Kelly Rutherford’s custody ruling halted by judge, she can’t take kids yet

Last week, we heard that Kelly Rutherford of Gossip Girl had been awarded temporary sole custody of her two children, who have lived in Monaco for three years with their German father, Daniel Giersch. Rutherford was given custody of son Hermes, 8, and daughter Helena, 5, until a hearing in California on June 15. Rutherford filed an emergency motion which resulted in the ruling after she was blocked by Giersch from returning to the US with the children. Giersch and his lawyer requested that Rutherford hand over the children’s US passports before the visit, as is said to be specified in the custody agreement. Rutherford refused to do this and got the ball rolling to get custody. She’s been fighting for more custody rights since 2012, and has used the press to try to further her case. Giersch has been relatively quiet until this latest incident.

After the ruling, People Magazine ran a very pro-Rutherford story analyzing her legal options and speculating on what the court might do if Giersch refused to let the children go with their mother, in violation of the court order. Rutherford’s friend, legal analyst Dan Abrams, was positive about her chances of regaining primary physical custody if Giersch decided to violate the court order. It seemed like Rutherford was hoping for this to happen so that she could turn the tables on Giersch.

Now that Giersch’s side has had time to respond, the court order granting Rutherford temporary custody was halted by a different LA county judge, Maren E. Nelson. (Nelson is not the original judge who granted Giersch custody.) Giersch’s side claims that Monaco now has jurisdiction over the case, and that Rutherford’s side misrepresented her rights when they obtained the temporary custody ruling.

A court order that granted actress Kelly Rutherford temporary custody of her children to allow her to bring them back to Los Angeles from Monaco was halted Thursday.

Judge Maren E. Nelson, who presides over family law courts in Los Angeles, halted a ruling by another judge who expressed concerns that Rutherford’s former husband violated terms of a 2013 custody order that allowed the children to live abroad.

Rutherford… has accused ex-husband Daniel Giersch of preventing her from seeing their children, which he denies. A summary of a hearing where Rutherford got custody last week didn’t specify how Giersch may have violated the 2013 order.

His lawyer, Fahi Takesh Hallin, filed documents showing that a Monaco court now has jurisdiction over the children and claimed that Rutherford “made fraudulent statements, and lied and made misrepresentations by omission” to gain temporary custody…

Nelson’s ruling prevents Rutherford from taking custody of her son and daughter until after judges in Monaco and Los Angeles confer about the case. That conversation is scheduled to take place June 11.

The way the case proceeds will be governed by rules that take effect when parents involved in a custody dispute live in different states or countries, said Steven Mindel, a Los Angeles divorce attorney who is not affiliated with the case.

Conferences between judges in two countries on custody issues are rare but occur once or twice a year, Mindel said. He said the California court may relinquish jurisdiction over the case since Rutherford has moved to New York and Giersch lives in Monaco…

Rutherford also has accused her ex-husband of trying to have a Monaco court change their citizenship. Giersch’s filing states that the Monaco court does not have the authority to do that, and no request to alter the children’s dual U.S.-German citizenship has been made.

[From Associated Press/Yahoo]

Thank you to those of you who commented with the PDF/Image file of Rutherford and Giersch’s original 2012 custody ruling. The ruling confirms that Rutherford’s lawyer got Giersch deported and that the judge heavily based her decision on this. The ruling also includes stipulations as to what a potential outcome might be if the jurisdiction of the case was taken over by a foreign court, namely France. (That’s on page 24-25 of the original document.) The judge basically states that if France was to take over the case she trusts that their court would uphold the rights of both parents. Maybe some of our legal experts can better explain this.

Regardless, Rutherford seems to have fudged the facts to obtain temporary custody, and we’ll find out on June 11, after both sides confer, what the outcome will be. She could have avoided all this and taken the children with her for the summer if she would have handed over their passports. This wasn’t about getting the children to come visit for the summer, it was about getting custody back permanently.

Exclusive... Daniel Giersch is on Baby Duty on New Year's Eve

Daniel Giersch Smiles With Son Despite Custody Battle!

'Gossip Girl' star Kelly Rutherford celebrates her Social Life magazine cover

Header image is from 2007. Images of Giersch are from 2009. Rutherford is shown with Hermes in 2013. Credit: and FameFlynet

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

177 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford’s custody ruling halted by judge, she can’t take kids yet”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. MelissaManifesto says:

    It all has gotten so very messy. Someone ought to tell these people the only ones getting hurt are the children.

    If I were Kelly, I would be the bigger person and move to Monaco, it isn’t a bad place to live, she has contacts even if the Gossip Girl money is dry now. Call Lifetime, make a movie or a miniseries, find an agent who will be willing to sell you to TV shows as a guest-star, make some money, and go to Monaco or France until everything gets resolved. I don’t know if she has legal consultants in Europe, but she should get a very good if she doesn’t.

    • Betti says:

      Grace Kelly still got offers when she moved there plus if she learned french she could do well in Euro film industry.

    • Krista says:

      Seriously. For someone who claim’s she’ll move heaven and earth for her kids, she hasn’t tried to mover herself closer to them.

    • Jess says:

      My thoughts exactly. I would’ve moved to Monaco the second my child was ordered to live there. At this point it feels more like a contest between the parents and they need to just stop, he actually seems more willing to help out than she does, she’s been sneaky and running to the press for years, time to let it go and move to Monaco.

    • Samtha says:

      Well…it’s not exactly as easy as deciding you want to move to a new country and then going. There are immigration laws, particularly in Monaco, that might make it difficult for her to stay there on anything more than a temporary basis.

      That said…she could at least try. That she hasn’t says a great deal.

      • Debra says:

        She wouldn’t even have had to move there permanently.. she has the kids in N.Y. during summers and holidays.. she could have gone there as a visitor (not sure how long you can stay as a visitor) when she wasn’t working. He had to supply her with a home and car while she was there. She could have had a pretty sweet deal, and kept all her money. She never had any intention to share those kids from day one.

      • Audrey says:

        She also has the option of a French border town.

        She has a compelling case since she wants to be closer to her children, most countries would be sympathetic.

        She could fly to film sets and then back to France/Monaco. I mean, if the kids were in the US with her she would still need to go to work so she would still need to leave for periods.

        I think she could make a better case for custody if she showed that she was doing what she can to be close to them while he works on his visa issue. Instead she has just fought through the press and courts while still not coparenting or putting the kids first. All of these dramatic acts and talking so much crap to the media is not good for the kids. They need stability and privacy, something dad seems to be providing.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Debra – Yup, and he has to pay for six of her visits per year, including air fare and as you said, housing and car service, and she has the kids during summer vacation.

        So it’s like she already has them half the time anyways. But she can’t seem to be content with any shared custody situation.

    • Luca76 says:


    • I Choose Me says:

      She does have a new series it looks like called The Whispers.

    • Pace U. says:

      I’m with you …Kelly should be the bigger person and just move to Monaco. She could easily go back and forth when work called in LA. Monaco is a beautiful place, her children speak French and English, they have already formed friendships in Monaco. Why district their young lives with such a huge move at this point.
      I like Kelly but she needs to put the children first, Lady Go Be with Your Children and stop the long costly battles. The kids will be 18 by the time you get your way in a court ,at this rate.

  2. Cannibell says:

    Those poor kids. One can only hope their parents aren’t sharing any of this drama at home and breathe a sigh of relief that they’re too young to surf the internet. (Tho the older boy is getting to an age where that might start happening….)

  3. Alice says:

    You’re welcome for that pdf. :)

    • Debra says:

      I have followed this case for years, and reading that complete court decision, I learned things I didn’t even know. Like how Kelly was sitting right there with the lawyer in the hallway of the courthouse when he confronted Daniel and his lawyer, and called about his visa in front of all of them… also I had never heard about her trying to coerce Daniel into signing away his visitation rights in exchange for making the visa problems go away. There’s alot of info in those papers I had never heard of before.

      • Alice says:

        What her lawyer did probably falls under the definition of “extortion”. I’m quite curious to know if he ended up being disbarred for that or not.

      • Becks says:

        What?!? I read that ruling entirely (reading court documents is a hobby; I LOVE reading all sorts of them) and I never saw those details about her being in the hallway, or that she tried coercion on Daniel to get him to forsake his visitation rights.

        Could you please point me to those pages? Or is there another document other than the 2012 one where it starts with an apology for “the length of the document”?

      • ThereThere says:

        Holy sheet, Alice!
        Page 22 of that doc is so damning for Kelly (and her lawyer)!

      • Alice says:

        Yes, it is.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Becks –

        Click on Alice’s link.
        Look at pages 21 through 24.
        Look at the whole section titled “Loss of Daniel’s Visa and his right to enter the United States.”

      • Montréalaise says:

        Alice, thank you for that link. The court’s decision makes it very clear that Kelly”s problems are all of her own making; she has consistently played dirty and done everything she could to cut the children’s father out of their lives. Reading the decision, I was astonished at how often she tried to get an ex parte order to overturn a previous order that gave her ex visitation or custodial rights.

      • Wentworth Miller says:

        I read about a few of the details in the court docs a while back. She’s done some really shitty things during this custody case but then she puts on this ‘poor me, desperate mom,’ act. She’ll never win custody because of the nasty things that she’s done.

      • Crumpet says:

        Wow. Just wow. What she has done to those children breaks my heart. Telling Hermes that if he was ever alone with Daniel in an airport to start screaming for the police?? What is WRONG with her??

        Clearly, she is an unbalanced lying biotch. And poor Daniel and the children. Ugh.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Alice

      Thanks again for that pdf link :-)

      So many details. Those who’ve been doubting things said about Kelly’s actions will find facts that will quell their doubts.

    • Jessiebes says:

      Thank you Alice.

      Does Kelly still have the same lawyer – Mr R?

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Jessiebes

        I’ve read in the media accounts that Mr. Rich is now her former lawyer.

        But… before she let him go, I read in the court document that even after what he did to Daniel, she fired another lawyer but kept him on. So when she had the chance to let him go, she didn’t but kept him on a little longer. Go figure.

    • Miss M says:

      Thank you, Alice. A lot of people who haven’t followed the case in the beginning were ataing there was no proof that her lawyer sis that. Also, the court document says she has failed to cooperate ( i am paraphrasing here). Thanks again!

      • LNG says:

        Everyone commenting on these stories should be reading that document – it substantiates what I and may others have been speculating was the case here. She is trying to alienate the kids from him and refusing to facilitate custody. Even if she didn’t participate (which I think she did) she was at the very least complacent in her lawyer speaking with the state department and eventually having the visa revoked. She’s created this situation herself and she’s lucky that she’s even still allowed shared custody. I hope her most recent stunt comes back to bite her in the ass too – she is using those children to try to hurt her ex and won’t stop, even though it has led to her effectively losing custody. Even after reading the decision linked to she STILL won’t stop, which tells me this clearly is not about wanting to be with the kids in the slightest. It is only about wanting to keep them away from him. I hope she draws a judge willing to tell her exactly where to go and how to get there.

      • Miss M says:

        @lng: i have been saying for a long tjme she has been trying the parental alienation route.

        I am glad Alice posted the whole things because many people were saying “poor mother” and buying her lies. I am team kids! So far, Daniel has demonstrated to have his kids best interest.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ LNG –

        ” Even if she didn’t participate (which I think she did) she was at the very least complacent in her lawyer speaking with the state department and eventually having the visa revoked.”

        An interesting point in the Court’s document regarding this is that she at first said she knew beforehand about the stipulation her lawyer proffered to Daniel but then she had later said she didn’t.

        It’s just another example the Court’s document lists of the times she goes back on what she said initially and contradicts herself.

      • LNG says:

        Exactly anne and MissM! She tries to build the truth that will suit her best, and many many people are buying it. It is also reflected in how she characterized her work – first she had lots of flexibility so that she could show the court she was more available than her ex and should have more custody than he did. Then, she had a strict work schedule and couldn’t travel so that she could try to convince the court to have the kids stay in the US. She has absolutely no concept of what is best for those children and frankly doesn’t give a crap. I’m glad the judge saw through her crap and called her on it.

    • Becks says:

      Despite only intending to read pages 21 -24, I ended up reading the entire 51 pages. The previous document that I read was only 24 pages and thus heavily edited.

      Wow, just wow. To date, I have never once made any reference such as “I feel sorry for the poor children”, but that is EXACTLY how I currently feel.

      It’s a very compelling read, very enlightening for anyone who may have heard only bits and pieces. It will totally fill in many gaps. The only exception is that we still don’t know why Kelly was so hell-bent on eliminating Daniel from the kids’ lives.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Becks.

        Alice’s link has 52 pages.

        As I said before, you need to click on HER link, which she posted at 10:02 am and which she addressed to you.

        The pages I mentioned are from HER link.

        Alice’s link is not the edited version. It’s the more detailed version.

      • Montréalaise says:

        Why is she hell-bent on eliminating Daniel from their kids’ lives? There’s no valid reason, except that I strongly believe that she is probably suffering from a personality disorder (narcissistic personality disorder? borderline personality disorder?) and that is the kind of thing that people with these disorders do.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Becks

        Oops. I misread your post. Please ignore my previous post to you.

        Sorry and thanks.

    • Jezza says:

      Yes, thanks Alice! Very interesting stuff to read!

    • Elly says:

      50 sides of horrible.

      Seriously why didn´t Kelly just add the father´s name on her daughter´s birth certificate? Why not? WTF. This woman refused to do this for 3 f*cking years?
      And what´s with the photos? It seems Kelly didn´t want the kids owning photos of their daddy! It´s ok that she doesn´t want to look at him, but the kids have every right to have photos of their father. This woman tried to erase him.

      What is wrong with her? I will say nothing about about horrible rest, especially not his visa! Every sympathy i had for her is now gone.

      She hates him, they are divorced, yeah we get it. No one says you have to like your ex, but it´s not about her feelings. It´s about her kids! Why can´t she share them?

      • Jasper says:

        and all that talk about her saying she signed a affidavit to help Daniel get his visa back…and it turns out she NEVER signed anything to help him.

        I did read that correctly..right? lol

    • Sella says:

      Oh my goodness, thank you Alice. I read the ENTIRE thing and was never a fan of Daniel before, but I am now. He came off as so cooperative and calm, especially compared to the list of CRAZY the document listed of Kelly. And the worst thing that was said about him was that he acted in a passive-aggressive way during transitions.

      Seriously, I felt a bit sorry for Kelly before, but after reading this, NOPE. NOT AT ALL. She is a psychopath. Absolutely nuts. Read the PDF, especially pages 21-32 (yes, it’s that long!)

  4. Toot says:

    She probably made a bigger mess for herself. Stupid woman.

    • Greyson says:

      Yep. I’m so glad this got shut down.

      Kim Kardashian and crazy “Kimberly” from Melrose Place congratulating Kelly was just too much..

  5. Izzy says:

    This nasty woman all but invited people to try to kidnap her kids to get them back to the US, and did it publicly. Of course her ex wanted the US passports handed over. At this point with all the games she’s played and the full-on custody-hearing-by-media, as far aw I’m concerned she should be allowed two supervised visits per year in Euope, period, and it should be made crystal clear to her that her continued antics and unwillingness to STFU with the press are the reasons. I no longer care that the ex didn’t apply for another visa like he was supposed to, unless she or the attorney at fault go on the record legally admitting it was only a ploy to get full custody, he won’t get a visa anyway, so why should he waste his time and money?

    Ugh, this woman. Nasty person, crappy mother.

    • Linn says:


      One can only feel for those poor children. I haven’t followed the whole story from the start, so what happened between those two that Kelly hated her ex so much to begin with?

      • Alice says:

        The grounds for divorce were “irreconcileable differences”. Pretty vague.

      • Meatball says:

        It is hard to say. They had their son and then she for divorce while pregnant with their daughter and it all went downhill from there. Including refusing to put his name on the birth certificate.

      • Norman Bates' Mother says:

        Knowing her past relationship history, I doubt something necessarily had to happen. She seem like a very cold person in general. The first time I read anything about her was long before she had children when she was divorcing her dying first husband, Carlos Tarajano. He was a wealthy banker, younger than her, who became very ill shortly after their wedding and she left him as soon as she found out (there was a pre-nup anyway). She staged a fairy-tail editorial in InStyle magazine, where they posed cutting the cake together and she talked about how happy and in love she is, but she filed for divorce before it was even printed. Her husband called the magazine to call everything off but she denied the break up and told them to carry on, so InStyle run it. Obviously, lies like this are very easy to prove, and the press found out she filed the papers 11 days before. He died in 2004. She is capable of using a dying man she claimed she once loved for publicity, accusing the other one of horrible things just to win the divorce and inviting all kinds of weirdos to kidnap her children. It’s very hard for me to have any sympathy for her.

      • VirgiliaCoriolanus says:

        Agree NormanBatesMother…..and honestly, if he had cheated on her, or even thought about cheating on her, we’d be hearing it from her. Just my thoughts, but I don’t think he’s even got a serious girlfriend (one that he lets around the kids), because if their kids came home talking about another woman, we’d be hearing stories about how Daniel was trying to replace her, etc.

        This woman is a massive liar, and I don’t even feel the slightest smidge of sympathy for her.

    • Audrey says:

      I agree. It’s sad, because the kids are dual citizens and I do think they should remain connected to the US as well. But she just can’t handle having visitation without pulling some dramatic stunt to try to keep them for good.

      I would not trust her at all. She’s thinking of herself and what she wants instead of what is best for the kids.

      • Jezza says:

        I think I read in the court documents that the kids are to learn/are learning American history. Also, when the children are with Daniel during an American holiday, they are to celebrate it, thus maintaining the ties to America.

    • LNG says:

      Based on the link posted above, it appears that she has failed to sign an affidavit that would assist him in getting his visa back. I assume this would require her stating that she/her lawyer were involved in getting it revoked and that she wants the visa to be reinstated. She clearly does NOT want to the visa to be reinstated, she just wants to keep his children away from him. She completely disgusts me at this point.

      • VirgiliaCoriolanus says:

        Oh really? WOW. She is SUCH A LIAR! She was on the news, crying about how her children were being taken from her, how she had NO IDEA how his visa had been taken, and that her lawyer had done everything to help him….NOPE. God she is unhinged.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        Virgilia, I read all the pages in the link Alice provided up thread (wow, how enlightening, too!) and in it she stated that she refused to sign the affidavit because she didn’t want to admit to any wrongdoing. She is one messed up piece of work, for sure.

      • Jasper says:

        I don’t remember what page it was on but they were talking about Helenas best interests and when asked something (I think it was about the BirthC issue) she claimed the reason she did it was because she was hurt..and said that she was not looking out in Helenas best interest.

        I’m starting to think HE left her.

      • LNG says:

        Yes, I read that part as well Jasper – and she continued to refuse to put his name on the birth certificate for months and months, even lying that she had done it when she had not. I can see why he would leave her – she is a piece of work.

        Everyone needs to read that decision. It is very well reasoned and thought out – you can tell that the court did all they could to work out the best custody arrangement for the kids, and the bottom line is that he was always willing to foster a positive relationship between the kids and their mother (ensuring that the kids got bday gifts from her, encouraging access, etc etc), while she did everything she could to alienate those kids from their father and try to prevent him from ever seeing them again, even going so far as blackmail (trying to get him to sign away his rights in exchange for her lawyer not calling immigration). There is no way her lawyer did that without her go ahead.

  6. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Those poor kids. Now, whether she likes it or not, they have lived a huge chunk of their lives with their father. That’s normal to them. I’m not sure uprooting them again is fair. And I don’t think she cares about anything but getting her way. I do have compassion for any mother separated from her children, but she’s very hard to like or root for.

  7. Kiddo says:

    I do not know who she is, I assume some housewife or other reality thingie. She gets a lot of coverage.

  8. WinterLady says:

    Does anyone even know why they broke up in the first place? I remember it being rather abrupt, she was a few months pregnant with their daughter and up and left him. I always wonder what happened there and why she has been on the warpath after him ever since. Either way, I feel for the kids. I’ve rarely seen a Cluster F*ck like this one.

    • Betti says:

      I wonder this too – but someone on another post said that she dumped her first husband after he got sick, they hadn’t been married long. She’s a self obsessed narcissist who lives for the drama and clearly only used him to have children. Once she had what she wanted he was of no use to her.

      • WinterLady says:

        I definitely agree that Kelly seems narcissistic. My guess was some how she didn’t get her way when they were married or (my speculation) there was some cheating involved on either of their sides. I know he is independently wealthy-I wonder if she was angling for a generous settlement/child support in the divorce and got vindictive when she wasn’t getting her way.

  9. Sixer says:

    So, I read the court judgement (thanks!) and the main reasons the father got custody were as we’ve said. Firstly, her lawyer got him kicked out of the US. Secondly, he could be trusted to keep to access orders for the other parent and she couldn’t. But they were both acknowledged to be individually excellent parents.

    She wants more access and the way she has gone about it is to publicly confirm by speech and deed that she can’t be trusted to keep access orders for the other parent.

    Any sane mother wanting to get this custody arrangement changed so that it was better for her would have addressed the reasons the court didn’t give her what she wanted in the first place. She’s done the exact opposite and confirmed the reasons she didn’t get what she wanted!

    The father seems to have met his obligations until the point when her threats and actions directly threatened the court-mandated arrangement and anything he’s done since then is simply defensive.

    Team Daniel.

  10. Kath says:

    I really am beginning to think this woman is psychotic. It’s about winning at all costs and sticking it to the ex: stuff the actual children involved.

    Her daughter is now five and has lived in Monaco practically all her life, yet this crazy woman refuses to move to be with her children because… ‘Merica.

    I also find it ludicrous that Rutherford is trying to court sympathy by implying that having the kids live anywhere but the US is somehow condemning them to be raised in the third world. It’s Monaco, FFS, where they probably have a standard of living that most people can only dream of.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Completely agree. I think in many ways, raising your children in Europe would be preferable to raising them in LA. She acts like the US is the only possible place they can live and be happy. And I agree that the children, especially the daughter, have lived for most of their memory with their father. It would be traumatic for them to be taken away now.

      • Kath says:

        Plus the dad seems a hell of a lot more stable, not running to the media every five minutes to bleat on about her “constitutional rights” as an American citizen and her “American children”.

        Yes, heaven forbid that they should live in a rich country with universal healthcare, an EU passport, a good education system, barely any crime and grow up knowing more than one language.

      • Sixer says:

        This is the school the kids are attending:

        It’s a typical English language international school in an EU country – my cousin’s kids go to a similar one in Oslo. It follows the UK educational system and has fab facilities. Fellow pupils will be the children of top level executives and diplomats from a variety of countries. It would be a fabulous school to attend both in terms of educational standards and cultural experience. Plus, Kelly can’t complain that any “Anglo” cultural heritage is being taken away from them: it’s an English language school.

      • Audrey says:

        Sixer- thanks. that confirms that their end of term is July 3.

        She her recent visit was just a visit, not to take them to the US. She really did have no reason to have their US passports during the visit

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Aubrey –

        I agree. It’s odd how she wants to hold onto their US passports, even going against court orders, when they’re not needed for anything. This along with her comments to TMZ, it sounds very scheme-y.

      • J.Mo says:

        And yet she says she tells them she’ll never give up her fight to have them back, which must be terribly confusing, damaging, and almost a threat.

    • Samtha says:

      Exactly–it’s ridiculous. Monaco is a gorgeous place to live–they’re privileged to be there. Pretending they’d have it better in New York or LA is ridiculous. (I’m not knocking NY or LA, but I’d choose Monaco over them any day.)

    • Daisy says:

      Plus the judge found that Daniel only talks positively about Kelly to the kids, whereas Kelly badmouths their father in their presence (“Daniel’s pattern of mentioning Kelly positively to the children vs Hermes was “receiving conflicting messages about his father”.) The judge was pretty clearly using this as a determining factor.

      • Montréalaise says:

        The judge also mentioned that this was emotionally distressing to Hermes. I don’t think that Kelly gives a damn about her kids’ psychological well-being.

  11. mollie says:

    This woman does not appear to be ok.
    There is a lot more to this than we know, but at this point, as an outsider with only the reports and papers to educate myself about the situation, I’m team Daniel.

  12. Talie says:

    Maybe this sounds crazy, but why was it never brought up that each parent could get the kids for 6 months each? I mean, they’re in the Lycee Francais school which has the same curriculum worldwide. Seems the best option.

    • Alice says:

      There was a “one year here and one year there” plan proposed. The Judge thought it would be too disruptive for the kids to have to change schools, cities and friends, and rightly so IMO.

      • Greyson says:

        Good ruling by the judge!

        Those situations are great for the parents, but splitting lives in half isn’t fair for the kids.

    • Audrey says:

      Imo, perhaps when they’re older. But I think it’s too disruptive for very young kids.

  13. QQ says:

    I’d Be curious to know If a Judge could Order her on some Psych evaluations or some such

  14. Tig says:

    I would be very surprised if court in Calif didn’t jump on the chance to unload this mess on either NY or France courts. Since no one is left in Calif, why would Calif courts keep jurisdiction?

    • Audrey says:

      I personally think Monaco should get jurisdiction. Only because he cannot appear in a US court. I don’t find that to be fair

    • anne_000 says:

      In one part of the documents, it says that the Gossip Girl job required only a temporary stay in NY and that their primary residence was in CA. So when the judgement was made, it was made in CA.

      I don’t know what difference it would make to move the jurisdiction to NY.

  15. HK9 says:


  16. Mary-Alice says:

    I find the judges psychotic at this point. If that was my case, I would be in mental institution. Looks like a very incompetent crowd which throws decisions like they are apples. Who cares that human lives are ruled by such decisions! Disgusting.

    • claire says:

      I disagree. Except for the judge that recently granted her the temporary order, in which she likely submitted false statements, since that’s been her pattern….the other judges have been very on top of it and called her out on her sh*t.

    • Alice says:

      Maybe it would be more consistent if they had been given all the information they needed at the start.

      All I can say is that unfortunately, this woman and her legal team created the situation of different countries themselves. He was perfectly willing to stay in New York and had that choice taken away from him. Ever since, she’s been trying to play “catch up” on that poorly thought out decision.

      If she had half a brain and the slightest degree of forward thinking (even though it wouldn’t have been in the best interest of the children), she’d have left things well enough alone, let him co-parent for a few years in NYC until the kids were clearly attached to a social life and environment in NYC and THEN had someone quietly call Immigration on him. Here, she made her ego a priority over her brain and goals and screwed herself over. What she did (and is still doing) is incredibly stupid. In the meantime, her lawyers are laughing their way to the bank…

      • holly hobby says:

        Her attorney essentially went judge shopping because they filed this during Memorial Day weekend when only the duty judge was in charge. The duty judge is not necessarily the judge that is assigned to the case.

        I read the pertinent parts of that decision that someone posted and I find her to be duplicious throughout the whole process. The press should read that decision. It explains everything!

    • Jessiebes says:

      Based on the court files – listed above – I disagree.

    • paleokifaru says:

      That decision was incredibly well thought out and the judge conferred with absolutely everyone who had been involved with the case – including people who were no longer on it because it had drug out so long. Nothing was taken lightly and the children’s best interest was the priority.

    • Tara says:

      So Mary-Alice, once your substantive objections are blasted to pieces, you just change lanes to “all the judges are psychotic” ? Really the only judge that appears unhinged is the one that granted the emergency ex parte decision to award sole temporary custody to Kelly. But proceed with your regular programming.

  17. Size Does Matter says:

    This just illustrates how it’s easier to get a temporary, emergency, ex parte order granted, and hard to keep.

  18. Debra says:

    Just to clarify as I understand it.. Last week, she was just there for a visit, as the kids are still in school.. the passports were supposed to be held by a neutral, third party when the kids weren’t going to be traveling, but they were never able to agree who that third party was. I guess he really didn’t try to enforce it until she went completely off the deep end on the tmz Interview.

    • Alice says:

      It could very well be that handing over the passports was part of whatever the Monaco court had required. I read in one article that she claimed he had “blocked access” twice since last October, which is apparently when Monaco took jurisdiction.

      Just saying though… had that been me faced with the choice of “hand over passports until you leave and see the kids” or “not hand over passports and not see the kids”, it would have been an easy decision. It’s not as if she wasn’t going to get them back and in a worst case scenario, ALL passports are legally the property of the country that issues them. Had she had any difficulties retrieving them, a call to the US Embassy in Paris would have resolved that quickly.

      • Debra says:

        Which makes me wonder why she was so against turning them over? They weren’t going to be traveling, and it’s not like he needs the U.S. passports to travel with the kids. Very suspicious.

      • Alice says:

        Ego I suspect. Given all of her “US citizen” jingoisms and the attempt at withholding information from the CA courts about Monaco having jurisdiction, the impression I get is that if it’s not an American court who rules on something, she might feel that she doesn’t have to comply. I also suspect that her lawyers are possibly quite happy to humour her, billed hours are billed hours after all. They had to have known that the Monaco jurisdiction issue would come out yet they STILL went ahead with the ex parte thing. A complete waste of time and money…

      • Ankhel says:

        Simple, really. She had been given visitation rights by the judge, her ex was to cooperate. She then talked in an interview about how heroic it would be to kidnap the kids. Then, out to see the kids! Daniel, now nervous, demanded she temporarily turn the kids’ passports over to a third party, like she had agreed on before. She refused, and Daniel stopped her from seeing the kids. “Breach of agreement”, she cried to a judge she had picked for not knowing the case. “Give me the kids, judge!” Wow. Watch and learn, Cercei.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Alice

        Iirc, it was since October 2013 (not 2014) and two visits (out of 70) with the second visit being this current one over the passport issue.

        This was stated in the no-notice ex-parte application, the pre-Memorial Day judgement.

      • Alice says:

        Oops. My bad on the dates then.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Alice

        My mistake. You were right. It was October 2014, not 2013 as I stated.

        I’m sorry about that. I just went back to read the pre-Memorial Day court document and saw I was wrong.

        I wonder what the other missed visit was about?

    • Audrey says:

      I think, from what I understand, they were supposed to go to a neutral party. They never agreed on one

      After her American hero interview, he filed in Monaco to get an order that she hands them over to his attorney or does not have a visit. He stated he was worried for their safety after that interview and had increased security at their school and such.

      She had no need for them and should have handed them over

      • Alice says:

        I’m curious as to what she does with those passports while she’s visiting. From what I understand, she stays in his house. Even if there is a safe made available to her, she doesn’t seem to be the sort that would trust him not to have a means of opening it without her permission. So…is she walking around with them in her handbag?

        Looking at the timing, she probably intended to stay long enough to fly back with the kids at the end of the school year, so that’s probably why she had them on hand. However, in light of the many dirty tricks she seems to have played on her ex-husband and her very public appeal for a “hero” who would bring them home, if I were the father, I’d have been more than a bit concerned that she had yet another one up her sleeve. Something like arranging for those passports to be stolen out of her bag by some not-so-random “hero” who then whisks the kids out of the country before she “happens” to notice that they are missing. Rushes back to the US, where the kids have been miraculously handed over to her lawyers already. Very publicly and tearfully appeals to one Presidential candidate after the other to “help keep my American kids in America”, probably starting with Hilary.

        I could see her being stupid enough to think that would work and that she wouldn’t be suspected of anything. It’s not as if she’s been making very intelligent decisions so far.

  19. Meatball says:

    Lord, this is such a mess. It seems like she has learned nothing from the last however many years she has been running back and forth to court. If you lie or omit information you will be caught. Did she really think her ex was just going to hand over the kids and no one would find out what she did?
    They are probably going to end up in another court if she lives in New York. Didn’t this whole thing start in New York? I cannot even keep it straight. I hope these kids are fairly sheltered from this craziness. Smh.

  20. Amy says:

    So basically she’s the white Halle Berry?

    Yeah, in my own life recently I’ve had an employee who behaved in such a reckless and shocking manner dooming everything that was somewhat good in his life that I fully believe some humans have a touch of lemming in them (and yes I know that documentary was faked).

    Some people just really seem to seek their own destruction. Even if it blows up in their faces, even if it embarrasses them, even if it drains their bank accounts and scours their public image they can’t help fighting. It’s shocking in how little sense it makes but is true.

    In a bizarre way this makes me respect someone like Tom Cruise. He’s a loon but once it became clear he wouldn’t be able to mold Suri into his little after-image he got the hell out of the situation. I know it’ll hurt her but it has to hurt less than one parent actively trying to destroy your other parent by playing all kinds of games and scheming incessantly. Never being able to release a breath without your mom declaring the beautiful home you love is some UnAmerican mud pit.

    • original kay says:

      I admit I am a tad surprised you commented “white halle berry”

      Would you ever say Halle Berry is the “black kelly rutherford”?

      How about we forget the colour of their skin and just agree there are a lot of similarities between the women?

      • Amy says:

        I can admit I’m not sure why it’s a major faux pas to have said what I did, but truthfully I’d have no issues declaring Halle the black Kelly either.

        Both women were in once loving relationships that ended quickly, both women have had a basic custody arrangement turn into a public cajoling and war, both women have resorted to dirty tactics and (at least in the past for Halle) made running to court into a Olympic event, both women still try to play on public sympathy and both seem to be ultimately denying their child/children a loving Dad who actually wants to be involved.

        If there was a male equivalent for this narcissism (Sophia Vergars’s ex comes close but thank God they have no physical children) I’d have no issues saying he was the male – fill in the blank – . Perhaps you could elaborate on the problem.

      • velvet says:

        Thanks for this comment @original kay. I agree.

      • dottie says:

        Wow….sounds like youre upset that kelly is deemed “the white halle berry” and wants to know why isnt halle deemed “the black kelly”

        Might i suggest that its because halle is the most recent hi profile incidence of crazy bitches trying very hard to get their child’s/children’s father out of their child’s/children’s lives. And halle’s batshit craziness precedes kelly’s so halle gets to be the standard bearer.

      • Ennie says:


      • enike says:

        Dottie says: “And halle’s batshit craziness precedes kelly’s so halle gets to be the standard bearer. ”


  21. Scarlettmoon says:

    From what I’ve read and understand…the original reason Kelly left Daniel was due to finding text messages on his phone that led her to strongly believe he was cheating on her. The “neutral” third party passport holder was supposed to be just that…neutral…not one of Daniel’s lawyers in Monoco and that is what he proposed…which is in violation of the court orders. I’ve also read that Daniel is no longer required to pay for Kelly’s visits as of late 2013…so whenever she sees the kids now, it’s entirely on her own dime. Now, I’ve not exhaustively read court papers, nor can I provide links to official documents, so take the above for what it’s worth. I also know it’s the unpopular opinion here, but unless the mother is a drug user, abuser, molester monster etc…I really can’t jump on the bandwagon of hoping this woman never sees her kids again as some sort of twisted “justice” or karma…I think the whole situation is incredibly sad all around. I would be out of my mind with grief if these were my babies. Having been through an acrimonious divorce and custody battle myself…I know you can make decisions out of sheer desperation that are very wrong in retrospect, but I don’t subscribe to the theory of being nailed to the cross for it. Just my two cents worth!

    • Alice says:

      Ok. I read where she claimed that’s why she filed for divorce too. But, looking at the court docs, she seems to have little difficulty “bending” the truth, even in a legal setting, never mind a simple interview. Frankly, it’s hard not to take what she claims with a grain of salt for that reason. Other articles say different things.

      Paying for visitation…what I read was that as of Dec. 2013, he was no longer required to pay to send the kids to see her in the US. It said nothing about him no longer being required to pay for her trips to Europe. If she gets them during all of the school holidays and assuming they are on a French calender, that’s 4 times a year.

      • Scarlettmoon says:

        Ahhhhhh okay, so Daniel is still footing the bill for some of Kelly’s visitation. I agree completely that she’s made major mistakes and honestly needs to rethink her strategies and long term goals…well being of the children should be paramount. That being said, the kids growing up without access to their mother is just as bad as growing up without access to their father…it’s a lose lose proposition.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Scarlettmoon

        ” That being said, the kids growing up without access to their mother is just as bad as growing up without access to their father…it’s a lose lose proposition.”

        They see her during her visits and during summer vacations and if Alice is correct, during other school holidays too.

        He pays her expenses for six visits per year, including air fare, housing, and car service. So basically, it is as close to her seeing them half the time as possible.

        The documents also say that he’s cooperated in having the kids Skype her when they’re with him.

    • original kay says:

      Hmm. but not is it any sort of justice for the children to never see their father, which is what kelly was hoping for.

      After all, her lawyer was the one who called immigration in the first place. did he not also have to fight to have his name on the youngest’s birth certificate?

      • Becks says:

        Daniel not only had to fight to have his name on Helena’s birth certificate, but the court document lays out AS INDISPUTABLE FACT that upwards of 3 years after Helena’s birth, Kelly was still refusing to do it. Three years, people!!!

        The judge went as far as to note that the department’s webpage states that the procedure is very simple and quick (implying that Kelly had no excuse), and then she went on to advise that if Kelly continued to block it, that Danel could take a copy of this ruling and take care of it himself.

    • Samtha says:

      I don’t think she should never see her children again, but she’s fighting a custody agreement that seems in the children’s best interest. She’s trying to take the children away from their father, not the other way around. This is from the custody ruling:

      “…Which contrasts to the anxiety that Hermes has experienced when not with his father or when **he is receiving conflicting messages about his father**…” It goes on to say “Daniel’s pattern of mentioning Kelly positively to the children,” which indicates he’s trying to preserve the children’s relationship with their mother, while she’s actively trying to undermine his relationship with them.

      There’s also this: “the Court has also chosen the France plan because of the clear and convincing evidence in this case that Daniel has facilitated the relationship of the children with Kelly, particularly in the most recent years, and that Kelly simply has not done so.”

      • Samtha says:

        And not to mention this: “The custodial arrangement at the time of the visa revocation was one of nearly 50/50 parenting, with Daniel having, as Kelly admited, the majority of quality time with the children.”

        Perhaps I’m misinterpreting, but to me that says even when they both had equal access to the children, he was doing most of the parenting.

    • WinterLady says:

      I actually also theorized that she left him due to cheating or the possibility of cheating. Which is terrible if he did, but if all this underhandedness and backstabbing is a bit much even if their marriage ended on those terms. I don’t advocate she be kept from her children, but on the same token SHE seems to have been the one who was trying to cut her ex-husband out of her children’s live, despite the fact he was never known as anything but a caring father to them. So yes, my sympathy for her is a little weak. A mother (or father) doesn’t have to be a complete and utter monster for them to be unfit to have sole/majority custody of the kids.

      • VirgiliaCoriolanus says:

        Even if he was cheating (which I doubt because she’d have blared that around too!)….that doesn’t mean he’s not entitled to be in his kids’ lives as a parent. Unless he was abusive to her, or has some sort of addiction that makes it dangerous to be around the kids alone, then there’s no reason he shouldn’t get to have them. You don’t deserve your custody taken away from you because you’re an ass.

        Honestly, I think she wanted 2 kids to herself, and a giant child support check. You know how she left her first husband…..a few months after the wedding, when he was diagnosed with a terminal condition. Now I might’ve had a TINY bit of sympathy for her, because not everyone is strong enough to nurse their loved one through something like that, especially right after they got married….but she profited from their wedding pics being sold, AFTER they got divorced. That shows me she cares about the bottom line, PERIOD.

  22. dottie says:

    What i want to know is, whats in this for dan abrams? Why has he propped up kelly’s delusions to such a horrendous degree? He is a lawyer for chrissakes with perhaps even more access to the details of this case than posters here. So, unlike the lemming C and Z-listers who’ve butted in and blindly supported kelly in her dishonesty and shennanigans, why has dan abrams, lawyer extraordinaire (snark) been telling lies on teevee about this case and ignored kelly’s blatant lies, distortions and dishonest dealings with the court?

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I do not understand this aspect of the case either. Dan also apparently has no clue how U.S. immigration law really works and does not seem interested in talking to anyone who actually practices in this field (LIKE ME) before he runs off at the mouth! But this case does seem to strike a chord with a certain segment of the U.S. who presumably watches ABC, so maybe it is ratings gold for him?

      I also feel like adding my $0.02 on some of the immigration nuances that have been largely glossed over in the media – likely because immigration cases are not public records and Daniel’s alien file is protected by the federal Privacy Act. Once lawful permanent residence (a “green card”) is revoked, it is NOT just a matter of filing a few forms and an affidavit from Kelly to get it reinstated. Even if Daniel had some grounds for seeking a green card in the U.S. (e.g., an employer to sponsor him), it might literally take YEARS for it to be approved. If he has no underlying eligibility for permanent residence in the U.S. at all, well, then he cannot apply for a new green card. Our system just does not let anybody and everybody seek permanent residence in the U.S., and the overwhelming majority of people must be sponsored by an employer or family member first.

      In the meantime, Daniel might be able to apply for and get a nonimmigrant (temporary) visa to travel to the U.S. for visits or work, but since it is not clear exactly why his green card was revoked, this might not be an option for him. Generally speaking, people who are deported from the U.S. for any reason cannot apply to return legally until they have spent at least five years outside of the U.S. (Depending on the circumstances, this five year period may increase to ten or twenty years or even result in a person being permanently barred from reentering the U.S. legally). Even after completing this mandatory waiting period, a person who seeks a visa to reenter the U.S. legally may not get one. Both USCIS and the State Department take dim views of people who had prior immigration violations, and a green card revocation is a pretty big black mark on his record – even if it was based on unfounded assertions or outright lies.

      Kelly has made it eminently clear that she wants to raise the children in the U.S. with virtually no input from Daniel. Yet because of her attorney, Daniel is probably never going to be able to legally return to the U.S. (or at least will not be allowed back in for a very long time). I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for Daniel knowing that if the children are required to live essentially full time with Kelly in the U.S., it will be next to impossible for him to see them. If one of the kids gets sick or injured while visiting Kelly in California or New York, Daniel cannot immediately jump on a plane to be there for him/her or help take care of him/her. Later on, if his son has a big game or his daughter is acting in a school play in the U.S., he will not be able to share in those special moments. No chaperoning field trips, no serving as a leader of a Boy Scout or Girl Scout troop, no coaching their athletic teams…all because Kelly cannot let go of her ego and/or crusade and behave like a decent co-parent.

      It breaks my heart to think what these children will endure when they are old enough to surf the internet and read all of this for themselves. No matter what any of us think of Kelly and Daniel, these kids deserve better than that.

    • ol cranky says:

      Abrams seems to like blonde actresses, my guess is they’re sleeping together

  23. Lil Anne says:

    I found something interesting in the comments on Hollywood Life, Bonnie Fuller from a few years ago. A woman who calls herself “Aunt Debbie” wrote about Kelly’s life in AZ while her mother was married to a Tony Savitierri. He adopted Kelly and had a son w/ Kelly’s mother. They divorced later and Kelly, mom and younger brother moved out of state w/ all ties cut to Mr. Savitierri. It also included changing names. I can’t speak to the veracity of the comment but if true it explains so much. I don’t know how to link *don’t judge, hanging my head in shame.* The byline date is September 18, 2012

  24. Corrie says:

    who knew split visitation could go so wrong. why can’t these two figure out split visitation. school year in monaco and summers in california. also, as crazy as this case is. I’d bargain, he’s no walk in the park to deal with. yes, she could reconfigure her entire life to life in monaco, but that’s much easier said than done esp when your ex won’t let you keep your kids without threat of attys and vice versa for her visits. both seem to want to settle a score and hurt the other. i’d thought Kelly had learned her lesson and played fair but maybe not… but i have to admit her ex seems pretty scrupulous himself. as much as we say why can’t she relocate… why can’t he offer to come to california for the summer to have the kids local for her part of the year. no one is compromising.

    • Audrey says:

      Corrie-he can’t offer to do anything in the US. He is not allowed to enter the US. He was fine with 50/50 custody in the US, but her attorney had his visa revoked by the state department.

    • Jessiebes says:

      - He does let her have the kids when she is in Monaco. One exception was when she made the hero comment.
      - He can’t go to the US, no visa. She does have the kids over the summer holidays.

      Read the above two pdf files and you may see that the Father has gotten a very positive review from the judge about cooporating and compromising.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Corrie

      They do have school years in Monaco and summers in New York (Kelly lives in NY now, I guess).

      Also, he pays for her to come visit in Monaco six times a year, including air fare, housing, and car service, and he has the kids Skyping her when they’re with him.

      He has let her visit 70 times already. It’s just that after her recent statement to TMZ that got people worried. So he asked her to follow the years-old court order that she turn over the kids’ US passports over to a neutral third party, which she hasn’t done even after all these years.

      He can’t come to CA (again, it seems she lives in NY) or even the whole of the US and possibly all its territories, because her then-lawyer made accusations against him to Immigration/State Dept. and got his visa revoked. The court ordered Kelly to send an affidavit to the proper authorities to help get Daniel out of trouble with the US govt, but from the court document posted by Alice (upthread), it says she still hadn’t done so.

      If you read the link in Alice’s post, you’ll see a whole bunch of details which would answer your questions.

  25. Bunny Love says:

    If Kelly’s side was being fair and not contrived she wouldn’t .need to make a national campaign to influence the outcome. The problems of this woman go far beyond this issue as judges do try to be fair to both parents as long as the interests of the childen are paramount. She could have used all this time,energy and money on her children who she seems to have forgotten about in making this really about her.

  26. Jezza says:

    I read in full both PDFs. It’s clear she had/has no intention of co-parenting. Anyone who thinks Kelly is being done wrong needs to read the two PDFs. Court documents citing in detail the numerous ways she has tried to keep Daniel out of the kids life. Going to court time and time again to get his visitation reduced w/o merit. The court saw he was facilitating a relationship between Kelly and the kids, and doubted she would do the same (though stipulated she appeared more willing than in the past). How she has not lost 50/50 custody with all the stuff she’s done is surprising, really.

    Intersting the court specifically mentioned in the documents it appears she was “judge shopping” – even back then!!!

  27. Tilly says:

    This woman is exploiting the media to try and smear her ex and get her children back to the US so that she can permanently alienate them from their father. She’s proven herself to be narcissistic, unhinged and dangerous to those children – she publicly invited for them to be kidnapped!!!!!

    I really hope that given her recent behaviour and unwillingness to work reasonably with her ex that the courts give him full custody. She is a danger to them and should only receive supervised custody in Monaco from now on with a condition that any more lies to the press/hate campaigns/legal stunts based on lies and manipulation etc… visitation should be halted and parental rights terminated completely.

    I feel so sorry for her ex and all he has to suffer from this woman and her moronic supporters. It must be terrifying for him that this lunatic could end up with the children with the opportunity to make sure he never sees them again, by successful legal alienation, disappearing or much worse….. She’s already shown that her single interest is being a lone parent because in her head she’s the only one that counts.

    Those poor children, at least their dad is a very strong man and is capable of standing up to this lunatic on their behalf and his own.

  28. JenniferJustice says:

    She attempts to appeal to the public’s sympathy. She acts sweet and vulnerable, but I think she is extremely devious and canniving. She better watch it or she won’t even have shared custody. The courts are only going to put up with so much before they deem HER unhealthy for the children. She can’t seem to stop shooting herself in the foot.

    • usualsuspect says:

      the foot? I think she is up to just below her heart. oh, wait. she doesn’t have one. I guess below the cavity where her heart would be.

  29. jane16 says:

    I have two questions, the first one about the passports. I thought she was supposed to have custody of the kids for the summer, meaning that she could take them home to the US. How is she supposed to bring them here if she forks over their passports? And secondlly, regarding her lawyer getting him kicked out of the US. I think I read on one of these posts that he was kicked out for something to do with gun trafficking or something to do with illegal arms? If so, why do we want him here and why all the sympathy for him? Do we need more guns in this country, and more crooks selling them illegally? Would the state department have given him the boot if he hadn’t been doing something wrong? He apparently has tons of dough and can afford expensive lawyers.

    • Ennie says:

      They probably have german passports too, they have dual citizenship. What they want is her not running away with them before time/without an order.
      Really, dealing with guns is something very much allowed and it is legal in many cases, regardless how excessive guns are in the US. I have nott read the PDF link of the ruling shared at the top, but I will give it a go.
      What he did was probably legal for an American to do, but illegal for a foreigner, and as I understand what he did has nothing to do with America itself, but deals among other countries.
      Visa problems can stem for very simple things, in this case an accusation about something that is not even punishable with jail/prison was enough for DG to get his visa revoked. Even tax problems can cause visa problems even for non dangerous people.
      Just see the mess Johnny Depp and his dogs caused in Australia. Just that not following of health/quarantine rules could cause a big problem for parents in an international custody fight.
      HE gets sympathy because he has been regarded as a cooperative parent in the dispute, he has defended himself but at the same time he has made himself available and complied with the judge’s rulings about the children’s custody agreement, whereas KR has been rebelling all over the place and truing to keep him away of the children in several ways. She should have gone for a sperm donor if she wanted the children for herself, really.

      • jane16 says:

        Thanks for the reply! I hate guns, so my initial impression of him was negative. I admit, I haven’t followed it, or know anything about her, never watched her tv show.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      Also, the children are still in school, so she was just in Monaco for one of her regular visits there, not to take the children for their summer vacation. She had no reason to bring their U.S. passports with her at this time.

      • jane16 says:

        Well, I looked at a few articles about it, including one by a reporter that sat in on the original custody hearing. I got a different impression of Giersch from reading about him. He gets a lot of kudos and sympathy here, but apparently he was very cagey about his life and what he does for a living, and wouldn’t answer a lot of questions because he didn’t want to implicate himself. He told the judge he works 50 minutes a day. wtf? 50 minutes. Not an hour. I know snark when I see it. Most of his answers were supposedly sentences of 5 words, and this is a man who speaks three languages. The reporter noted he was wearing expensive clothes and a super expensive watch. He has not made any effort to reapply for a US visa, but when the judge asked him, he said he was working on it. It’s been 3 years. How long does it take to fill out an application? Apparently, he has a lot to hide. The visa is believed to have been taken away for “fraud, drug dealing, and arms dealing in South America.” Lovely. I wouldn’t want my kids being raised by someone like that either. This guy sounds like he’s all kinds of scheevy to me. The kids may live a rich lifestyle in Monaco, but I don’t think that’s in the best interests of children. Most of the rich kids I know are pretty spoiled and messed up. I read that one person said the little boy had to be peeled off his mother when she was returning him. Also, that the judge ordered the parents what they have to say to the kids about the other parent, like, “have a nice time with your mother/father”. I agree with Dan Abrams, it just seems insane to me that an American judge would take away custody from an American mother of her American born and raised kids, to their German father whose visa was revoked because of criminal activities. If this is false, then he should refute it with proof publicly. She may get visitation that is supposed to be paid for by him, but I think having to make 45 visits to Europe over three years is an excessive burden, and that sometimes he prevented her from seeing them. I love Europe. i love travel. We spend several weeks in Italy every year and I am currently packing for it. But having to go back and forth constantly to see your kids is just awful in my book, and I don’t think its in these kids best interest to be raised by someone who gained his wealth by criminal enterprises. Apparently his mom has a “window dressing business”. Sounds like one of those cartels where a carpet cleaning business rakes in tens of millions per year. If he’s such a great guy, he wouldn’t have gotten the boot; and frankly, it’s really hard for me to respect a young, healthy man who is too lazy and snobby to work more than “50 minutes a day”. It looks like Rutherford, like most actresses, wanted to be married to someone rich, and after marrying him, found out it wasn’t what she thought it would be. I read she took out a restraining order on him after she left him.

      • jane16 says:

        Ooops, I meant to say, he testified he works 10 minutes a day, or 50 minutes per week. My dyslexia and adhd getting worse in my old age!

      • Alice says:

        I suggest you read the link I posted above. The whole “he’s a criminal” seems to have come from Kelly and is quite possibly just another attempt at smearing his reputation. The man has a legitimate business operating in Germany, which he probably pays someone well to run.

        He also offered to testify about his business/financial activities “in camera”, in other words, in private with the Judge but without her lawyers being present. Even the judge noted that it was understandable that he was reluctant to speak in front of them, given the sorts of actions her legal team had been up to.

      • jane16 says:

        So why can’t he just openly defend himself and get his visa back? According to one article I read, by that PI guy that was in the courtroom, Rutherford went on and on about his illegal dealings and HIS attorneys never objected. Finally, the judge told her she had said enough about it. And check out this:

        “…He’s tough,” said another German small-business owner who did not want to be publicly identified but said he was being sued by Giersch…(he said) Giersch, who’s currently involved in ongoing patent litigation with a large Austrian company, “is notorious for extracting money from all kinds of small businesses.”

        And, “He calls himself a businessman but he really makes his money in trademark & patent trolling activities,”

        He sounds like a particularly nasty person. And I’m beginning to think this custody battle is more about controlling his ex-wife than what is in the best interests of the kids.

      • Alice says:

        @jane: the guy owned years before Google came up with the idea of using it for their email service. He was perfectly within his rights to defend his German trademark against other people using it without his permission. You can’t really call it patent or trademark trolling when you’ve owned it for several years before some giant behemoth company tries to “reverse domain hijack” you, just because they think they can.

      • Paleokifaru says:

        Jane16 it seems you didn’t read the court document. Daniel has very rarely initiated litigation. It’s Kelly who is trying to control the situation. He has wanted 50/59 custody from the beginning because it’s in the best interest of the children. Kelly was the one dragging him to court for sole custody, having her lawyer getting him deported and attempting to blackmail him into relinquishing custody. Please read the verdict in full.

      • Debra says:

        Jane16: If the little boy had to be peeled off the mother crying, it was probably her fault.. in the court documents, the children’s court appointed (lawyer? advocate?) expressed concerns about how Kelly handled the transition of the children, and it wasn’t good. He also stated that Hermes is extremely attached to his father and suffers anxiety when he is separated from him for long periods of time. Also, he has never to my (meager) knowledge been arrested, charged, tried or convicted of criminal activity.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ jane16

        The quote you posted from your link was made by a guy who lost his lawsuit to Daniel because the guy used a name in his business practices that Daniel had already owned and trademarked.

        Even Google lost the lawsuit for the same thing in court against Daniel. So big or small, any size business may lose the court case when there’s proof of trademarking before they use an already trademarked name.

        So yes, if you use an already trademarked name in your business, then you will lose when sued. Then you will feel all grumpy about paying up and say grumpy things.

    • Samtha says:

      She was supposed to be there for a visit. The kids are in school until July, and she gets them for the summer after that. He wanted to prevent her from fleeing with them rather than just visiting.

  30. Jackie says:

    I would hope that by now any judge that takes the case, will see Kelly’s pattern of lying or withdrawing information in court and punish her for it. I’m sorry but it’s ridiculous the lengths she’s going to cut the father out of these kids lives. It angers me so much that she just can’t accept losing and play nice for the sake of her kids. This is a game to her, it’s not about winning custody, it’s just about winning and attention. Those poor kids.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      And I bent over backwards doing everything I could to get my ex-husband to see our kids! I was never going to prevent my children from having a relationship with their father. It sounds like Kelly just wanted two cute kids and call it a day, with no co-parenting involved. If she wanted that, then she never should have married him, and just used a donor in the first place.

  31. Virgilia Coriolanus says:

    I just read pages 21-24 on the link that Alice provided (great sleuthing lady!)…..Kelly is a bitch.

    She had her lawyer threaten Daniel/his lawyer that they would be calling the State Department to tell them that he was kidnapping the kids if he didn’t give up his rights to them. Kelly later said it was supposed to be “temporary”…yea, okay. Then she hired a private investigator to follow him around (so I doubt he was cheating on her, or seeing someone new), and tried to get full custody of Hermes because he had a pool in his backyard (said it was unsafe for the kid). With Helena’s birth–she didn’t tell him that she was giving birth, and wouldn’t allow him to even be in the hospital (he wanted to wait in the hospital while she was giving birth). Then she withheld the kids from him for a little over a month, while giving interviews that she was going to raise them alone, and exposed them to the media (which was a no-no to their agreement).

    And yea, she was accusing Daniel of not only being a drug/arms dealer, but of being homicidal (her nanny was). And apparently Hermes asked his therapist whether or not his father was a criminal. In 2010, Kelly put her phone # in Hermes shoe and told him to scream and call the police if his dad ever brought him to an airport. WTF?

    She’s crazy.

    And I feel soo bad for him. He seems like a great father, even now that we’ve seen what he’s had to deal with and he’s STILL encouraging the kids about their mother, and trying to coparent with her.

    • Audrey says:

      In 2010, he was so young too. Like 3 or 4 years old and she was telling him that. Makes me sick

      • Becks says:

        Yes, Hermes would have been 4 years old. And can’t we just imagine the way she would have dramatized the whole, “If that man brings you to the airport, he is stealing you away from me and you need to SCREAM”.

        How terrifying that would seem to a 4 year old.

    • Tilly says:

      Virgilia, that’s awful, I hope this woman loses custody and has her parental rights terminated. She is never going to change, she is a sociopath who doesn’t care for the impact her behaviour has on others, not even her kids. Toxic parents like that do nothing but cause damage to everybody around them and most of all to the vulnerable children who are marinated in the parents crazy. They’re not capable of anything else.

      I feel so bad for her ex and children being caught up in this monsters drama. She is grotesque.

  32. Kylie says:

    They both seem awful. The kids are the ones suffering due to selfish parents.

    • DTX says:

      What are you reading to conclude he’s as awful as her? Because if you had read the PDF of the court summary linked above there is ZERO mention or evidence of him ever attempting to block her access to the kids, he in fact, is very “pro” 50/50″ and communicates politely to her all appts. birthday party pics, etc. to make sure she is always in the loop. He pays for ALL her living expenses while she is there visiting the kids. He doesn’t bad-mouth her to the kids and even buys the kids presents on her behalf when she cannot attend events.

      What about him seems bad to you? The guy may or may not have been a great husband but he is one hell of a father!

      • jane16 says:

        Check out my link to Daily Beast a couple of comments upthread. He sounds nasty.

      • Alice says:

        Nasty because he was defending the trademark he’d owned for years against other people using it without his permission?

      • jane16 says:

        Nasty because he apparently sues a lot of people over nothing. My husband and son could make a small fortune suing businesses over not complying with ADA requirements (they have muscular dystrophy), and there are a lot of lawyers and disabled people that do this, but I’m proud to say my guys have never stooped to hurting small businesses over chicken shit stuff like this guy does. The more I read about this guy, the shadier he looks. A lot of stuff has been left out of the posts and threads here. For instance, the last ruling said that he had violated the court order to file to renew his visa. He’s had three years. I don’t think he wants to. If you read the Daily Beast article, you can see he enjoys court cases and playing games.

      • jane16 says:

        Alice, in your comment to me upthread: “He also offered to testify about his business/financial activities “in camera”, in other words, in private with the Judge but without her lawyers being present. Even the judge noted that it was understandable that he was reluctant to speak in front of them, given the sorts of actions her legal team had been up to.”

        I get that you think his wanting to testify without the other lawyers present is justified, because of her lawyers turning it in, but as a layman, I am amazed that such a proceeding could be legal, that one side could give testimony without the other being privy to it. I also cannot believe that this judge, who issued the ruling 3 years ago, would give this guy custody of these kids, in another freaking country, when his business and personal questions could not answered frankly and openly in a court of law! Honestly, the more I read about this case, the more disgusted I am. I don’t blame the mother for not wanting to be with him, he sounds like a total douchebag. I read that Rutherford was flying economy, back and forth ever 3 weeks, then 4 weeks, then 6 weeks, as she ran out of money, so it doesn’t sound like he is footing the bill for her every expense as is the general opinion here. I’ve read comments that sound like she should be grateful he’s giving her all these vacations, but I think the reality is much harsher. Whatever dumb things she may have done, I think she got totally screwed by that judge here in L.A.

      • Debra says:


        I hardly think protecting a name he trademarked for business from takeover by a multi-billion dollar company like Google “chicken sh**” stuff. They offered him a measly, and I only say measly based on Google’s worth, $250,000 for Gmail.. which he turned down (I would have done the same) Google fought him for 3 years and lost every time. These businesses were apparently using the name and were warned via c and d letters to stop, so if they got sued and lost, it’s their fault.

      • Alice says:

        I see. And if your neighbor just decided to permanently “borrow” your car without your permission because they decided they wanted what you own, would you let that slide too?

        There is nothing shady about defending your property against other people using it without your permission. And particularly in this case, since it’s likely the people that he sued were using “gmail” in Germany in the context of Google’s Gmail, who he was in a court case with and doing nothing may well have weakened his position while strengthening that of Google.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Jane16–are you deliberately trolling, or just obtuse? READ the pdf of the ACTUAL court documents we keep referring to: he can’t follow the court order to file regarding his visa without an (also court-ordered) affidavit from Kelly which she clearly states she is hasn’t done and doesn’t WANT to do “because she doesn’t want to admit wrong-doing.” SHE is the one in constant violation of that court order.
        I don’t understand why anyone would find a Daily Mail style purple prose poor excuse for journalism article CLEAR PROOF! over the actual court documents themselves, including Kelly’s sworn testimony. That smear piece masquerading as a news article covers their trail well–they keep using phrases implying his visa was revoked “under a mysterious cloud” in the first few paragraphs of the article (evidently all that most people read), while eventually mentioning that ‘someone told People her attorney was responsible.’
        Even the big ‘sue-crazy’ accusation isn’t backed up by other than rumour–the ONLY *actual* court case mentioned is his suit against corporate giant Google.
        Which begs the question, Jane16–do you work for the same people responsible for that irresponsible smear piece? You might want to try a comments section populated by less ‘critical-thinking enabled’ folk!

      • anne_000 says:

        @ jane16

        I responded to your post upthread in which you quoted and linked to the article.

        Suing over someone using what you’ve already trademarked versus businesses not complying to ADA standards are two different things.

        Yes, businesses can be sued when they use trademarked names without permission and they can lose in court for doing so.

        Daniel has sued Google and won and Google is a BIG business. The guy you quoted lost too in the court case.
        As for Daniel and his visa, it was ordered by the Court for Kelly to send an affidavit to the proper authorities in order to help Daniel get out of the trouble created by Kelly’s party (and which the Court document states that it was done with her knowledge and even in her physical presence). But, as the Court document states, Kelly has not done so.

        So when your accusers refuse to take back their allegations and accusations that helped get your visa revoked in the first place, then you have to fight with not only them but with the US govt to get back your visa.

        So, it would be a whole lot easier for Daniel’s visa request to be approved if Kelly would only do what the court ordered, which is to fix this situation with her affidavit in support of Daniel getting his visa back.

        It took two to tango in this visa case. It will probably be harder for Daniel to get his visa back when the party who was involved in getting it revoked does nothing to clear up the allegations/accusations.

      • jane16 says:

        TotallyBiased, nice. No, I don’t work for any publication or pr firm, and I don’t know this actress, although I know many. My only interest in this case, which started today, is only as a mother and typical internet reader. These days my work is limited to an occasional modeling gig or session work in recording studios. We spend summers in Italy, so I don’t like to be tied down to a regular job, but I’ve had some interesting jobs in my younger days. By the way, I have been commenting here for 5 years (the 16 after my name referred to my sons age at the time I started here, he was in the hospital and I checked out gossip sites for the first time then–he is now 21), and I didn’t realize there was a “critical-thinking” standard here for comments. Since the site has nesting threads, thought it was all about discussion of all kinds.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ jane16

        The Court document showed the ruling that Daniel’s businesses were not relevant to the custody case. Thus it was not necessary to discuss it in front of Kelly’s party. Thus giving the information to the judge in camera is not illegal nor relevant nor pertinent. Anything he says about his business (so long as he doesn’t say he’s doing something illegal) is not up for Kelly’s lawyers to have as information or evidence to be used in the custody case.

        Daniel is liable for only six expenses-paid visitations for her to Monaco. However many else times you say she’s visiting is up to her. And if she is actually visiting beyond the six times, then it says a lot about Daniel that he is OK with the extra visits. If the situation were the reverse, who knows how Kelly would react?
        If you read Alice’s pdf link, then you’ll see that the judge considered numerous options for custody. But because Kelly’s then-lawyer helped get Daniel’s visa revoked (with Kelly’s knowledge and in her presence), the judge’s options were narrowed because now Daniel was not allowed in the US anymore.

        And the judge ruled that it would be unfair for the kids, especially at the then young ages of 2 and 5, to be shipped back and forth across the Atlantic every six months. So, the judge had to decide in which country the kids were allowed to stay most of the year. And again, because of the visa issue, France/Monaco was chosen.

        Otherwise, if Daniel’s visa was left not tampered with by Kelly’s side, then he could have stayed in the US, same with the kids, and there could have been worked out a custody agreement totally within the US.

        But when you screw yourself over, who else is to blame?

      • Samtha says:

        @jane16, the court documents mention that Daniel was to deposit money in a bank account, in advance, to pay for economy class round-trip tickets for Kelly to visit. (She isn’t restricted to economy class, but that’s all he’s obligated to provide. It’s my guess that if she was out of money, it’s because she paid for upgrades to business/first.)

        If he’d failed to do so, I can’t imagine that Kelly wouldn’t have gone to court with that info right away.

  33. Jezza says:

    The Daily beast seems to be a bit of a biased read. The court documents don’t lie. They show a man who has not spoken ill of his ex, ensured regular and timely updates to Kelly and ensured she was included in events when she is not there (Helena’s Birthday party cited as an example). Say what you will about how he conducts his business affairs, it appears to have no bearing on his parenting.

    • jane16 says:

      Well, it appears he’s a lot smarter than she is anyway. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions about this.

      • Jezza says:

        No prob, Jane16😊
        If you haven’t read the PDFs, please take the time if you can. Very interesting and enlightening. No bias in it at all.

      • Alice says:

        Just to make it easy for you to find it.

      • jane16 says:

        Thank you Alice! :)

      • dottie says:

        Go easy on jane16………..she admits to: “My dyslexia and adhd” so that would explain her blind, ignorant, fact-free rants in support of kelly’s patently indefensible lies, distortions and dishonest dealings with the court, her kids and her ex in this custody matter.

      • usualsuspect says:

        why do I get the picture that your habitat is a trailer and weigh about 436 pounds and troll the internet all day and night while eating Cheetos and drinking bud light from a can? oh, of course only when you’re not modeling or recording or during the summer months when your trailer is parked in Italy and you’re hobnobbing with the many actresses you know. seriously? sounds like the only one in your family who really needs the handicapped sticker is you.

  34. Danielle says:

    theyre both terrible. I always sympathized with Kelly but they’re both so messed up to each other. What happened in the first place that Kelly wanted sole custody? Why does she despise him so much that she’d rather send him off and get his visa revoked then work on issues for joint custody?