the same country as her children until they are 18.

    • anne_000 says:

      Here’s what Kelly said to Harvey Levin (TMZ) in a videotaped interview:

      “Well, I think it would be wonderful for someone to show how much they appreciate US citizens. I think that whoever brings my kids home is going to be pretty much of a hero. I mean they’re going to be doing the right thing for children, for citizens of the United States of America. I mean I think it’s a very pro-America thing to do. If something went wrong, we’re not saying it’s their fault, we’re just saying we really need some help here and what it’s taking to get help is a lot. ”

      *********

      What does she mean when she says:

      “…If something went wrong, we’re not saying it’s their fault, we’re just saying we really need some help here and what it’s taking to get help is a lot… ”

      Is she telling the “someone” that if they do something with the kids during the action Kelly is calling for, then she’s going to be OK with it and not press charges, thereby they won’t have to fear any recriminations from her? Sort of like carte blanche on whatever the someone or someones want to do?

      Isn’t that a scary thing to say? No wonder the father wants the passports held by a third party.

      • Mis M says:

        Thank you for the transcript. I was SHOCKED when she said that and was backed up by her stupid and incompetent lawyer. I am surprised Harvey didn’t call her on it.

      • Linn says:

        And somehow there still are people supporting Kelly and feel sorry for her.

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      What is stopping Kelly from residing in the same country as her children right now?

      She could have spent her money emigrating instead of battling to keep her ex-husband from seeing his children 50% of the time, as the judge ordered.

  26. Dena says:

    This all reminds me of Halle Berry & her fight with Gabriel. Custody issues & arrangement about support payments really bring out the vindictive sides of people, the passive aggressive side of people or just amps what’s already there. Both play the game.

  27. OSTONE says:

    I just read on people a California judge just granted Kelly sole custody of the kids.

  28. Queen B says:

    The judge who sided with Kelly also blocked Halle’s move away to France so he is not considered pro mother- Judge Mark Juhas

  29. Rhona says:

    That’s horrifically worrying for the father, this woman will make sure he never sees the kids again the second she gets the chance. This judge is an idiot to give her the opportunity, she has been hellbent on alienating the father from day one and now she is in the crazy zone. In her mind they are never going back to him once she gets them, she won’t let them go, she threatened to keep them in spite of a court order last year but this year she feels empowered by z lister support, 100,000 signatures from ignorant morons and the fact that she is so enraged by not getting her own way all this time that she sees this as the final chance she has to keep these kids all to herself. I worry what she’ll do to them when she’s ordered to share them again, she comes across as the type of person who could harm them to prevent them going back to their dad. It’s all about her, all about her winning, ‘her’ children, what she wants……. No matter what she has to do, how many lies she has to tell, what impact it has on them…..

    I sincerely hope this man has an excellent lawyer and the support of a Monaco judge. All the American firsters she’s appealing to forget that these children are equally EU citizens too and they deserve the right to a peaceful family life, to not be alienated from their dad, to not be sent off with a deranged narcissist who compulsively lies and drags them into the public arena, to not be put in a position where they are at the mercy of how she will decide to keep them from their dad. They have rights too, that should be central.

  30. Jezza says:

    Apparently she’s been judge shopping. A judge granted her temporary sole custody. I can’t even with this bitch. Link from the daily fail…grain of salt and all.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3095203/Gossip-Girl-s-Kelly-Rutherford-granted-temporary-sole-custody-two-children-ex-husband-Daniel-Giersch-took-Europe-2012.html?login#article-3095203

  31. TotallyBiased says:

    So, wait–because the dad didn’t want to just hand the kids over to her without a NEUTRAL third party holding on to their US passports to ensure Kelly doesn’t do something as crazy as she has been loudly espousing, *he* is punished by losing custody? Sometimes it shames me, and I’m pretty patriotic, to be a US citizen.

  32. Jenny says:

    This woman makes me ill. She is unfit to be a mother when she puts her kids through this hell of threatening to take them permanently from their father and the security of the world they’re now used to. If you’ve followed the stories about her behavior over the years it’s pretty obvious she’s a callous narcissist who only cares about herself, not the wellbeing of her children.