Kelly Rutherford awarded temporary sole custody of her children by CA judge

On Friday, we heard that Kelly’s Rutherford’s ex husband, Daniel Giersch, had told her that she could not bring their two children back with her for a scheduled visit to the US until she surrendered their passports. Apparently this was part of their custody agreement and Giersch’s side was trying to enforce it following a series of public statements by Rutherford suggesting she would take extreme measures to keep the children with her in the US permanently. As you know, Rutherford’s two children, Hermes, 8, and Helena, 5, have lived with their father in Monaco since 2012 following a judge’s ruling. Rutherford’s appeal in federal court, which claimed that her children have been deported, was overturned last month.

A judge in California, not the judge who issued her custody ruling, has now granted Rutherford temporary sole custody of her children until a follow up hearing is held on June 15. Rutherford has claimed that Giersch has filed to give Monaco jurisdiction over the case, and this ruling asserts that California retains jurisdiction. It is unclear if Giersch will comply with the California order or if Monaco will recognize it. You can read the full ruling here and The Daily Mail has more details. I’ll excerpt some of People Magazine’s report here as they have quotes from Rutherford’s lawyer:

According to a court order filed Friday, the children must return to Los Angeles, and their mother will keep their passports. A hearing at the L.A. Superior Court – where Rutherford, Hermes, Helena and Giersch or his representative are required to be present – is scheduled for June 15.

The news comes after Rutherford told PEOPLE that Giersch would not allow her to see the kids after she arrived in France for her latest trip Thursday unless she gave their U.S. passports to someone his legal team called “a neutral person” but she claimed was one of his attorneys.

“We are ecstatic, and hopeful that Monaco will respect the California court’s ruling and send the children home. It has long been our position that Monaco has no jurisdiction because Hermes and Helena, as American citizens, have an absolute right to live in their own country,” Rutherford’s lawyer Wendy Murphy tells PEOPLE. “If the citizenship shoe were on the other foot and these children were citizens of Monaco, I have no doubt the United States would respect their right to reside in Monaco.

“Monaco officials know that sending the children back to America is the right thing to do. I’m looking forward to the happy reunion of the children not only with their mother, but also with their country!”

[From People Magazine]

I read the court’s ruling and they state that “The United States of America remains each child’s habitual residence for purposes of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction… neither parent has the authority to change either child’s residence for Hague Abduction Convention or for any other purposes without written consent of the other parent, which consent has not been provided by either parent… each child’s habitual residence remains the United States.” From what I understand, the Hague Convention only applies when a child is removed in breach of a custody order, and since Giersch had a custody order allowing him to take the children to Europe, I don’t understand how the Hague Convention is applicable. Also, legal experts do not agree on the terms which constitute a child’s “legal residence.” Giersch can argue that they’re also EU citizens and have lived with him for three years. He can also continue to work to have Monaco take over the case.

In any case, the children will most likely be visiting their mother this summer as planned, but it sounds like this custody battle is far from over.

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

289 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford awarded temporary sole custody of her children by CA judge”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. cr says:

    At this point, having the children raised by wolves would a a better option than their bio parents.

  2. LAK says:

    Please would a USA legal expert chime in here because how is it possible to get a judgement on a no notice ex-parte hearing?

    Doesn’t that mean that one party ie the father wasn’t notified at all and couldn’t address her long list of submitted claims?

    Wasn’t this the same move she tried to pull last summer except the father found out and was able to be represented at the hearing?

    As for the main accusation that he wanted her to surrender the kids’ US passports, there is information swirling around that it was the Monaco judge that insisted she surrender the passports and she refused.

    Gosh what a mess. This ruling proves *his* point, that she can’t be trusted.

    • PoppyAdair says:

      This is only a temporary emergency order, not a final ruling. And yes, he does not get an opportunity to address her claims just yet. The hearing is on June 15th. At that point the family court judge will sort out the issues and determine whether to extend the temporary sole custody or revert back to the original order of joint custody or amend the custody order.

      I question the timing of this order though. Apparently the Monaco judge requested the surrender of the children’s passports earlier in the week, but it seems to me that her attorneys waited until the holiday weekend to file their emergency motion. At that point the request would go to whatever judge is on call for these matters, not necessarily the judge who has been handling the case. As the story indicates, a different judge – not the one who has thus far refused to grant her sole custody -issued this order.

      Turning over passports to a judge is not that unusual, especially in international custody cases. I think Giersch has good reasons to insist that she not have unfettered access to both the children and their US passports. She has already proven she cannot be trusted to obey court orders.

      • LAK says:

        Thank you so much. That’s cleared up these and other questions I had. :)

      • Audrey says:

        It seems like she went judge shopping. I bet she knew the judge who is actually in charge of custody would not do this.

        I wonder if his lawyers can go to that judge on Tuesday and get this reversed. The new judge is not familiar with the details of the case.

        This is just awful.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      An ex parte hearing usually can only be granted in extreme emergencies where there has been some showing that notice would somehow cause irreparable harm. God only knows what they cooked up here. And he can appeal the mere fact that there was an ex parte hearing. And if I were his lawyer, I would be filing a complaint against the judge with the judiciary committee on top of the appeal.

      • LAK says:

        Lilacflowers: i’ve really appreciated your expert legal commentary through this case. Thank you so much.

      • Tammy White says:

        The judge found that Daniel violated the previous court order at least twice since October 2014. That’s the irreparable harm they “cooked up.” The original court order had stated the passports were to be turned over to a neutral party, not one of his lawyers. And I know a bunch of you are going to argue with me but California should retain jurisdiction in this custody case. The children were born in California & the original court order stated neither side could waive jurisdiction without the written consent of other parent. Daniel Giersch has been doing just that with all his filings in Monaco. He’s been trying for 3 years to have Monaco retain jurisdiction. Neither parent is a winner in this case & the children will suffer from this tug of war.

      • Samtha says:

        Except because of her, he is not legally able to visit California to properly plead his case.

      • Tammy White says:

        That’s why there are lawyers. Order states both parents or representatives due back on June 15.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        I completely agree with Tammy. The whole constant blaming “because of her this or that” should not prevent the children from having their mother around as well and the current situation leaves me with the impression that the father is far from the righteous personality described on this blog. And I absolutely agree that he has violated the order trying to waive jurisdiction and I hope he gets kicked in the butt for that. He doesn’t seem much better to me at all and I see no reason to treat him like a special snowflake.

      • jenn12 says:

        How do people know which parent did what? There’s a lot of blaming the mother without definitive proof. Hasn’t Daniel refused to reapply for a visa? Hasn’t he refused to allow the kids to see their mother? These poor kids- this battle is only hurting them.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Tammy

        “The original court order had stated the passports were to be turned over to a neutral party, not one of his lawyers.”

        Since she still has the passports after all these years, that looks like she’s not obeying the “original court order” by not turning it over at all. Surely, if she had every intention to obey the court regarding this, she would have been able to find at least one person whom the court would agree to in order to turn over the passports.

        So why is she making this such a contentious point for so long?

      • jenn12 says:

        Wouldn’t she have the passports because they are going to visit her?

      • Paleokifaru says:

        @jenn12 Hi again! I recommend going back through the CB articles covering this custody battle. There has been a lot of support for the 50/50 custody that was awarded because people recognize that barring extreme circumstances it’s generally best for both parents to be involved. Sentiment in this case has begun to shift due to Kelly’s own actions and interviews that are aggressively alienating starting with multiple refusals to comply with the court order to list Daniel as the father of his daughter on the birth certificate. Daniel may not be applying for a new visa, and that is in violation of their agreement also but he has not once threatened to keep the children away from Kelly and it seems he has also followed the order to fly Kelly to see them. The children do live with her in the summer. As they are school aged and their parents reside in two different countries and the father is unable to travel to the US perfectly shared custody just isn’t going to be a feasible option. No one thinks that would be an easy thing for a parent but people are alarmed by Kelly’s call for anyone to take her children and the ways she’s distorted the custody situation to claim deportation. She’s also made several statements conforming she’s attempting to alienate the children from their father in private. I don’t think anyone believes Daniel is pure as the driven snow but based on every article I’ve read on every site he seems to at least be willing to coparent therefore the judge’s decision to have the children with him during the school year seems warranted.

      • jenn12 says:

        Hello, paleokifaru- nice to “see” you again. :) I just try not to go on assumptions. I will try to read more, but I feel like this could go either way. One is that he is a really bad guy and she wants to protect the kids, and the other is that she is evil. One of my brothers is an attorney, and he always says the truth is somewhere in the middle. But these kangaroo courts are a little scary. I don’t like when we try someone in the court of public opinion. It’s called opinion for a reason. I mean, people are now saying she will kill her own kids because they have a “feeling about it”.

      • paleokifaru says:

        I actually think that’s what people are so mad about – Kelly is trying to use the court of public opinion to change her custody situation and aggressively attack her ex while he has simply fought it in court and kept his mouth shut.

    • Jaygee says:

      Ex parte rulings are routine in CA courts. You have to only provide about 24 hrs notice to the other side (by 10am the day before you go to court, usually at 8:30am). If this notice was given, then the court can rule even if the other side doesn’t appear.

      • anne_000 says:

        In the court document, in the first paragraph, it says that Daniel had “not been given notice of the application. The Court found there was good cause for the no-notice ex parte application.”

        So there was no 24-hour notice to Daniel.

        He didn’t even know that there was a hearing.

    • Jesmari says:

      It is a temp order and he may have been noticed. That is why there will be a court hearing in June. Also Monacco cant demand anything from Kelly. They have absolutely no jurisdiction over her. The U.S. Court is the only one that has jurisdiction over all the parties. Kelly and the kids have American citizenship (kids have dual). The father availed himself to American jurisdiction by using U.S. Courts to rule on his divorce and custody. Hague isn’t just used for kidnapping. It is used for custody orders and child support enforcement.

      • Chaz says:

        @Jesmari
        Exactly. The Hague rules on all custody disputes that cross borders of countries that have signed the agreement not just so called kidnapping.
        Those children are US citizens. They have US passports, however to have taken them to Monaco Daniel must have either had passports from his own country or they were noted in his passport. EU law says children must have their passports.
        Again I do not understand the bias against one parent when both are doing the same thing.

    • qwerty says:

      @jenn12

      From what I gather they haven’t visited her since she got the father deported. She’s the one travelling to Europe to see them.

      • paleokifaru says:

        That’s incorrect. They were with her last summer, per the custody order, and that is when she attempted to have them held in the US. You can find articles on it here on CB and elsewhere online.

  3. NewWester says:

    Maybe someone can explain this to me. So Kelly has sole custody of the children, does that mean she does not have to send them overseas to see their father? He can’t come to the U.S. because of visa requirements

    • Lilacflowers says:

      That would be the case if she actually has them at the moment.

      • Audrey says:

        Only until june 15th. The case goes back to the original judge at that point to make a long term decision. A judge who likely will not like that she pulled this stunt behind the judge’s back

      • Tammy White says:

        It may or may not go back to the original judge. However, what stunt are you referring to? That they applied for an emergency order because Daniel Giersch has violated the original court order at least twice since October? Can anyone look at this objectively? Seriously. He’s been ordered to reapply for a visa and hasn’t. The original court order laid out terms for handing over passports & the original court order stated California retained jurisdiction without written consent of either parent. He’s violated these three provisions alone.

      • Audrey says:

        She waited to file for this until courts were closed for the weekend so she was assigned an on call judge instead of the one who made the original ruling

      • WinterLady says:

        Honestly, from what I’ve heard, it might be pointless for Kelly’s ex to try to obtain another passport, since his last one was taken due to accusations of gun running and (I think) terrorism? Which is strongly suspected that Kelly and her lawyer called him on that, so even though there is no proof, it’s a long shot at him getting another one. Kelly also violated the original orders to put her ex’s name on her daughter’s birth certificate. So she is no innocent either.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Regardless what is assumed, when you’re ordered by court to do this or that, you DO it. Every year, if that is required from you. This is not a game of assumptions, first. Second, we don’t know if the accusations against him were afterwards waived or proven wrong but this is IRRELEVANT. If you are indeed a parent willing to co-parent, you DO re-apply every year to prove you are indeed making every possible effort. As I said on the previous thread, the hatred towards this woman is clouding your judgement of the father who is clearly doing whatever suits him best.

      • Tammy White says:

        The judge ruled on this may 22, which was Friday. The hearing was probably applied for the day before when Daniel refused to let Kelly see the kids until she handed the passports to his attorneys. Original court order said neutral third party, not a member of either sides legal team. I’m an attorney myself & while I would do my best to remain neutral…a neutral third party is someone appointed by the judge.

      • jenn12 says:

        It’s amazing that people just assume the mother is guilty without knowing anything for sure and that the father is completely in the right.

      • MET says:

        @jenn12 – there is no assumption that the mother is guilty – the mother’s actions make her guilty. In this case the father is the only one who has acted reasonably and has not attempted to alienate or keep the children from the mother unlike her actions.

      • WinterLady says:

        It’s also amazing that people assume the mother is always innocent and wants the best for her children, just because she is a mother. Sorry, not all mothers are good mothers, and Kelly has been tried her hardest to alienate her ex from her kids-from not putting his name on her daughters birth cert (ordered by the court btw) to making the possibly making the accusations that got him kicked out of the US in the first place. I’m not suggesting he is a total innocent either, but she has been underhanded, manipulative, and played the pity game as well.

      • littlestar says:

        Tammy White – how do YOU know that he hasn’t reapplied for a visa??? Where did you get that information from? Seriously, I want to know. Show us proof that he hasn’t reapplied for a visa.

      • Lady D says:

        Does anyone have actual proof that Daniel has not re-applied? Everybody says he was told to re-apply, how do they know he hasn’t? Is the list of people who applied for visas and were turned down available for perusal?
        .

      • jenn12 says:

        I make no assumption in either parent’s case because what’s out there is innuendo, rumors and a lot of anger coming from both parents. When you say someone is possibly making accusations, that’s a big assumption. I wonder if they could both reside in a neutral country, like Canada, and share custody. You could go either way in what you believe- she’s a minor celebrity, trying to exploit that, and push someone away or you could assume that he’s a bad guy and she found out things that scared her and she is trying to limit what their kids are exposed to. It’s a pretty big thing to divorce someone when you’re pregnant- you have to be really desperate, like Denise Richards. Though Halle Berry has proven herself to be someone who tries to rid herself of her daughter’s father… but there’s actual proof of that.

      • Jesmari says:

        Lady D the state departmart has confirmed that he has not reapplied for a visa. Read the article below.

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/time-state-department-bring-actress-kelly-rutherfords-american/story?id=29982224

        I know it is pro Kelly, but is has a the direct quote from the state department. The state dept’s statement has been shared by numerous media outlets.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Mary Alice

        “Regardless what is assumed, when you’re ordered by court to do this or that, you DO it. Every year, if that is required from you. ”

        Ok. Well then, that means Kelly was obligated to follow the court order from years ago to turn over the passports but hasn’t done what was “required from” her.

        She’s the one who made this subject a contentious point for years. Surely if she had every intention to obey the courts regarding this, then she could have found a neutral third party by now to whom she could turn over the passports.

        And never mind that there’s been reports that she had repeatedly refused the court’s order to put Daniel on the daughter’s birth certificate and that at the end of last summer’s visitation, it was reported that she refused to send the kids back home to their father when she filed her emergency petition. Wouldn’t this have been another case of not obeying court orders?

        If there was evidence that Daniel hasn’t been re-applying for a visa, then the judge could have mentioned that in this court document, but didn’t. How would the public know for certain if this rumor about the visa re-application is true or not? It doesn’t seem like it would come from Daniel’s camp but Kelly’s.

        If the visa application is the point of contention, then shouldn’t her actions of refusing to follow court orders be considered to work against her too?

      • Lady D says:

        Thanks for the link Jesmari.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        anne_000 well,the link ahout him not applying is right above. I think that gives a good perspective on the angelical father and his willingness to co-parent not by his pwn rules and his own territory.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Mary Alice

        Which link is it?

        I don’t see it in the court document. Do you mean in an article that lists a ‘source’ who says this or that? Does that even count as a fact?

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Yes, it does when weighed against a pure assumprion that he has applied. I very much doubt all those newspapers would have printed a lie. And it is very much expected at this point the source to be anonymous. Do you want to place a bet that he hasn’t applied? I will. And it’s pretty obvious from the way he acts.

      • PoppyAdair says:

        Just an FYI…when people are deported from the US, the immigration judge’s order states how long they are barred from returning to the U.S. The MINIMUM ban is 5 years and may or may not be waivable for the purposes of securing a new green card or a nonimmigrant visa – depending on a lot of factors. Some criminal offenses and terrorism allegations have a MANDATORY lifetime ban from the U.S.

        If he is serving out a temporary deportation bar to reentry, he CANNOT legally apply for a visa with the Department of State. He is flatly ineligible to receive a visa. Period. In order to become eligible to even *submit* a visa application, he would first have to secure a waiver from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is an agency of the Departmnt of Homeland Security. He may have requested a waiver of his deportation bar to reentry, but USCIS/DHS will never disclose this info to the media or general public because he is protected by the Privacy Act. It can take months or years for USCIS to act on a waiver application, and even with two U.S. citizen children, USCIS may still deny it and force him to serve out the full term of his ban.

        The fact that he has not applied for a visa does not necessarily mean he has violated the custody agreement. Federal law trumps state law. If the Feds say he cannot apply for a visa because he was deported, then the family judge’s ordering him to do so is irrelevant and impossible.

    • Sarah says:

      It sounds like she now has a temporary order that will be in effect until the next court date on June 15th. It also sounds like this order was obtained without notice to her ex but it’s legal to do this if you can convince the judge that it is an emergency. His insistence that she turn the children’s passports over to his lawyer might be seen as an emergency (or his apparent efforts to have Monaco claim jurisdiction over the children) but I have no idea what was in her court documents. Also it DOES sound like she was “judge shopping” – trying to get the case put before a judge she thought would be more sympathetic than the previous judge. If the matter is being “case managed”, then it will keep going back to the same judge no matter what the issue was. Case management is supposed to keep people from running to court on the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result with a different judge. It is effective for this most of the time.

      And yes, I have done time in the gallows of family court as a lawyer. Then I decided to run away and I now teach english in China :)

      • Alice says:

        Wouldn’t the fact that she tried to keep the kids in the US last summer by filing in NY and not CA also have been an attempt at changing jurisdiction?

  4. Pinky says:

    Well, that’s quite a turn of events!

  5. Blue says:

    Those poor kids. This is a never ending legal battle and the only winners are going to be the lawyers.

    • Snazzy says:

      Exactly this

    • Pix says:

      Yes, those poor kids.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      And the lawyers probably dread getting phone calls from them.

    • StormsMama says:

      Yes both parents seem awful.
      But 3 years is a long time when you are 2,3,4,5. Or 5,6,7,8. So this could prove very very traumatic for both of them.
      Still, i would lose my mind if I couldn’t raise my child. I think KR has possibly lost all perspective and – in conjunction with being a narcissist- she’s gone off the proverbial deep end.
      This is a sad disturbing case and I feel for these children.

      • Jess says:

        Stormsmama, if it were me I would’ve moved to Monaco the instant that judged ruled they had to live there with their father. I do feel bad for her sometimes but I also don’t like how she tried to play dirty and keep the kids from him, it just backfired on her and she’s still trying to play the victim.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        How many times have you actually moved to a different country with a language you don’t know and no job offer? Just asking. Because I have and it doesn’t work easily.

      • RTMS says:

        Her lively hood though is in the states, why should she give up her job and everything to move to Monaco?

      • Audrey says:

        She has not been working much. She could travel to film sets and then back to live day to day life in Monaco. If living in the US, she would still need to spend time away from her kids to go to wherever a movie is shooting.

      • Jesmari says:

        I have heard it is very hard to gain residency from Monacco. If you are there illegally it will be hard to support yourself.

      • Alice says:

        Jesmari: but it’s not that hard to get residency in France. Nice is anout 8 miles from Monaco, Menton is about 6 miles. That’s probably less distance than most people drive back and forth to work every day.

      • QQ says:

        Storms… For some reason reading all this today Im struck wondering: Can Ya’ll IMAGINE the horrific epithets these kids must hear about each one of their parents???

        Lordy

        But welp We can expect them babies at the opening of an envelope the next few Months clad In white head to toe

  6. jessiebes says:

    What stood out for me was: temporary sole custody until 15th June. This obviously far from over. Poor kids.

  7. Palar says:

    Wasn’t part of the original custody ruling that he must continue to reapply for his visa with the intention of resettling in the U.S.? If that was the case and he hasn’t applied for the visa, then he has breached the custody order.

    • PoppyAdair says:

      If he is flatly ineligible to receive a visa (which is highly likely given the accusations made against him), it would be pointless for him to apply for a visa at all. She has also breached the custody agreement by withholding the children from him and failing to add his name to the daughter’s birth certificate. No one has clean hands here.

      • Audrey says:

        Poppy, i am totally on the dad’s side here. But the judge told him he needs to apply for a visa. So he really should obey that order or the judge may feel he isn’t making an effort to have the mother be more involved

      • Mary-Alice says:

        That’s irrelevant. It’s a court order. If he didn’t apply it clearly shows he has no interest in providing the mother with more time with the children on her territory. It’s against the image of a “willing co-parent” he is trying to build so hard. Trying to waive the jurisdiction is also a major thing against the court order. I really think objectivity is failing you here. A court order is a court order. If the mother is expected to follow to a T and is blamed for each failure to do so, the same should be the treatment of the father, regardless what he assumes or not!

      • PoppyAdair says:

        See above. Federal law trumps state law. The state family court judge cannot order him to apply for a visa if federal law says he is ineligible to receive one and barred from reentering the U.S.

    • Meatball says:

      He might very well be reapplying and getting denied. I am not American and have never been, but I have heard that the process is very tedious and drawn out. Considering he already had the visa revoked once, it will definitely put him at a disadvantage when it comes to getting another one.
      I don’t think him getting one was a must for their custody agreement, because I think a judge would know that it may not happen. Also if that was the case and he had not been doing it, Kelly would have been all over it.

    • Miss M says:

      From what i read, he could reapply if she had made efforts to benefit his application. I doubt she dis. There is no Saint in this custody battle, but she has proven time and time again she will not cooperate. On top if that, she gives misleading interviews implying her kida were deported to a place they are not citizens. I don’t think she understands what European Union means…

      • Meatball says:

        I don’t think she understands much. She is just saying anything and everything hoping to make something stick so she can win. I cannot imagine having to deal with this much crazy on a regular basis.
        Has the judge in their case said anything about the visa issue? It has been 3 years, so if it was a big deal or something they were willfully ignoring it would be brought up, unless he has shown that there is no way for him to get one, considering the allegations were pretty serious.

      • Annalise says:

        Wow. We don’t know what went down. But I’ll side with her. She had her kids move to ANOTHER continent of course she’ll fight. You dont like her but you dont know her. You think you do. You’re siding with the dad because ? He has rights yeah bit the hague convention says that the soil in which the kids were born and raised has jurisdiction he ‘s trying to strip her of her parental rights. She obvouisly love her kids of course she fighting it. Don’t be to quick to judge her.

      • Samtha says:

        Annalise, her kids were moved to another continent because of HER actions. She made it so their father cannot visit this continent, and continually sought to strip him of his parental rights.

      • Tammy White says:

        @Miss M Kelly has stated she has helped him reapply for a visa. Easy enough to verify & I’m sure we will find out in time but you can’t assume she hasn’t.

      • Miss M says:

        @tammy: she also said HER kids were deported, were they?!

        There is a magazine interview with her when Helena was 3 months old that she stated she was going to raise her kids alone. It has been her plan all along…
        @Lilac: can her interviews be used against her?

      • Tammy White says:

        Again Miss M, look at it objectively & don’t assume anything.

      • Miss M says:

        @tammy: i suggest you do the same. It is also easy to find she has lied in the past and recently.

      • jenn12 says:

        Again, how do you know definitively that KR caused what happened to the kids’ father? If she was divorcing the dad, then clearly she knew she was going to be a single mother, so that could be why she made the statement about raising the kids alone. Georgia Bloomberg made a similar comment that was on this blog recently.

      • LAK says:

        Jenn12: Kelly’s lawyer in 2012 admitted to making the phonecall to the state dept that resulted in the revoked visa.

        She’s quite cleverly shifted the public conversation from custodial issues to motherhood and ‘Murica’ whilst never admitting to any wrong doing on her part.

        Children need both their parents, but it seems Kelly disagrees.

        She’s been working to that end since these kids were baby (the boy) and in womb (the girl). Perhaps she would have been better off going to a sperm donor.

      • Jesmari says:

        Lak could you please provide the link? I have googled to see if Kelly or her attorney called to report him, but find only speculation and no admissions. I would like to read the statements. Thanks

      • jenn12 says:

        Yes, that’s what I mean. I can’t find any evidence of KR or her attorney admitting to anything. Maybe they did, I don’t know, but do you really think they would ADMIT it? No one knows what is really going on, and are ripping this woman apart based on what they think they know. Where are all these documents being quoted? How are people getting their hands on them via the internet?

      • anne_000 says:

        @ jesmari

        @ jenn12

        From People online
        Titled: Kelly Rutherford Granted Sole Custody of Her 2 Children
        BY MICHELE CORRISTON
        Dated: 05/24/2015 AT 11:30 AM EDT

        “According to court papers, a former lawyer on Rutherford’s team was responsible for the revocation by reporting the German businessman’s allegedly illegal activities to the State Department. ”

        …………………………..

        I posted this without the link but it still didn’t show up. I don’t know why. But I’ll post it again and see if it shows up or not.

      • jenn12 says:

        Still can’t find the link, but I know that sometimes it can be tricky. However, that sounds like allegations. Again, where is the proof? You don’t get your visa revoked based on false allegations. Something was going on. The only other person desperate enough to divorce while pregnant was Denise Richards, and she was ripped apart until her ex was revealed to be a psychopathic drug addict.

      • Jesmari says:

        Anne thanks so much for the info. I have tried googling to no avail. Granted that looks like a brand new article. It still leaves my with questions. Did she know (unfortunately I have seen many attorneys keep things from their clients for their “own good”)? Who’s idea was it hers or the attorney? Why was this attorney booted from her legal team? At least though I know there is something to the speculation.

        I personally find them both a little shady though so freely admit that I don’t know them. I really hope they get passed their issues and strive for joint custody as that would be in the kids best interest.

      • bluhare says:

        Whether she knew about it or not the fact is someone from her team reported him to the State Department, thereby getting his visa revoked and making it impossible for him to coparent those children with her in the US. He cannot get back into the country. The children were not deported; he was. Therefore, any coparenting will need to be done somewhere other than the USA. The fact that Kelly keeps agitating to have her children returned here indicates to me she’s got no intention of coparenting their children.

        I do agree he should re-apply for a visa though, although the odds of him getting another with the charges leveled at him are slim to none. In that instance, what should happen? He should not see his children?

      • anne_000 says:

        @ jesmari

        @ jenn12

        If you copy and paste: Kelly Rutherford Granted Sole Custody of Her 2 Children
        into a search engine like Bing or Google, then for Bing, it will show up at the top, and for Google, it will show up second.

        @ jenn12 – As the quote says, it came from court documents.

        @ jesmari – In another People article, it said:
        “Papers show Rutherford is now required to make “good faith efforts” to facilitate his attempts to get his residence right reinstated.”

        I don’t know if she did this, especially as the same article said that:
        “The latest advancements in the custody saga follow a bitter divorce in which Rutherford tried to bar Giersch from leaving the country with Hermes, hired a private eye to videotape him, failed to notify him of Helena’s 2009 birth and filed a restraining order against him.”

        This article from People is:
        Title: Kelly Rutherford, Daniel Giersch Ordered to Co-Parent in Monaco
        BY KRISTIN BOEHM AND MAGGIE COUGHLAN
        Dated: 08/29/2012 AT 01:10 PM EDT
        ………………………
        “I really hope they get passed their issues and strive for joint custody as that would be in the kids best interest.”

        They did have joint custody until this recent order stripping Daniel of it and giving sole custody to Kelly, from the same hearing in which the judge allowed a no-notice ex-parte application.

      • paleokifaru says:

        @Jesmari – magic phrase “past their issues and strive for joint custody.” It’s so hard for people to get past divorce in the first place and since this has drug out so long…well, I hope they can too but at this point that seems like it would be a miracle. At the very least you hope they can drop the constant back and forth in court and just abide by the custody rules set out and not interact too much. Maybe after a few years of that the kids at least won’t feel totally caught in the crossfire. So sad for them.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ jesmari

        @ jenn12

        Part 3 of my reply:
        You can also copy/paste the quote into a search engine to get to the People article.

      • PoppyAdair says:

        People get deported from or are deemed inadmissible to the U.S. ALL THE TIME based on hearsay and allegations alone. Read 8 USC sections 1182 and 1227 and the accompanying regulations at 8 CFR sections 212 and 240. Arrests, criminal charges, or convictions are often not required. The government merely needs a reason to believe or a voluntary admission or a suspicion for many exclusion and deportation grounds.

  8. Scott says:

    If I were him I’d say screw the US courts and screw that nut trying to abduct my children! She already had a good enough deal. Time to cut her out for good. No more of this.. I’d ignore the USA’s existence (esp their mother living in it) and keep them in Europe away from that nut!

    • Tarsha says:

      “I’d say screw the US courts and screw that nut trying to abduct my children!” But that is what she, the MOTHER, was saying! These girls belong with their MOTHER. Girls need their mother. The father should be barred from ever seeing the kids again, after what he put her through. He didn’t give a hoot about those poor innocent children taken from their mother. The father sounds like a psychopath.

      • Audrey says:

        What?

        She has seen them multiple times per year and has them every summer. She hasn’t been cut out, she just has to travel to see them since her lawyer made false accusations to get his visa revoked after a judge ordered 50/50 custody.

        She tried to keep them last summer. She’s doing all that she can to keep them from a loving father

      • The Original Mia says:

        So by your statement, Hermes, their son, doesn’t need his mother and should therefore stay with his father? Children need both parents if they are alive and able to be parents. Daniel wants to be a parent. Kelly would like for him to be a sperm donor and disappear. She’s out of luck in the regard.

      • inthekitchen says:

        @Tarsha – Honestly, girls need a father just as much as they need a mother. But mostly what children need is a GOOD parent(s). Plus, just FYI, not that it should matter but there is one girl and one boy, not two girls. So, by your logic, should the boy stay with the father and the girl go with the mother? That makes no sense. They should go with the parent who can give them the best, most normal, loving, stable upbringing…and that does not seem to be the mother at this point, IMO.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        After what he put her through? What, being pregnant? Having to visit the beautiful country of Monaco? She’s the one who is a flight risk with the kids, not him. And fathers have as much a right to their children as mothers do. Children need responsible PARENTS, the gender of those parents is a lesser issue. Unless you believe gay couples shouldn’t parent?

      • snowflake says:

        how did he take her from her kids? He pays for her to fly to see them, pay for a car, and for housing too while she’s over there visiting! She’s made over 70 visits to them. Wtf?! She just wants the girls where she is. You need a reality check if you think he is keeping them from her. either that or you’re not informed on the case. According to your opinions so if it’s boys, boys need their dad, so they should stay with their dad? your opinion does not make any sense. so what she’s the mom? she gets visitation, he deserves the same rights as the mother.

      • Belle Epoch says:

        HAHAHAHA “kids need their mother”

        What a joke. There are mothers who burn their children with cigarettes, sell them to men for money, you name it.

        Kelly appears to be about one inch away from abducting those children – or drowning them in the bathtub – just so the father can’t see them. If I were the dad, who has given the kids a stable life for years, I would be frantic.

        If she really loved those kids she would minimize all this legal sh*t and go to be with them. This is all about her getting attention and getting her way, no matter what.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        But she is not such a mother, Belle Epoch. And yes, the kids also need their mother, what’s so amusing about it? What she is an inch away from or not in your opinion is clearly in contradiction to what the judge thinks as per the excellent information provided below. To me it also seems that the father is closer to an inch away from abducting the children.

      • Lady D says:

        Belle Epoch; She is the type to drown her children and then swallow sleeping pills which she will dramatically survive, and oh sob, see what he did to me.

      • lisa says:

        because every vadge is golden and pushing something out of it makes you a better person?

    • Ennie says:

      In the countries where there are agreements, this is not posible to do. Remmeber the case of Alondra Luna, the girl from Houston who was taken by her father to Mexico? The custody belonged to the mother and he disregarded that. The Interpol and judges went so far to take who they thought was the right girl from a school in front of her classmates as if she were a delinquent (she was not the daughter, they had tracked the wrong girl). Finally the father gave up the real Alondra, and she went back to her country.
      If One of these parents disregards the court orders, they are getting themselves involved with the police and all that.

    • Angel says:

      If he does that and an american judge orders the kids be return to the US the french police will come to take the kids from him. It actually happened before, dont kid yourself. International law does apply in europe.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Err… and how exactly would this benefit the children? You do realize that regardless her opinion of her, she is the kids’ mother and in their minds she doesn’t look the way she looks in yours, right? He has absolutely no right to leave the mother out of the kids’ lives considering she is not some drug addict who beats them on a regular basis or exposes them to constant abuse. Calm your horses and don’t forget it’s about the kids’ BEST INTEREST not what you or the father thinks.

      • Ennie says:

        Mary Alice, he is not the one keeping the mother out of their lives.
        She IS the one trying actively to keep him away from his sons.
        She has repeatedly done actions to do this. He lives away, but she can visit and has had the children in the US for her time. The problem is that sjhe has stated that she wants the children for herself. There is an interview somewhere, People I think, when she was in the process f divorce where she stated how she would rear the children herself, not “needing a man” (the father of her children).
        As a non American, I hate how she is touting the American citizenship as a huge thing, as if the children were not half European.
        She made the worst decision when her team implicated him in visa problems.
        They could have tried to make the best out of this, but she since the beginning has tried to shut him out. He has rights too.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        I know the story and I’m not saying he is NOW keeping her out of their lifes, I am responding to an over dramatic appeal up there. However, allow me to not be on the “black/white” train as I have quite a few questions regarding the father’s behaviour as of what the facts are not as of public perception and specifically regarding his lack of any attempt to re-apply for an US visa as hewas ORDERED by the court. I’m European married to a North American and pardon me, but my child IS a North-American not half European. I don’t know how his children became automatically half European and I’m not sure since when the country of origin (theirs) doesn’t matter.

      • Chinoiserie says:

        Your children do not have EU citizenship? These children do have both citizenships at least.

        And while the father has not re-appied for visa that is the only bad thing I can see the father having done. You should research more about the mother like how she tried to keep him out of his child’s birth certificate as father.

        And how mother is a batter parent than father?

      • Mary-Alice says:

        My child was born in a North American country just like hers. No, the child does not automatically gain my citizenship. Please, do not lecture me. I have researched enough to form my own opinion which by all means I am allowed to.

      • bluhare says:

        I think you should do more research, Mary-Alice. Perhaps your country is strict, but a lot of countries allow children of its citizens, born overseas, a passport. From what I understand her children carry two passports, American and EU. My family (except me) carry both passports as well. You do have to apply, though, so I guess you’re correct that it isn’t automatic.

      • paleokifaru says:

        @Bluhare yes and you do apply for any passport even if you’re only a citizen in one country. I *wish* they would just hand them out because I’m tired of forking over money for renewals. ;)

      • Alice says:

        In regards to dual citizenship re: Mary-Alice…
        Most EU countries allow for dual citizenship and Canada certainly does. The only EU country that comes to mind that doesn’t is Italy (I believe).
        As a Canadian married to a European whose country does allow for dual citizenship, our children hold two passports. That said, we made the effort to ensure they were registered as citizens of both countries, that was our choice and we consider it an advantage for them, as do they. Particularly in regards to future career opportunities as it opens up the entire EU with no visa requirements as a possibility. They consider themselves half Canadian and half European, and again, we made the conscious decision to raise them to feel connected to both of their countries. Whether they choose at some point to settle in one or the other or feel more of an affinity to one or the other will be their choice at some point.

        My point being that regardless of whether your children are “half- European” or not, whether by choice or lack of choice, that’s clearly not the case of these children. Their parents, even when still together, had the oldest registered as German citizens, had put the him into a European educational system while in the US and have ensured they both speak at least English and French, although I imagine they probably speak German as well if that is the language spoken in their home in Monaco. It seems rather clear that even before they got divorced, the intention of the parents was to raise their children with, at the very least, a European education. Kelly’s refusal to put her ex-husband’s name on the youngest’s birth certificate until ordered by the court to do so was an attempt at depriving that child of half of her heritage, her right to German citizenship and the only person’s interests that served was the mother, not the child. That to me is incredibly selfish.

    • MET says:

      @Mary-Alice – how do you know she is not one of those mothers? Clearly she has been mind-f***ing the children for years. Her actions have been repulsive and quite frankly show that she is only interested in doing what she wants not what is best for the kids. To blindly support her “I am an American mother” stance without considering all of the facts is truly sad.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Because there is absolutely no evidence she is such a mother. What you think and what the facts are are obviously two very different things and I find your language offensive towards a complete stranger.

      • littlestar says:

        Mary-Alice, Rutherford has flat out said in interviews that she tells her children crap like she is fighting for them, won’t give up on them etc – when ironically she is the one who created this mess in the first place! She’s basically admitting to emotionally and mentally manipulating her children. To me, that does not sound like a good mother. She sounds like an emotionally abusive mother.

        If a mother is a narcissist, then no, she should not have access to her kids regardless of her being their “mother” or not.

      • Lady D says:

        Mary Alice you seem so certain. How do you know he hasn’t applied for a visa? You’re not taking TMZ’s word for it right?

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Lady D, well my certainty was proven by the Department of State. Now, do you think they are liers?

    • Jesmari says:

      Sorry, but Monacco is a member of The Hague. That won’t happen.

    • Jesmari says:

      Scott you are forgetting that Monacco is a member of the Haugue.

  9. Lilacflowers says:

    Given that today is Memorial Day, the day on which we honor those who died for this nation, may I just point out that I consider this whole “citizenship” argument of hers, which is NOT based upon anything in the Constitution of the United States of America, insulting to everyone who is a citizen, everyone who is a resident of the US, everyone who has ever bothered to actually read the Constitution of the United States of America, but especially insulting to those who gave their lives for the Constitution of the United States of America, which includes one of my uncles?

    • Audrey says:

      It’s offensively American-centric too. These kids are dial citizens. They’re living in a safe and beautiful country with family. They weren’t deported, tge judge simply respected their dual citizenship and the importance of having an involved father

    • Samtha says:

      Thank you. She’s gotten a lot of support from people who just listen to rhetoric instead of looking into the facts of the case.

    • Meatball says:

      It was a good tactic on her part. She has all these mouth breathing idiots supporting her. Not that it matters because an order has been in place for years.

    • Tammy White says:

      Stop. Just stop. Some of you are just so anti Kelly Rutherford that you’re not looking at this objectively. The original court order stated they would retain jurisdiction..meaning California would, without the written consent of either party to change it. Both Daniel & Kelly have ignored this & most of you are, too. The court that issued the ruling on Friday (and not over the weekend!) is reinforcing a previous court order. Put aside Kelly & the histrionics of the past 3 years…which I can offer an explanation for but none of you consider it because you refuse to believe that it’s possible Daniel isn’t whom you think he is. He could be another Charlie Sheen but without the addiction…ie a sociopath..but you we don’t know. You don’t know either of them. Kelly is reacting & not thinking. While I agree she probably has a personality disorder this doesn’t mean Daniel is 100% squeaky clean mr. Perfect. So her citizenship & constitutional argument are desperate attempts. It doesn’t mean the California courts shouldn’t retain jurisdiction.

      • The Original Mia says:

        No one said Daniel was squeaky clean. What many have said and you’ve ignored is that Kelly isn’t being denied her children. Her histrionics don’t need explanation. She lost primary custody of her children and she’s upset about that. She’s throwing out the “they are Americans so they need to be raised in America” spiel and is forgetting the fact that those children are also German. Meaning they have dual citizenship and can live in Europe as well as the USA. Over the last 2 years, she has been numerous times to Monaco to see them. They have spent the last 2 summers with her in NYC/Hamptons. So her claim that her children have been abducted is baseless. They have the life of many divorced children. The only difference is location. She’s in the States and they are in Europe. The California judge ruled that it was in the children’s best interest to live with their father, who seems more likely to keep their mother in their lives, unlike their mother who has done everything possible to keep him out of theirs.

      • WinterLady says:

        I agree, Original Mia. The reason some are coming down harder on Rutherford is b/c SHE is the one putting herself out there. Her ex has remained out of the spotlight, despite the fact Kelly has been bashing him left, right, and sideways. He hasn’t really come out to defend himself, like bringing up that HE has been paying her way in Monaco to see their children. Doesn’t mean he is perfect, but imo he just comes out looking better then she does and more stable for those kids. In a perfect world both would grit their teeth and co-parent for their children’s sakes, maybe with one or the other of them trying to relocate. But it seems that Kelly would rather garner as much attention for this as possible.

      • littlestar says:

        One thing we do know about DH is that he is NOT blabbing to the media and conducting interviews at every opportunity like KR is. The fact that we know very little about him and that he is keeping things private speaks volumes, in my opinion.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @TammyWhite, given that you are responding to my post about how insulting this jingoistic moron is, I’m going to point out to you that my post contained no opinion about the father one way or another or anything about jurisdiction.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Here, here. Given the children’s dual citizenship, citizenship is ruled out as a factor in any custody decision. There seem to be many other factors in this tormented case, but citizenship is not one of them. It is neutral. No nation’s citizenship is inherently more valuable than that of any other and each comes with its own package of rights and responsibilities. One would hope that one of those responsibilities would be to learn about other places, accept that some of them are fine places to live (my god, Monaco), and avoid nationalistic chauvinism.

  10. Norman Bates' Mother says:

    Even though the order is temporary for now, it has shown that there is a possibility she might win (because she’s all about winning, not the well-being of her children) despite all her crazy actions and nothing good can come out of that. I’m sure if she will only have a chance, she’ll make sure they never see their father and he can’t simply fly to the States to fight for them. At least until now, they have been able to see both their parents on the regular basis, but I doubt she understands that the children need and deserve to have a contact with their father, who loves them and fights for them. The reactions I read on the other sites saddened me. So many people congratulated her on the basis of what can only be summarized as: the mother is more important than the father and their American citizenship is more important than the German one.

    • Audrey says:

      Summed up perfectly

    • Lilacflowers says:

      She was only able to show a possibility that she might win because he was denied opportunity to present his argument at the hearing, given he had no notice of it. I fear that if she gets those kids unchaperoned, she will disappear with them. And the idiot and those celebrating with her would flunk a citizenship test.

      • MET says:

        I hope that he hides the children until the 15th. I know that it will hurt his case but this woman will disappear with the children or possibly something worse – her behavior clearly demonstrates she is only interested in “winning”.

      • Miss M says:

        @MET: i hope he doesn’t do it. I hope he complies with the order and shows who is the cooperative and stable parent.

        Then, it will be on her to prove she , in dact, has her children’s best interest at heart.

      • MET says:

        @ Miss M – you’re right of coarse but this woman has played pretty dirty all along and I fear what she will do to keep her children. It’s a bit like the Josh Peterson case, where he ended up murdering his children – maybe not that extreme but KR is definitely as narcissistic.

    • Kara says:

      good comment. as you say: they are playing this angle because it works in the fight for the public opinion.

  11. Lindy79 says:

    These poor kids

  12. Sally J. Freedman says:

    I haven’t really been paying attention the this whole saga, so will someone please explain to me why she is so vilified? I understood that he took them for a visit and refused to return them. Isn’t she doing what any mother would do in this situation? I may be totally wrong though.

    • The Original Mia says:

      Click the links that are provided for the full, sordid story. He didn’t take them. He has physical custody of them. Kelly can visit them during the school year and have them during the summer.

      • jenn12 says:

        She doesn’t want to visit them, she wants to live with them. I have googled this, and haven’t found anything definitive- just rumors and what people think might have happened.

    • Audrey says:

      No no. A judge ordered for them to live with their father in Europe as they are dual citizens(German). They are living in an EU country.

      He was in the U.S. when they were married and they were ordered to share 50/50 custody. Her lawyer then made false claims and got his visa revoked to try to get full custody for mom. Instead the judge decided the kids should live with dad as he was more open to facilitating access to the other parent. He pays for her to visit at least 6 times per year and she gets them in the U.S. every summer.

      But she has pulled crazy stunts along the way. She refused to put him on their daughter’s birth certificate despite being ordered to do so multiple times. She talks endless crap in the press. And last summer she kept them for too long and tried to file in federal court to say they were deported.

      She just recently stated that ANYONE who brings the kids back to the U.S. will be a hero so dad is terrified of kidnapping now.

      • tracking says:

        yes, she is awful. I hope their dad treats them less like accessories.

      • Jesmari says:

        Audrey that is all wrong. They still have 50/50 custody. The kidd live in Monacco primarily because he can’t enter the U.S. She did not keep the kids longer than she was supposed to, but she did threaten. I have read endless comments that she or her attorney called the state department, but nobody has ever provided a link (though if you have link with Kelly or her attorney stating,this please give me the link). As an attorney though I can tell you the state department found something they didn’t like. They do not revoke visa on false allegations only.

      • Audrey says:

        Jesmari-

        Her lawyer admitted it in court. Matthew Rich

        I know they share custody, but the kids reside with him. This is the least disruptive way to split custody since he cannot enter the US. Otherwise the kids would need to fly to see him, meaning it would only be during school breaks. That’s very hard for young children, flying LA to Europe multiple times per year.

        Nobody has details of his visa but he was never charged with anything so they obviously didn’t find much

    • katren says:

      Yes you are totally wrong – I don’t know where you got that idea since it is nothing like what’s been happening at all. The children live with their father in Monaco per the American custody agreement. The father pays for their mother to visit them several times a year and she gets them in the US all summer. She is the one threatening to kidnap the children. Did you even bother to read the article before commenting?

      • original kay says:

        I often wonder that as well- do people even read, try and comprehend?

        or even google to find out?

        Definitely a pet peeve of mine.

    • Julaine says:

      No,he did NOT take them for scheduled visitation and refuse to return them. That is actually what the mother tried to do last summer and has been appealing for help to do again this year. The father has joint custody with Ms. Rutherford and is incapable of seeing his children here in the U.S. because she had his Visa revoked and entry into the U.S. barred through a reputedly false accusion made to U.S. Immigration authorizes.

      Ms. Rutherford has consistently and systematically attempted to interfere with the parental rights of the father of her children. Those children also have German citizenship, therefore they also have European Union rights that deserve to be considered. As far as anyone has been able to tell, the father has done everything required to honor his end of the court ordered custody agreement, including paying for dozens of trips for the mother to see her children where he resides with them. Something HE would be denied, if the situation was reversed.

      • Jesmari says:

        Juliane he has violated the court order by not reapply for a visa, per a state department official. She also claims he wanted her to give the passport to his attorney, not a neutral third party. He is also doing filings in Monacco though the court order says that California is to retain jurisdiction. We will have to wait until June to parse all the details.

    • claire says:

      WOW. She really has done a number in the media if she’s got people thinking he abducted her kids and won’t return them. This just so much points out how much lying she does in all her interviews.

    • stormcloud says:

      @Jesmari

      here it is. read it all. it’s all there. this woman is a piece of work
      http://images.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/RutherfordRuling.pdf

  13. Audrey says:

    Imo, monaco should get jurisdiction since he cannot appear in a U.S. court. That’s not fair.

    I also think all of her visitation should be in monaco since she has made obvious threats and attempted to keep them last summer.

    • Ennie says:

      I’ve read that according to international treaties, this (Monaco’s getting jurisdiction over the custody fight) is not possible because another court in a diff. country is already dealing with this. The case belongs to the US, supposedly.

    • katren says:

      I agree, since 3/4 of the people involved live there but that would probably be too simple and drama free for this

    • Jesmari says:

      Per the court order California is to have jurisdiction. Monacco does not have jurisdiction over Kelly. He availed himself to American jurisdiction by divorcing here. Monacco is also a member of The Hague.

  14. SolitaryAngel says:

    It’s those poor children I feel for…they’ve been in Monaco with their dad and grandmother for the last three years–a nice, stable family environment. Yet their attention-seeking, no-career-having, lying, crackpot mother won’t cease her efforts to destroy that stability for her own selfishness. Kelly had a good deal before–better than she should have gotten, considering all her shenanigans; she should have either moved herself to Monaco to be near her kids or just shut her mouth.
    Now look what’s going to be happening to those kids’ lives over the next few months or however long this mess takes to get resolved, and for what? Gah, she makes me stabby. If this was how Kelly behaved in the marriage, no wonder it failed. :(

  15. HK9 says:

    I have a feeling she’s going to run with those kids, or at the very least, be very hard to find when it’s time to send those kids back to there father…..

    • Lilacflowers says:

      I have that feeling too.

    • Meatball says:

      That is a strong possibility. Thankfully she does not have them right now. If she had her way those children would never know their father. Look how hard he had to fight just to get his name on the daughter’s birth certificate. Lord knows what kind of garbage she would put in their heads about him. She is just the worst. No matter how big she smiles she looks mean. I think it has gone beyond wanting her kids with her. She plays dirty and obviously hates losing.

    • Giddy says:

      This is one time her high profile does not help her. She is very recognizable and would find it hard to disappear. I hope this judge-shopping harpy gets a strong talking to by the court for her shenanigans. The poor children are going to be so confused. Unfortunately no court can keep her from telling the children “her” truth about the situation and their father. In about 15 years we may see one of the children write a book about their experiences that will put “Mommy Dearest” in the shade.

    • Jayna says:

      She’s not going to run with the kids. Spare me. Run where? Support them how? If she didn’t want to work and live in the States where her life and career is, she would have moved to France and had half custody. She was never stripped of half custody. Her work ability is here.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        I Agree, Jayna. Sadly, objective approach is lacking from those threads. It’s “she is black and he is white”.

      • HK9 says:

        Desperate people do desperate things. This is the same woman who didn’t want to put the father’s name on her child’s birth certificate. I don’t see her complying with a legal order to send her children back. I’m fully aware that no one has ‘clean hands’ here…. but I hope she surprises me.

      • claire says:

        If ever when she spoke, she displayed a grounded, in-touch-with-reality presence, people wouldn’t have these opinions about her.

      • jenn12 says:

        But here is more of the “I have a feeling” and “She comes off like she will”. Where is the hard proof that she will do this? She has been working with the legal system for years. She lives and works here; what work will there be in Monaco? She’s a minor actress here and getting some TV work.

      • Miss M says:

        She may not take them. But she definitely incited others to do so…Which could endanger their kids. How responsible… NOT!

    • lisa says:

      i do too, although i wonder where she will run to. her argument includes a lot of “there’s no place like the good old US of A.” last time checked, the hamptons are still ours.

  16. bettyrose says:

    Are these kids getting counseling for the anxiety this is undoubtedly producing? Not to mention the intense feelings of guilt they probably have because they blame themselves for how unhappy their parents are?

    • Ennie says:

      Let alone missing school, but hey, who cares about that silly detail?

      • stormcloud says:

        I thought about that, too. they have a bit over a month left in school and she is throwing a hissie fit over handing over the passports and wants to drag them away from everything they know and like and are used to. what a fine mother she is.

    • Sarah says:

      They’re still young luckily and would be largely oblivious to all this going on. As they’re around the dad, he seems more likely to remain civil while they’re in earshot! When theyre with the mum in the summer though… I bet she’s doing all she can to poison them against him, which is so awful as he is the primary caregiver. I hope they have a stable nanny through all this mess!

      • Elisa the I. says:

        @Sarah: my niece was 5 when my sister broke up with her ex and believe me, she was NOT oblivious to any of it. She knew exactly what was going on. She is now 10, lives with my sister and sees her dad regularly. However, my sister says that it still confuses my niece when the 3 of them spend time together. So she usually drops my niece off and leaves straight away…

    • lucy2 says:

      I hope someone somewhere is looking after their well being. They’ve been uprooted so much and will soon be old enough to see the public spectacle their mother turned this into. And there has to be so much tension in both households.

  17. Betti says:

    I feel for those poor kids – their young lives are so hectic.

    The mother needs to take a long hard look at herself – she’s ruining their lives with this drama and selfishness. She created the situation and wanted the father out of their lives because their marriage failed – behaviour typical of a self obsessed narcissist. She’s loving all the press attention and yes i agree she will run with those kids the first chance she gets.

    When those kids grow up they will be able to see what kind of woman their mother is – a nasty liar who set out to destroy their father and to stop him from being in their lives. The woman’s a nutjob.

    • sills says:

      Well said. I just hope they will be able to forgive her one day, because yes they will eventually learn all about how she tried to shut out their dad from their lives.

      I’ve known people who went through similar situations with a vengeful, narcissistic parent in a custody battle and it can leave scars. Some of them are never able to truly forgive and it affects them all their lives. I really feel for those kids.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        By the same token I have a friend who spent the majority of her life seeing her mother once a year for the summer and as soon as she turned 18, she literally escaped from her father’s home (she is not an abused child or anything like that) to live with her mom permanently and now says “I can’t get enough of how she smells” about her mom. I don’t know if you realize to what extend children indeed need the presence of their mother as well. My friend is actually hating her father as of now for not letting her live with her mom which is not objective BUT is her emotional response and he is pretty much left on his own. She blames him for not being closer (different provinces but still a long flight away) so she could meet her mom every week, so her mom could take her to the park “like all the other children”, etc. It’s a very hurting wound for her that these moments are never to happen for her.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Mary-Alice: Where did that friend live? Because in most of the US, shared-custody children don’t have to wait until they are 18 to petition for a change in primary custodial residence. Judges give a lot of credence to the child’s wishes even at a relatively young age (12-16) unless the non-primary custodial parent doesn’t *want* year-round custody.

      • Jesmari says:

        Totally she mentioned provinces so I don’t think it was the U.S. Even here though the mother or child would have to have the resources to reopen the family case.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Canada, ladies. I don’t know if she was ever aware she could have objected, I have never asked and it’s a very painful topic for her, so I just get whatever she decides to share. Her mom was very poor but worked and tried to get better, she is by no means a street worker or homeless, just with very limited means. The court obviously decided the father, being quite wealthy, would provide the child with better living standard but my friend obviously treasured other things more. She is a very damaged person, to be honest, she is literally not willing to leave her mother’s side, it’s very sad. She is afraid she may miss a moment which will never come back as the moments she missed as a child. It also became clear at some point that the mother had never been advised to apply for Legal Aid and it was concealed from her. Being an immigrant, she had no knowledge of what resources were available to her.

      • Jesmari says:

        That is sad Mary. That is why I truly think joint custody is best for kids.

      • paleokifaru says:

        Jesmari it can be but it can also be horribly disruptive as we’re seeing here. Joint custody takes TWO willing co-parents to really work well and sadly that often does not happen. We’re seeing an extreme version here but even in milder cases it can be very damaging to the child to have one or both parents continue to bash the other one because they’re constantly forced into contact and decision making with them. While I’m glad courts are recognizing the role of the father and I wholly support that, I’ve seen some very bad joint custody situations.

      • Lady D says:

        Heartbreaking story Mary-Alice. I hope your friend can be okay one day.

  18. Queen B says:

    Kelly did not go judge shopping to seek a favorable ruling. The Judge who initially granted the move away, Teresa Beaudet was reassigned to a different department. In 2014, the case was reassigned for all purposes to Mark Juhas which is public information on the Los Angeles Superior Court online case summary.

    The court found there was good reason not to give notice to Daniel as he could try to flee Monaco before the ruling or file papers in a foreign jurisdiction.

    Daniel now has an opportunity to show he will comply with courts in California. If he fails to produce the children as ordered, it will show Kelly was right to oppose the move away and his refusal can trigger child abduction criminal charges.

    A few years ago, people praised Judge Juhas for denying Halle’s move away request and now those same people think he is an inexperienced jurist who does not understand the law.

    • Jayna says:

      Thanks for the info.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Thank you! I’m so fed up with the whole throwing unjustified blames at her without any factual back up!

      • MET says:

        @Mary-Alice – you’ve mentioned objectivity a few times and yet you seem to lack it completely. Most of those pointing out her actions concede that he is not a saint but his words, and more importantly actions, seem to honor a co-parenting relationship which is the best anyone can hope for in a nasty custody battle. If by all means there is evidence to demonstrate that she is trying to also foster a relationship with both parents then please feel free to point it out.

        I for one had no opinion of KR before but cannot respect any parent who forsakes the health & happiness of their children so that they can “win”.

    • The Original Mia says:

      He doesn’t have to flee to Monaco as that’s where he & the children live with his mother.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        “To flee Monaco”, I think it says clearly, Original Mia. I understand perception is clouded but this is a simple phrase even I, a non-native speaker, understand.

      • The Original Mia says:

        Well, that’s great that you understood what the phrase meant, Mary-Alice, as you seemed to have missed all the other points people have made against Rutherford.

      • Jesmari says:

        Mia I think they don’t want him to flee to a country that is not a member of The Hague. I have no idea whether he would do that since I do not know him. I personally am in favor of joint custody as studies prove it has the best outcomes for kids. I always wondered if it would be possible for them to move to Canada.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        No, I miss only when the choir is singing and pay attention to individual tunes.

      • bluhare says:

        Individual melodies become noise without a skilled conductor.

    • anne_000 says:

      I’ve read the court document on the DM page.

      Where does it say that the judge thinks Daniel would “flee Monaco?”

      It doesn’t so far as I can see. Maybe I’m going blind or my reading comprehension is crap but could you point out where it says the judge thinks he had to do this no-notice ex-parte application because he thinks Daniel would “flee Monaco” where he’s lived with his mother for some time now?

      I don’t know why the Halle Berry issue is relevant to this case. Are you saying he based his decision on the same evidence as the Halle Berry one?

    • jenn12 says:

      Didn’t know that- good information. Just goes to show how personal opinions will cloud actual facts and make it seem real. Anne, she was saying people praised the judge when they agreed with his decision, and now they’re insulting him and saying he was bought off by Kelly. Which is odd, since Halle is a big star with a lot of money and he went against her, and Kelly is a minor TV actress.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ jenn12

        Considering that Halle and Kelly’s situations are different, I doubt that one judgement in one case can be equivalent to another judgement in a totally different case.

        Just because the judge may be the same or not, praising one decision for a separate case does not mean that a different decision in another case with different facts should require praise too.

      • jenn12 says:

        I’m not saying otherwise. I just thought you were confused as to what the person was saying.

  19. Amy says:

    Crazy woman. She complained that fighting for her children bankrupted her, well I hope she has other means if income because I don’t see anyone besides maybe ABC Family (the irony) hiring her again.

    • Betti says:

      If she were to win full custody who do you think she will demand give her money to raise the kids? That’s right the father who she doesn’t want in their lives, but will happily take his money.

      This has gone beyond the children and is now purely about revenge – she can’t handle that she didn’t get custody.

      I for the life of me can’t understand why she is so determined to cut the father out – its just so many levels of sad. Those poor kids.

      Is it public knowledge why the marriage failed? Doesn’t seem they were together for very long.

      • Ennie says:

        I don’t know, but she dumping her first husband (of a few months) after he found out he had a terminal heart disease is very telling.
        They even appeared (publicity or money who knows) in a Voge or Elle feature about weddings. Their wedding was featured and scheduled to appear a few months after the actual wedding.
        He (former husband) called up the magazine to complain that they should not be featuring their wedding because she had already left him, the mag said that she had given them the green light saying everything was rosy.
        Poor guy, married, got an illness, and she could not stay for a few months but unceremoniously dump him, and still get her nice all perfect wedding featured when she was already divorcing.
        She is a complex woman, I do not think she is a monster, she must have something good in her, but she just does not seem to have the empathy to relate to a man or father of her children.

      • Amy says:

        Oh my God Ennie, that’s horrific.

        Smh. There are some real sick ladies out there that prove women can be just as big a douchebag as any man. She’s the type to make me wonder how much of this is about the kids and how much is trying not to be the ‘loser’ and making sure her family is picture perfect.

    • Jesmari says:

      She could probably get more work on the Mysteries of Laura considering that Debra Messing is one of her supporters.

  20. original kay says:

    Holy crazy lot of new posters on this thread. The “girls need their mother” is my personal favourite << sarcasm

    Team Kids.

    • snowflake says:

      right? when did they lose their mother? she’s visited them over 70 times, according to reports. i feel for dads, because lots of times, like here, people side with the mom just because she’s the mom and no other reason.

    • Jesmari says:

      That was from Tarsha/SAL. She is not new. She lives permanently on the Brad/Angie/Jen posts. I am actually surprised to see her here.

    • jenn12 says:

      They’re not both girls. And I understand either parent wanting to LIVE with the kids, and raise them, not just have them visit.

  21. NorthernGirl_20 says:

    I have a question, why was his visa revoked? I know she made claims that he was an illegal gun runner but was he innocent? Then why did the US revoke his visa if he wasn’t guilty of the crimes that he was accused of?

    • Audrey says:

      The accusation is enough to get it revoked because of the accusation that he was running guns for terrorists.

      Being an accused terrorist is enough, even if it’s never proven.

      If it had worked, I wonder what Halle Berry would have accused her ex of doing.

      • Jesmari says:

        No Audrey an accusation is not enough. As an attorney I can tell you that is not how our laws work. They found something they didn’t like. It was probably not arms dealings though. Please read the IIRIRA of 1996.

      • Audrey says:

        Other lawyers disagree. They revoke on an accusation, then he can go to a hearing and fight to get it back.

        Whether he fought is unknown. He has been very tight lipped, though we know that he has not reapplied for one.

        The letter informing him that it was revoked simply says there was information given to suggest that he may be inadmissible and he needed to attend a hearing if he wanted to be able to reapply.

      • Audrey says:

        I’m not arguing that he has done what he should to try to get it back, I think it’s very possible he wants to stay in Monaco.

      • Jesmari says:

        Ok so I looked up his case a little more. He said through his attorney that he was not deported. If he had tax issues and an inappropriate sponsor that would be easy for the government to prove in court. Perhaps he didn’t want any digging into his business and just decide not to the fight the visa issue. That actually would make sense.

    • Lucrezia says:

      I’ve been curious too. I googled. Best I could find was:

      “According to court papers filed by Rutherford’s attorneys, Giersch’s visa was revoked after investigating attorney Edith L. Curry claimed, “Neither Mr. Giersch nor any of his US-registered shell companies ever filed the requisite US tax returns and also engaged in visa fraud.”

      The papers claim that Giersch used a convicted and disbarred lawyer to sponsor his visa and that while Giersch sold more than $5.5 million worth of real estate, he never paid taxes to the IRS.”

      Which is from Page Six, so take with a hefty dose of salt, but is at least believable. It has to be something bad enough to get his visa revoked, but not so bad that he was charged or that the family-court judge wouldn’t suggest he keep trying to re-apply. Gun trafficking would’ve been investigated. Confirmed outstanding taxes would also be a matter of record. Suspected tax-dodging shell-companies combined with a bit of fraud on the visa application would just get you deported/visa-revoked.

      • morc says:

        But he is a German citizen and there are double taxation agreements in place, the US might not have been entitled to the taxes in the first place.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        I don’t know about the USA but in Canada if I decide to pay taxes in my country of origin, I have to submit particular forms as to notify and declare that so and so. I can’t just skip the whole tax procedure quietly and say afterwards that I paid in my country of origin. Besides, I have to prove it. Also, there are a number of restrictions when I can’t pay taxes in my country of origin just because it suits me better.

      • PoppyAdair says:

        Fraud in which the loss to the victim exceeds $10,000 (in his case, the government may have lost thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes) is an aggravated felony for U.S. immigration purposes. Aggravated felonies effectively bar people from returning to the U.S. forever. So no point in filing a visa application since the forms ask if he has ever committed an aggravated felony…even one for which he was never charged or convicted.

      • Alice says:

        My question is: was he ever actually charged for what was ALLEGED by her lawyer to the Immigration people in order to have him deported? Did the IRS go after him for the taxes he alledgedly skipped out on paying?

        That doesn’t seem to be the case, from which one can deduce that it’s entirely possible that none of it was actually true.

    • LAK says:

      The state dept revokes first and deports, then investigates. They don’t wait for evidence or due diligence. They are especially draconian where security issues are concerned. A person whose visa was revoked due to suspected security issues may never get it overturned even if there is no evidence or the accusation is found to be baseless.

      • Jesmari says:

        Lak removal requires a hearing before a judge and due process. There have to be grounds for removal. You can fight removal with an attorney.

    • EN says:

      US immigration authorities are draconian and there is usually no recourse. If you are not a U.S. citizen you can be deported over an allegation and even if cleared years later you are unlikely to get a visa, just because.

      • Jesmari says:

        EN I actually find them to be quite forgiving. I had numerous clients with long rap sheets some with even sex offenses get a pass. I work with kids in foster care and though most of my clients are great, some scare me. There was one client that was an egregious sex offender that I secretly hoped he would be deported, but no such luck. He is a citizen now. I have no doubt he will strike again.

      • PoppyAdair says:

        I don’t where you practice immigration law, Jesmari, but it’s not Texas. Most JUVENILE offenses will not impact someone’s immigration status. Neither CIS nor DOJ is particularly “forgiving” in most cases involving criminal offenses or allegations involving adults. Not here at least.

      • CatFoodJunkie says:

        Quite forgiving ? Not that I’m aware of, being married to an ICE senior special agent. Darn near anything criminal can get you booted -until you’ve gained citizenship- and you will stay booted.

  22. tschic says:

    Do I understand it right?
    He should give her now the passports and the children and she will go to california with them until May 15th.?
    And then it could happen that they will stay with her or come back to him?
    But I assume it in the middle of the school year…should they just say; “bye, daddy and Oma/Opa, perhaps we don`t see you again” and leave their normal énvironment not knowing if they will come back?

    That`s horrible for any child!
    Why couldn`t they wait till the hearing on may 15?

    And prepare the children… and wait til school year is finished…

    • Audrey says:

      I agree, but the judge wants the children to be present for the court case. I’m assuming they will be with a neutral third party while the parents are in court so neither can just take the kids and run/refuse to turn them over.

      I can see that view but I think their passports should be handed over to the court as soon as they land and the children should not arrive until 48 hours or so before the case is heard so they retain some stability.

      • anne_000 says:

        I don’t think it’s necessary for the kids to be at the hearing, but if they have their own counsel, then he/she can represent them.

        The kids are already pre-scheduled to spend their summer vacations with Kelly, so why rush things by taking them out of school now? Not necessary, imo.

    • anne_000 says:

      Yes, I too was wondering why the judge seems to have rushed forward their pre-scheduled summer vacation stay with Kelly when school would probably still be in session. What an odd order.

      • Lady D says:

        Someone on another thread said the judge knew she screwed up sending those kids out of the country, and she was seizing any excuse to get them back in the states. Let’s hope not.

  23. S says:

    It seems like every time she has them the poor things are just used for photo opportunities. After all they’ve been through why the hell not just let them quietly be kids instead of parading them around in the spotlight.

    • Betti says:

      Because she appears to love the spotlight – her divorce and ‘custody’ has given her more of a media profile than her acting career ever did. She’s doing all of this to get attention and get back at her ex. Her plan has been to marry a wealthy man, have a couple of kids, get divorced and a large alimony and live happily ever after as a single mom. Isn’t quite working out for her.

  24. Jezza says:

    As was mentioned by another poster – isn’t this the same crap she pulled last year, but he found out about the hearing and was able to have his side heard in court? Shady, shady crazy lady!

    Sounds like the custody arrangement has been fair (all things considered) as he’s paying her to get there and while she’s there. In addition, He’s never stopped her from visiting when she’s shown up outside the court ordered visitation schedule. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I understand, he’s never impeded her right to visitation until her pro-america/hero interview. Even then, the only thing he did was insist that she hand over the children’s passport to a neutral third party (as per the custody arrangement, right?) before letting her have unfettered access to the kind. Let’s face it, he’d be a fool to not insist upon it with her recent media campaign.

    *shakes head* I can’t even with this bitch and the lemmings who blindly support her without knowing the parental alienation crap she’s pulled!! This mess is all her!!

    • Birdix says:

      There is some absurdity involved in admitting you are unsure of the facts, then calling others lemmings for their unfounded opinions.

      • Jezza says:

        Fair enough. I prefer to make sure what I understand to be correct based on available information, rather than blindly following this woman.

        Unfounded opinions, indeed. I wonder how many of the over 100,000 who signed her WH petition know what’s been going on, or signed simply because “mommy”?.

      • jenn12 says:

        Seriously the best comment ever, Birdix.

  25. anne_000 says:

    The issuu link above doesn’t work, but I read the pdf on the DM.

    From what I can tell, it says that Daniel is representing himself and that he wasn’t there at the hearing “having not been given notice of the application.” Well, he does have a lawyer, and why make this decision based on not hearing from Daniel and allowing him to give his evidence? It’s basically making a decision based on hearing from one side only.

    Also, I noticed misspellings/typos and other things (ex: “current” [currently], “Monica” [Monaco], handwritten inserts, and crossing out whole sections with a pen).

    Also, dates are mixed up. It keeps referring to the Further Judgement of November 23, 2013 but then keeps changing the date to November 23, 2015. Was this an accident?

    It just seems like a sloppy document. Anyhoo…

    It says that it’s based upon two alleged missed visits? Never mind that she made 70 visits in total? Those don’t count? And this judge seems to be counting one of the two alleged missed visits as the future one in which Daniel says he wants to allow the visit only after Kelly hands over the passports like she was supposed to do so by court order. And apparently the reason why he’s pushed for this court order to be enforced is

    Also, why not wait until the pre-scheduled June hearings regarding the passports and the fact that the kids are already pre-scheduled to stay with Kelly during the summer vacations anyways?

    I saw a comment on another site that said Kelly must have judge-shopped to find one that would rule in her favor and change the previous agreement. Who knows? But this current order seems a bit rushed.

    Considering that last summer, Kelly refused to send the kids back home to Monaco and filed a failed emergency petition, along with other shenanigans, why would she be trusted to adhere to any reversals of this temporary (and early) custody? Why demand the kids be sent back now instead of just waiting until their summer vacation starts, which is probably in June? Isn’t school still in session?

    Also, all Daniel did was ask that the court make Kelly adhere to the legal order that Kelly was to turn the passports over to a neutral third party. Another commenter (Queen B) posted in an earlier article that there was an option made available two years ago in 2013 that the minor’s counsel would be allowed to select who this third party was, so I’m wondering why Kelly still has the passports? Is this just another refusal of court orders that she’s been doing throughout these past several years?

    • anne_000 says:

      In case some people forgot, this is what Kelly said to Harvey Levin (TMZ) and this is what got Daniel worried:

      “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 by:

      ” 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.”

      • claire says:

        She wants someone to abduct her kids and injure or kill Daniel in the process. That’s what it sounds like to me.

      • Becks says:

        I imagine the thought that all her problems would be solved in ONE FELL SWOOP if Daniel were to DIE has crossed her mind. Hell, she probably fantasizes about it. That remark can only be construed as an invitation to any radical loony out there to abduct her kids using any means available and whatever may happen in the process, such as Daniel being killed, you won’t be blamed; in fact you will be a national hero! I am sure she will think it a huge favour to her.

        She would then be the only parent and regardless of the kids having being raised partially by Daniel’s parents, it’s a gimme that she would get sole custody. Based on how fervently she wanted to deny the kids their own father, I doubt they would ever see their paternal grandparents again before they turn 18.

  26. lisa says:

    all the $ she spends on lawyers, she could live quite nicely in nice and she really wouldnt need to speak french. she doesnt work that much. she’s actually save $ if she did that.

  27. Jayna says:

    In those photos, their daughter resembles Anna Nicole Smith’s little girl.

  28. DOROTEA says:

    The mother got the father deported, he pays for her to travel to Monaco back an forth (he must be loaded!), the kids are not living in Guatemala, Haiti, Nigeria or any other 3rd world country but in freaking MONACO where they are learning French and German (and actually Monaco is 1000 times better for a kid than California as they have a lot more culture and history to learn). The woman now wants him to re-apply for a visa (you go ahead and get humiliated at the American Embassy, beg for a visa, I don’t want to go to Europe anymore!). The kids have dual citizenship and now a judge decided that they have to live in USA. If I were her I would have moved to Monaco a looooong time ago. It’s not like she has a great career in Hollywood and she will be missed!

  29. EmmyGrant says:

    What caused their relationship to fall apart so dramatically and create such long-lasting animosity–anyone know?

  30. Nephelim says:

    Rutherford is a “wish come true” to the Lawyers. She is making them very rich and full employed.
    Now , I want to know , she ´s paying child support os is she a deadbeat mom?

  31. Lucky Charm says:

    Why would she bring the kids U.S. passports with her for a visit? There’s no reason to, unless she planned on bringing them back to America in violation of the earlier judges order for the kids to live with their father during the school year. This latest tactic is just one more item in the long list of things she’s done to show she’s not in the least bit interested in doing what’s in her children’s best interest.

    • PoppyAdair says:

      All US citizens must enter the U.S. using U.S. passports. See Immigration and Nationality Act section 215 (8 USC section 1185). If she were bringing them back to the U.S. for authorized summer visitation (which is what it sounded like she was intending to do), she would need their U.S. passports.

  32. Aurelia says:

    I highly suspect Kelly has Narcissistic Personality Disorder which is very dangerous. My sister has this syndrome and I can smell it in others a mile off. These people destroy lives. No thought for what they put others through. As long as they win. Kelly couldn’t give a rats ass about what her children are feeling. Ironic as she is saying it’s her children she cares most about and is “fighting for”. I am seriously worried this woman will truly flip her lid if the future scheduled meeting does not go her way. The type of parent who drown their children to spite their exes have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It makes zero sense to us as we do not have a mental order. Its makes perfect sense to a person with NPD. They must win and be in control at all costs.

    • candice says:

      I’m not able to offer a definitive diagnosis of NPD – or anything else in the DSM – but some of her behaviour concerning the kids really rubs me the wrong way. One example is how she seems to treat her kids like show ponies or accessories when they are with her.

      You seldom see candid unstaged pap shots of her pictured with them at a park or a casual outing where she is interacting with them – like how we see celebs like Alyson Hanigan or Jen Garner doing casual, every day stuff with their kids. Instead, she drags them to event after event and photo op after photo op, dressed up in their Sunday best, not a hair out of place. Tons of fun, eh? NOT.

    • Jackie says:

      BINGO!! My brother’s ex is exactly the same way. She definitely has narcissistic personality disorder and he’s been battling her for custody of my niece for a few years now. Unfortunately, the mother knows best mentality prevails in Canadian family law. To my niece’s mom, It’s not about the kid. It’s about winning and and getting as much attention as possible. It’s unreal, how she plays the ‘poor me’ to get attention and yet doesn’t follow court orders because according to her they are ‘suggestions’. She doesn’t have to do what she’s told, the judge doesn’t know what they’re doing. UGH!! It’s so infuriating. It’s why I follow this case closely. I can totally see my niece’s mom in Kelly Rutherford’s personality. It’s disgusting. Right now all I live by is that karma will get them in the worst way and in a way they never imagined. Their own children possibly turning on them when they learn the truth as they get older.

      • Lady D says:

        In a CB story about KR from 2012 (I followed a google link) a poster said, “Personally I think they’ll be more likely to resent their mother for getting their father kicked out of the country.”

  33. boredblond says:

    I’ve never seen this woman in anything, so have no opinion of her talent..but reading these comments tells me she is a scheming, evil woman whose years of legal red tape is all to enable her to murder her kids (evidently only on U.S. soil..) and she obviously has more pull with the state department than high ranking elected officials. Evidently her ex is some sort of magical Prince who raises ponies and sugarplums. My my my…

  34. Iheartgossip says:

    Something isn’t right with her story. And, she went to the biggest dump ho-dee-ho for help, KuumyCakes. So there REALLY isn’t something right. TEAM KIDS & maybe Dad, he seems the better choice at this point.

  35. Camille (The Original) says:

    I feel so sorry for those children :( .

  36. Rhona says:

    Poor father having to deal with this relentless nutjob. Poor kids for having her disrupt their lives with her crazy and constant attempts to alienate them from their dad.

    These children are EU citizens as much as US citizens and I hope a Monaco judge will uphold their right to a peaceful life with their dad. It’s outrageous that this woman can conduct a public hate campaign, lobby the President and worst of all, invite strangers to kidnap her kids from their father and be rewarded with full custody. She has proven herself selfish, narcissistic, deceitful and dangerous to those children. Their father has every reason to be distressed and afraid for his children right now.

    She will take the z lister support, petition, wrongly sympathetic media and now judicial enablement as support for her to finally cut their dad out once and for all. Last year she threatened to keep them in violation of law, this year she will feel that she has enough idiots cheering her to be able to get away with not handing them back. She wants to win this at all costs and get back at her ex. If her hand is forced and she doesn’t get her own way she’ll either go on the run with them or worse, anything to keep them to herself and if she can’t have them I get the impression she won’t want anyone else to either.

    It’s her own fault the kids live in Monaco, she had their dad barred from the US based on lies she fed the government in an attempt to cut him out of their lives forever. That’s been her aim from day one, she refuses to co parent and it’s now or never for her.

    • ROBYNSING says:

      Thank you. Very articulately communicated. On the nose. Nothing worse for children than when one or both parents are on a campaign of parental alienation. There is not enough focus on how detrimental this is.

  37. ROBYNSING says:

    Kelly has seen her kids 70 plus times in the past years. She could see them every day and be supported while doing it if she chooses. For now the kids lives are stable and they are in school and settled and cared for. For now, both parents have a relationship with the children and spend regular time with the children. While this mess continues, the smart things for the Monaco court to do is to keep the kids where they are til its all sorted out. Kelly should move net to them until its sorted out. This case WILL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL JUDGE for the next hearing (unless they have retired or been moved). There may be no question about moving the children. California Superior Courts treat foreign countries as though they are another state. Those here blustering about his Visa…my friend’s visa was revoked once and he filed a waiver to have it reinstated. He was from Scotland. Because he had to file a waiver, it took 18 months to come through and that was back in 1989. The process takes longer now to be sure. It’s not a simple process and the application would go through the consulate in their home country. This is not information which is readily available or made public to TMZ.

  38. Sam H x says:

    After the disturbing and alarming remark she made to the press that openly invited a stranger to kidnap the children from their father! SMH. I’m shocked about this ruling. So I can completely understand the request to hand over the passports to a neutral party. A reasonable request per se. Daniel has every right to be scared and anxious about the safety of his kids.

    The father has dealt with this in the best way possible. I’m glad he hasn’t engaged with her in the media, has refused to do so and only seeks to co-parent peacefully as per his initial statement. The fact he has made sure their kids have a relationship with their mother whereas she didn’t do as such. Speaks volumes.

    Kelly and her camp have certainly drummed up a nice PR smear campaign against the father once again. Those kids are of dual nationality, both German AND American. She only seems to acknowledge that her kids are American.

    I really do feel for the kids. It’s such a mess! Kelly should be thankful her kids have a father who wants to be an active presence in their lives. Alas she wants to wipe his existence in their lives.

    I don’t know much about the law but I imagine any allegations (hearsay even!) are taken seriously irrespective of if there is any basis for the accusations. It’s not easy to obtain a visa once revoked on serious grounds even if they is nothing to suggest.

  39. ROBYNSING says:

    Kelly crying poor is another one of her lies. This woman has worked CONSISTENTLY since Melrose Place in 1996 and mostly in TV. When she was on Melrose Place she made at least $35,000 an episode and did 90 episodes. She is paid far more per episode 20 years later for all of this TV she does and movies in between. She is in pre-production on a movie now and has done many other high paying projects since Gossip Girl in which she did 121 episodes ending 3 years ago. She made millions on that show. Family Law attorneys are around $500 per hour, very high, but no way did she spend all her millions on attorneys…no way.

    • Miss M says:

      Since you mentioned her steady job, I went back and found an article from 2009 :
      http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/01/12/gossip-girl-actress-ex-says-violent-heats-custody-battle/

    • Queen B says:

      Kelly filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy two years ago so her income, assets and debts are public record. Whatever money she made in the past, she no longer has it now.

      According to the court documents obtained by E! News, Rutherford states that while she has close to $24,000 in personal property, she owes over $2 million in outstanding debts. And from the documents, it’s clear to see that the celeb’s money troubles are largely due to legal fees in relation to the custody battle.

      According to the filing, the mother of two owes a whopping $1 million toward her child-custody legal bill, $21,000 to a forensic psychologist for her custody battle, $46,792 for child custody appeals, $202,829 to one of her head lawyers in the child-custody case and $67,856 to another clinical child psychologist—just to name a few.

      Kelly hired several top family law firm and those partners can charge $600-800/hr. In addition, the custody evaluator was forced to fly to France to observe Daniel and the children so the entire case was quite costly.
      http://images.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/KellyRutherfordBankruptcy.pdf

    • The Original Mia says:

      Kelly started a non-profit organization. She is the president and she would get paid a salary through that organization. Nothing illegal about it since she does fundraisers and stuff related to the organization’s mission statement, but Kelly isn’t broke. She may have more bills than income, but she isn’t scrapping by for change to get coffee. And she filed Chap 7 means she’s not repaying her loans. She’s providing her assets for sell-off to pay her debts. Whatever is in her accounts remains hers.

  40. Miss M says:

    I do want to understand why he has not reapplied for a visa (although I am almost certain he won’t get it, but he should apply!).

    In the meantime, we can read previous articles all over the internet about this case.

    Another from People magazine where he stated he was not notified about his daughter’s birth from 2009: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20284221,00.html

    An article on tmz from 2012: http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/30/kelly-rutherford-custody-france-daniel-giersch-children-alienated/

    A very interesting article on the National parents organization website from 2013: https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20391-media-still-ignorant-about-kelly-rutherford-daniel-giersch-case

    • jenn12 says:

      But you’re quoting gossip blogs and a clearly biased website. That’s not objective. Queen B has broken it down effectively, and doesn’t seem to be on either side. In this situation, you need objectivity, facts and relevancy. People are celebrity buttkissers and TMZ is a joke,

    • Alice says:

      The original custody order speaks of “Restoring his Right to Residency”. Maybe one of the legal experts here can explain if that is the same thing as re-applying for a visa, which everyone seems to assume is the case.

      I can’t help but wonder if it’s not actually a different procedure. The word “Restoring” makes me wonder if what he is required to do is work to have his revoked visa reinstated as opposed to re-applying for a new one. Just curious as to the definition of that in legalese. Anyone?

  41. Queen B says:

    http://images.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/RutherfordRuling.pdf
    Here is a link to the court order granting the move away to Monaco for those who have never read the entire document. It clearly spells out the court’s position on the Visa issue.

    First, Daniel testified that would do “everything he can to restore his right to reside legally in the United States”. Second, the court received testimony from immigration experts who said it was uncertain when, if ever, Daniel’s residency right will be restored after submitting a request. Third, Kelly must submit an affidavit in support of the visa by December 2012. Daniel had until January 2014 to pursue in good faith the visa. Fourth, the court planned to schedule a review every two years concerning the visa issue. Fifth, failure to pursue in good faith the visa will constitute a material change of circumstance.

    At this time, I think Judge Juhas’ three top concerns must be 1) whether Daniel has asked Monaco to assume jurisdiction to modify the CA orders; 2) whether Daniel has pursued a visa in good faith as he agreed 3) whether Daniel has blocked Kelly’s parenting time in Monaco or New York. If Daniel has done none of the above, the judge will likely maintain the existing parenting plan and vacate the order giving Kelly sole custody. However, I think Kelly will be able to establish some violations.

    If I were the judge, I would give Kelly custody during the school year and custody to Daniel during school breaks and summer vacation which gives him a 40% custodial timeshare. No parent should be forced to travel every two weeks to a foreign country to visit their children. The issue of whether Kelly or her attorney reported Daniel to the State Department is irrelevant at this point. It is not uncommon in a divorce for one party to report another to the IRS, CPS, the police or immigration. We trust the authorities to investigate and determine if any wrongdoing occurred. If Daniel’s visa was improperly taken, the fault lies with the federal government.

    • PoppyAdair says:

      Kelly can write all the affidavits she wants, but they are unlikely to do any good if he has a permanent bar to entry to the U.S. It is totally unclear what the judge means by “pursuing a visa in good faith.” Immigration is federal, not state, law. If the Feds say he cannot seek a visa to enter the U.S., there is no pursuit to be had! Federal law trumps state law in this matter.

      Now if the court scheduled these reviews to see if the underlying laws had changed such that they might make him eligible to apply for a visa, that would be different. But the family court judge does not seem to understand that there are very good reasons why he might not be able to file a visa application or why filing one might create more problems for him than it would solve.

      • Queen B says:

        This case is so fascinating and I have enjoyed the back and forth with everyone. I do not think Daniel has a permanent bar to re-entry based on his court testimony as well as the immigration experts who also testified. The consensus was that it was uncertain if he ever would receive a new visa but he promised and was ordered to try. If for some reason, Daniel cannot apply or chooses not to for personal or legal reasons, the court should take that information into account and perhaps the current orders need to be revised.

    • Audrey says:

      In my opinion, it’s not fair to the kids to have to travel every school break. That’s a long flight for young kids to make several times per year.

      I also think that something is going on with the visa, such as he submitted information about not being eligible for x amount of time. She hasn’t kicked up a giant fuss about him not having one when it has been over a year since it was supposed to be reevaluated.

      So I think he is somehow okay on the visa front but the judge will be angry that he blocked access based on a Monaco court order

      This is going to get messy since Monaco has apparently stated that the children are residents there

    • CatFoodJunkie says:

      “No parent should be forced to travel every two weeks to a foreign country to visit their children ? ” If SHE had physical custody would HE not be required to travel to a foreign country to visit his children ? (Visa issues notwithstanding.) With parents living in different countries, what else can either parent do, but travel to a foreign county? Better the parents than the kids – if someone has to travel.

      • paleokifaru says:

        Agreed. And I don’t see how giving Daniel 40% custody is any different than the situation they have had up until this latest temporary order. They live on two different continents and will be doing so for the foreseeable future. It was never going to be a perfect 50/50 split when there was at least one child in school and two very different locations involved. Why should the mother automatically get more custody? Oh wait, she shouldn’t. The judge found plenty of evidence that she was an alienating parent and realized as long as the visa situation remained the same Daniel would have a bit more physical custody because he was complying with her visitations. I’ve not seen anything outlined showing that situation has reversed.

  42. Alice says:

    Here’s a thought… Instead of appealing to The President and the public to “bring her kids home”, how about appealing to the Prez and public to reinstate her ex-husband’s Rght to Residency? At which point, the “Return to New York” plan mentioned in the court documents would come into effect.

    Of course…that would mean she’d still have to “share” her kids, something she clearly doesn’t want to do.

    • PoppyAdair says:

      Actually if she were really committed to being a decent co-parent, she could ask Congress to pass a private bill making Daniel a U.S. citizen. They are rare, but they do occur. U.S. citizens can never be deported from the U.S., and he would not lose his German citizenship either. But she will never go down that route, mark my words!

      • Queen B says:

        A private bill is an interesting option but I do not see Congress rallying around Daniel even if Kelly asked them to do so. He does not seem like a sympathetic character and now a California court has alleged he is not in compliance with court orders.

      • Alice says:

        Maybe he doesn’t want to be a US citizen. The US is the only country in the world that taxes their citizens on their worldwide income even if they are a non-resident. There have been a record number of non-resident wealthy people renouncing their US citizenship lately for exactly this reason, Tina Turner and Eduardo Saverin (Facebook) for example.

  43. Whitney says:

    Nothing really deep or insightful to say here, she just really creeps me out. I think she cares more about “winning” than about her own kids.

    • cherryblossom says:

      I 100 % agree. I think she just doesn’t get it. she keeps saying she will fight for her kids. she needs to realize that in order to stop this horrendous tug of war she has to lay her weapons down and approach it in a different manner without completely damaging the kids in the interim. she has already lost so much time over their formative years due to her ignorant behavior and endless publicity stunts supported by her ill-qualified and money-hungry attorneys and advisors. also, why did he have a Visa and not permanent residency status if they were married and why didn’t his “illegal shenanigans” bother her before the custody battle ensued? she claimed bankruptcy ,having to sleep on friends’ couches and tries to solicit money via the internet for her “cause” but wants full custody? she doesn’t have a stable job, a steady income or even a home to bring them back to? and the president and armed forces should sweep in and rescue her “American” “deported” children? the children are as much American as they are German as they were made by two people not one. it doesn’t matter where they were born. it’s 50/50 genetics and parental rights! she downright enticed anyone publically, and she was hoping some crazed fan or looneybin patriot would take her up on the offer, to heroically bring her children home. yes, I understand the father wanted the passports to be held by someone he could trust. she plays the victim in all of this when the children seem to be thriving and genuinely enjoying their time with their mother, there being no signs of parental alienation. why can’t she be happy that despite all of their doings the kids seem to be happy and doing well. now she wants to uproot them again and drag them trough how many more years of this nonsense, if I were her I would move to wherever the kids are and try to realistically
      co-parent . let’s face it, she is not really a celebrity or needs to be here and I’m sure the father would rather have her nearby for his kids’ sake and can probably afford to support her. one day they will both realize how much their endless sparring and this $$$$ legal war has hurt the kids they claim to love so much. so sad

  44. Sam H x says:

    He didn’t block access, he simply wanted the kids passports to be given to a neutral party because of the recent remarks she made that endangers the safety of their children & possibly their father. For instance as mentioned on here she kept the kids last summer (?) instead of returning the kids back to their father when she should have. You didn’t see him filing an emergency affidavit.

    The court document clearly found she couldn’t give the kids the stability they need as per the doctor/psychologists opinion, she didn’t comply with simple requests that is expected from a residential parent, they found her youngest did get anxious when his father wasn’t around therefore it was best to keep the kids together & they were aware she wouldn’t facilitate a relationship between their kids and their father.

    I can’t believe fantards & z listers alike think it’s completely okay to take the children away from their father instead of reading up.

    Lilac Flowers & Audrey – I imagine it’s very difficult to re instate a visa even after a serious allegation of terrorism even though the claims are untrue and there was nothing to support it. The court document did specify he has to make an application, she has to submit a supporting affidavit to help re instate it, review it every so often with an chosen/court appointed immigration officer but they couldn’t guarantee it would be reinstated as easily by the state department (?).

    • Queen B says:

      Judge Juhas made a finding that Daniel blocked her access to the children on at least two occasions at the ex parte hearing. Further, Daniel does not have the right to cancel a visit over the passport since both sides must agree who holds the passport otherwise the court decides and it has chosen Kelly to be the holder. Second, Kelly never kept the children from Daniel last summer.

      While visiting there in New York, Kelly filed a petition in federal court to retain possession. The petition was denied and the children were put on a plane as scheduled. I have no doubt that if there they were even one day late, Daniel would have reached out the authorities to enforce the CA Order which he has been found to have been violating now.

      This is why jurisdiction is so important and is the reason why Kelly should have residential custody. If Kelly keeps the children in New York, there is no doubt that New York will recognize and enforce a CA Order. On the other hand, Kelly has no assurances Monaco will abide by a CA court order after three years. If Monaco feels its legal system is superior to CA, Kelly may never see her children again if Daniel does not cooperate which is not what CA Judge Beaudet intended.

      It is true that the judge made finding that Daniel is the parent more likely to facilitate a relationship with the other parent but most recently he has not and his alleged attempt to shift jurisdiction to Monaco is disturbing.

      • cherryblossom says:

        come on, really, what would you do? hand over the passports and spend time with your children or throw a hissy fit and leave without seeing your kids because of a technicality?
        what does it matter who is holding the passports if she can’t take them with her anyways? let’s get real, she plays a game. she constantly gambles and in the end it always backfires in her pretty face. all at the expense of the poor kids.

      • Alice says:

        So, if CA has jurisdiction, wouldn’t she have been trying to circumvent that by filing in New York last summer?

  45. Lola says:

    I can’t read the ruling. It says page not found??

    I feel for these kids, they are the ones that always suffer. And mom is a bit out there if she thinks these news stories and commentaries are going to disappear when the children start searching over the internet. Or heck, if they ever start school or summer camp in the States … yup, can you imagine, the comments from other kids will come and they could do some serious damage. Why don’t parents thinks about these things before they act.

    Now, from people that I know that are lawyers, some say that you have to be careful when alleging different things regarding different areas of the law, especially when it is specialized court, like family court.

    A family court judge making rulings over visas that got revoked because mom cried wolf, for example, is not necessarily correct. I think in the State is called ICE, those judges have more knowledge of the visa issues that could arise, correct me if I am wrong. The lawyers need to explain those aspects of the law to the judge that is ruling and if – from what I gathered, the dad was not notified – , forget it … what type of representation did he have? None.

  46. stormcloud says:

    just read this. it’s great. lays it all out. whatever doubts you may have about the pretty blond always-white-clad super mama…. poof!
    http://images.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/RutherfordRuling.pdf

    • Tara says:

      Wow. Thanks stormcloud. That is interesting reading. My main takeaway is I’m glad my ex and I don’t have that kind of parenting plan… where even the number of toys brought to and fro … are at issue and stipulated. I can be seriously petty sometimes, but I’d be ashamed if I couldn’t shelve that in order to make sure our little guy is happy, comfortable and has what he needs.

      Also, I appreciate all the interesting commentary on these threads. Queen B and PoppyAdair especially, with their legal chops.

  47. Blackbetty says:

    I wish someone would fly me to Monaco, multiple times a year! If only