Kelly Rutherford’s children won’t come to the US next week for custody hearing

This story is confusing, because People Magazine and The AP have reports with conflicting titles, although they essentially have the same details. People claims that Kelly Rutherford’s two children, currently living in Monaco with their father, Daniel Giersch, will not travel to the US for a scheduled custody hearing next week. A teleconference was held yesterday in which the LA judge said that he was still uncertain whether the US had jurisdiction over the case. The next scheduled custody hearing has been postponed until July 9.

The Associated Press leads with the title “Kelly Rutherford’s children to spend summer in US” and is decidedly more positive about Rutherford’s chances of seeing her children for their regularly scheduled visit. They report that Rutherford and Giersch have been told by the court to work out plans so that the children can see their mother until the judge “determines if he [the US] has authority in the international custody dispute.”

People’s story claims that “Kelly has hit a roadblock.” Giersch’s lawyer has stated that his client wants his children to have a relationship with their mother. However Rutherford asserts that Giersch is not cooperating. A hearing will be held in Monaco on June 22, during which Giersch will attempt to have Monaco take jurisdiction over the case and could try to gain full custody of the children.

Here are some of Kelly and her lawyer’s statements on the latest setback. They gave extensive quotes to People and The AP following this postponement.

“I can’t imagine that the children won’t be permitted to come to the United States as they’ve done for the past two summers. But, so far, their father has not kept up his side of the deal, and I am concerned that he will try to further prevent me from spending time with them.

“I hope this is finally coming to an end, and my children will soon be coming home,” she wrote.

No decision has yet been made,” David J. Glass, the lawyer who represented Rutherford during Thursday’s tele-conference, said in a statement. “We believe strongly that the Monaco Court, which was improperly petitioned by Mr. Giersch, will ultimately recognize that its earlier actions in this matter have not substantially conformed with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). We are also confident that once the California Court hears all the evidence, it will choose to continue to retain jurisdiction over the matter, and will order the children back to California. As Judge Juhas stated in his ruling on May 22, 2015, the children are only residents of the United States, and can never be citizens or residents elsewhere.”

“Ultimately this case is about the passage of time, and whether the fact that two American children lived abroad – under force of court order – for more than two years somehow transformed a temporary parental visit with their father into mandatory forced residency in a foreign nation,” Murphy told PEOPLE in a statement. “The obvious answer is, no. Indeed, the passage of time can only facilitate the children’s prompt return to this country because no court ever has authority to cause an American citizen child to be forced into exile from their own country.”

“It is disturbing that judges from two nations lack appreciation for the simplicity of this constitutional reality because involuntary expatriation was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court decades ago, and for good reason,” she continued. “There is nothing more fundamental than the right to reside in one’s own country, especially this country – because the precious rights of American citizenship have no value on foreign soil.”

“My children were only two and five years old when they were sent to live in a foreign country. They were supposed to return after a temporary stay in France and Monaco, but more than two years is not temporary. I’ve flown back and forth over 70 times to be with our children,” Rutherford said in a statement Thursday. “The children’s father promised the California Court in 2012 that he would apply for a visa so he could be with the children here, but he has failed to do that. And since March of this year, he has prevented me from visiting our children at all. I hope this is finally coming to an end and my children will soon be coming home.”

[From People and The AP]

If Rutherford is telling the truth and if Giersch hasn’t allowed her to see the children since March, that’s not right at all, nor is his unwillingness to apply for another visa. Given the circumstances I understand somewhat. She was waging a federal battle against him at that time (which failed) and has given interviews constantly in the interim asserting her rights. I think it reached this point because Rutherford kept pushing her ex and fighting with him instead of trying to coparent, which is how her kids ended up in Monaco in the first place. However I don’t know their dynamic and there’s possibly more going on behind the scenes.

Meanwhile Rutherford has a new boyfriend, Tony Brand, the assistant general manager of Gucci. It looks like Rutherford took a page from Salma Hayek’s book of landing a monied executive of a luxury goods company. Rutherford has been posting pics of Brand on social media and took a pap walk with him in New York yesterday. The two kissed for the paps because of course they did.

@tonybrand325 #dress @LeeAndersonNYC #DC #earrings @chiarabcn1

A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on

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

145 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford’s children won’t come to the US next week for custody hearing”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. MelissaManifesto says:

    For the sake of a marriage that once was and children who now are, please sit down and have an agreement that will benefit them. Put egos aside, apologize, swallow some pride, and move on.

    • blue marie says:

      It’s seems simple right? But I don’t know that it’s possible.

    • LAK says:

      You can’t come to a calm, measured and co-operative co-parenting arrangement when one side refuses to come to the table and is determined to push you off the table and out of the room!!!

      Going by public records namely th court documents, it is Kelly who isn’t co-operating. Her media statements are lies, lies, lies. She’s gone from getting her ex deported to publicly trashing him in a way that makes him ‘Murica’s public enemy for daring to have custody of his own kids.

    • Audrey says:

      This situation is really sad. This woman needs help.

      I think Halle Berry has managed to co-parent better. At least she never got her ex deported

      • Belle Epoch says:

        Everything about her makes me ragey.

        Is Rich Boyfriend really interested in having two small children around 24/7?

      • bluhare says:

        That’s an interesting question. Another interesting question is whether he’ll now bankroll her on this.

      • MET says:

        @Belle – I completely agree! My eyes start twitching when DM runs a pro-Kelly article if only because this woman is such a manipulative narcissistic liar.

      • lisa says:

        lol maybe somewhere halle is mad that she never thought of deportation

  2. LAK says:

    In response to this people’s article, In Touch someone should post the court papers that document every way that KR has gone about attempting to push DG out of his own kids lives.

    They should point out that despite all her efforts, including Judge shopping, she’s lost in court repeatedly.

    They should point out that her current strategy is ‘MURICA.

    I’m actually fearful for those kids and for Daniel when they come over for their annual summer visit.

    Ps: whether or not he means it, DG is publicly saying he wants the kids to have a relationship with their mother.

    Meanwhile she’s giving interviews about raising the kids on her own. No mention of their father in that scenerio.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      “They should point out that her current strategy is ‘MURICA.”

      I could be wrong, but I suspect her lawyers already know the courts won’t fall for that crap. I think she’s making those arguments solely for her public image, so the public won’t see her for what she is.

    • Elisa the I. says:

      According to the Mercer study (US consulting company) which evaluates the quality of living for expats worldwide every year, the US does not have the highest quality of living. San Francisco is the highest ranking US-city in 27th place, followed by Boston in 34th place.
      Western European cities take seven places in the top 10:
      http://www.uk.mercer.com/content/mercer/europe/uk/en/newsroom/2015-quality-of-living-survey.html
      (unfortunately you need to register to see the full list)

      Her argument of bringing her poor children home always sounds like they were abducted to some awful place. Does she seriously think this will work out??

  3. Alice says:

    Lawyer word salad… The Act he speaks about has nothing to do with international jurisdiction, but only jurisdiction matters between one US state and another. “They can’t be citizens elsewhere”?????? They were born with two citizenships, hello!

    I don’t believe a word this woman says, not after reading the full transcript of what really went down.

    • Maum says:

      That’s BS.
      My eldest was
      born in the States from two (different nationalities) European parents. She currently has THREE citizenships until she turns 18 and then will have to keep two and give one up. American doesn’t trump other citizenships. All the father has to do (and I assume has done) is take the births certificates to the nearest German consulate and register the birth of his children there and they are legally as German as they are American.

    • Alice says:

      Aaaand, her lawyer is on a roll…

      Now he’s claiming that the father “may have” forged the email informing him about his visa being revoked.
      http://www.people.com/article/kelly-rutherford-lawyer-daniel-giersch-forged-email

      However, contrary to what the lawyer is saying, a quick look here: http://germany.usembassy.gov/visa/
      shows that they themselves refer to the NIV section in Berlin that deals with this as a “Consulate”.

      The more of these tactics I see, the more convinced I am that she has no intention of sending her kids back to the father the next time, but intends on playing the “public sympathy/support” card in order to strip the father of any chance of seeing his kids again.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Oh for the love of all that is holy…

        EMBASSIES are diplomatic missions of a particular country in a foreign nation. The U.S. Department of State operates U.S. embassies worldwide. There is only ONE U.S. embassy per foreign country. CONSULATES are the visa-issuing entities within embassies. Many foreign countries have more than one U.S. consulate but they are all technically divisions within the U.S. embassy for that country. In rare cases where there is no U.S. diplomatic mission in a country, the U.S. may operate a consulate only for visa services. Sometimes a U.S. embassy does not offer consular services in a particular country and refers people to U.S. consulates in other countries. For example, one of my clients is currently teaching in Azerbaijan and applying for an immigrant visa based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. The U.S. embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, has limited consular services and does not process or issue immigrant visas. So instead he had to go to the U.S. consulate in Tbilisi, Georgia, to apply.

        The U.S. Embassy for Germany is located in Berlin. Within this embassy is a U.S. consulate, and within the consulate is the NIV (Nonimmigrant Visa) Section which handles – you guessed it – nonimmigrant visas. These are NOT green cards; these are temporary, term-limited visas which authorize an individual to travel to the U.S. for a specific purpose. According to this e-mail, Mr. Giersch was issued an O-1 nonimmigrant visa. The O-1 category is for aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts, sciences, business, athletics, or education. It allows the bearer to enter the U.S. to work in the area of extraordinary ability. They can be valid for up to 3 years initially with extensions of 1 year thereafter.

        That is the REAL e-mail address for the Berlin Consulate’s NIV section. And based on the hundreds of e-mails I have received from consulates over the past 18 years on a variety of topics, I am convinced it is 100% legitimate and not forged in any way.

        The People article is full of crap. I swear, Kelly is represented by complete idiots for lawyers, and apparently People did not bother to consult with a competent immigration attorney either.

      • Audrey says:

        It’s sad for the children, but I’m very convinced now that she should only have supervised visits.

        She’s gone totally nuts. I think she’s getting desperate since she knows that monaco may soon have jurisdiction.

        Someone should look into whether her lawyer is really a lawyer

      • Alice says:

        Completely agree with you. Embassies have a “Consular” section which is…. you said it… a “Consulate”.
        I don’t think her lawyers are stupid, this sort of info is clearly for the masses, many of whom have never applied for a passport in their lives. Which makes me believe there is a strategy behind this, likely involving not sending the kids back this summer and then attempting to use the court of public opinion. She’s Judge shopped before… are they appointed or elected to office? If the latter, has she and her lawyers got in mind to target a Judge up for election who they think will be swayed by public opinion?

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Also, her attorney is claiming that this e-mail is forged because German citizens are not required to have a visa to merely visit the U.S.

        Jesus H. Christ, woman…

        YES, citizens of countries that are authorized to participate in ESTA (formerly known as the Visa Waiver Program and when I started my immigration law career back in the Dark Ages, the Visa Waiver Pilot Program) are not required to obtain a B-1 visitor for business or B-2 visitor for pleasure visa from a U.S. consulate for short (less than 90 days) trips to the U.S. They must pass a background check and not have prior immigration or criminal problems that would render them inadmissible to the U.S., among other requirements.

        BUT…and this has ALWAYS BEEN THE RULE…

        IF you are a citizen of an ESTA country and have had a visa application DENIED or REVOKED for ANY reason at ANY TIME, you are NO LONGER ALLOWED TO USE THE ESTA PROGRAM. FOREVER. Your only option – as the consulate’s e-mail correctly notes – is to apply for a new nonimmigrant visa.

        If Kelly and her attorneys had not gotten Daniel’s O-1 revoked, he would likely remain eligible for ESTA and could have theoretically used it to visit his children in the U.S. But thanks to that visa revocation, Daniel’s only option to return to the U.S. legally is to apply for and obtain a U.S. visa of some kind.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Alice

        Thanks for the heads up on that article.

        Who do they think they’re fooling? At what point does Kelly start thinking she’s gone overboard? Never?

      • anne_000 says:

        @ BearcatLawyer

        Thanks for the explanation and clarification of the different types of visas and allowances to get into the US.

        It seems to me as if Kelly’s team is deliberately spreading misinformation.

  4. Miss M says:

    “My children”, “two American forced to exile”
    I can’t deal with this woman just by reading about her…

    Of course, she found a rich man, she always does…

    • vauvert says:

      Poor kids and I pity their dad who has had to deal with this nut case for so long. It was an AMERICAN judge who established joint custody but European residency for the kids because Kelly made it impossible for the dad to continue living in the US. Her lies, and her lawyer’s, made him lose the visa, and multiple CBers have explained why under the circumstances he is neither likely to regain it, nor he did he lose it because there was any actual proof that he was guilty of any wrong doing. Just being accused was enough.
      I wonder that any man is interested in her, with her romantic history…. She obviously goes for money – Daniel was/is well off too, and has been paying her travel costs and the kids’ despite her media lies that she is broke. Any financial hardship she suffers is because she has been waging a furious legal and media war against him.
      As for her lawyer’s BS…. the kids have double citizenship and US constitution dies not apply to Monaco, whatever rhetoric he spouts. I like how Daniel has been radio silent protecting his kids and never implying he wants them to not have contact with their mom, complete opposite of her…. and his team have only made minimal comments to the press. I wish him and those children well and hope the judges just grant him full custody.y

      • Gretchen says:

        Yeah, I’m getting really tired of the ‘US citizens forced to reside in a foreign nation’ spiel. Parents separate, custody battle ensues, father wins physical custody, end of. This isn’t some case of kidnapping, international trafficking or deportation. The kids are dual US/EU citizens, living in the EU doesn’t mean they are exiled from the US, just as living in the US doesn’t mean they are exiled from EU member states. This ‘Murica hyperbole is getting out of control and her lawyer must know that this approach will not stand up in court…so why keep pursuing it? Is it really helping her PR?

  5. Debra says:

    He hasn’t kept her from seeing the kids…. she has kept her from seeing the kids. She was right there in Monaco for a visit, and because of her big mouth and crazy interviews talking about someone kidnapping the kids, he wanted someone to hold the kids passports while she was visiting. So instead of finding one impartial person in all of Monaco to hold the kids passports, she opted to return home (after filing for an emergency hearing in CA, that has now failed) without seeing her kids. That’s on her, but it makes for better press to claim he is blocking her from seeing the kids, and she is all about the press.

    • Montréalaise says:

      I’m sure that her kids were looking forward to her visit with them and were hugely disappointed when she left without even seeing them. For her to forego her visit with her kids (when she talks so much about how much she misses them all the time) rather than just surrender their passports temporarily speaks volumes about her true priorities. It’s not about the kids and their needs, it’s all about Kelly.

    • anne_000 says:

      Yeah, I think she knew this would be a sticking point and wanted to create this fresh new mess.

      I don’t see why turning over the US passports (per court order) would be an issue since the kids aren’t leaving Monaco until their summer vacation starts. And why they would need it at all if she isn’t planning on taking them out of the US during their summer vacation visit.

      She can’t be as crazy as all that not to know that her TMZ rant and the passport issue wouldn’t raise concerns. It just looks to me like she did this on purpose like it’s part of a grand scheme, one part of which was that pre-Memorial Day hearing without notifying Daniel.

  6. Elfie says:

    It’s her own fault if he has refused to let her see the children since that vile Kardiashian backed social media hate campaign against the father, lobbying of the president to intervene in a custody dispute to wrongfully favour her and her invitation to every nut job to become a hero by kidnapping her kids from their dad and bring them to the States.

    If she gets them in the States again this year I guarantee she has no intention of sending them back. She has made it very clear that the gloves are off now and the law will be no barrier to lady narcissistic entitlement getting exactly what she wants which is alienation from the father.

    I hope that she never has anything more than supervised access to those children in the country their father resides until they are legal adults and capable of keeping themselves safe from her compulsive lying, manipulation and whatever else produced by her personality disorder.

  7. Lilacflowers says:

    As an American, I cringe every time this bigoted moron, and yes, she is displaying bigotry, opens her jingoistic mouth to spew her jingoistic lies and hatred. I wish we could ex-patriate her but I can understand that no country would want to accept such a bigot

  8. *North*Star* says:

    Is it possible that the father was abusive? I’m trying to figure out what might cause her to try and cut him out like many of you are suggesting.

    • vauvert says:

      She dumped her first banker husband after six months of marriage once he was diagnosed with a severe heart disease. She married another wealthy man, had two babies, but three months into her second pregnancy decided she wanted out of the marriage, and since then had done everything to keep him out of the kids’ lives. She had to be court ordered to put his name on the youngest’ birth certificate. There has never been the slightest proof that he has been abusive in any way, even though she tried claiming that ” he was in a lawsuit with google, so I was very scared that he liked lawsuits” type of BS. His business lawsuits had nothing to do with her life and marriage. He has never involved the media in this circus, and the only one pushing the kids in front of the camera and creating a stir is herself, despite losing in American court repeatedly.

      • Ennie says:

        I think it was much less than six months, because they had already separated when a big magazine was yet to print an article on their marriage , BTW they did print it and when he called to complain, the mag said that Kelly had green lighted the wedding article… After they had separated! He was ill, I do not know what to call her…
        Also, I. Think it took her two years! To put his name on the birth certificate!. years!

    • Debra says:

      From the original court papers, no evidence of abuse or neglect was found. Daniel was found to have an extremely close bond with both children, and contrary to what alot of people say (including Kelly, i think) they were both found to be equal in care of the children. Neither one was found to be more hands on than the other. Also the papers state that the little boy, in particular, becomes very anxious when separated from his father for long periods of time or when negative things are said about his father. (wonder who was saying negative things where the child could hear?)

      I guess there is just no reasonable explanation for crazy

    • Crumpet says:

      The reason is that she is a classic narcissist. She sees those children as an extension of herself (as they do). She has divorced the father and she wants the children ‘divorced’ from him as well. It is all about her, not about what is best for the children. Daniel has done everything he can to keep her in their children’s lives because he realizes they need a mother. Kelly is not capable of understanding that her children need their father as well. Narcissist will lie, cheat and steal to get what they feel is their due. In her case, it is their children she feels she is due.

      • dj says:

        Spot on! It is healthier for the children not to be around such a Narcissistic person. I feel so sad reading out how much she is emotionally damaging these kids. The childrens’ stability is with their father now, whether she likes that or not.

    • NerdMomma says:

      I am so sure, given her tendency to relay every detail about this case that paints her ex in a bad light, that if there was the slightest hint of abuse, we’d have heard about it. I suspect that he may have hurt her pride in some way, such as cheating on her. She wouldn’t tell the world that, but it would explain her attitude towards him.

      • Becks says:

        Yes, Kelly’s feelings were “hurt”.

        There is a passage in the official court document that addresses her repeated failure to add Daniel’s name to Helena’s birth certificate. The judge spent a lot of space to include all the instances of her refusal, even in defiance of a direct court order to do so. There was a sentence that quoted her testimony on the stand to say that she could give NO REASON for her continued refusal, other than to say she “was hurt”. I believe she even conceded that her failure to do so was hurting her children.

        BTW, I read that Daniel’s name remained Off Helena’s birth certificate for 3 years.

    • Montréalaise says:

      If he had ever been abusive, you can bet your bottom dollar she would have said so, long and loud. She hasn’t. She’s just a run-of-the-mill parental alienator who wants the kids all to herself and intends to cut the other parent out of their lives.

    • AH says:

      Northstar,

      The spit-flying, vitriolic, barely-disguised misogyny on boards like these aside, there is WAY more to this story.

      Daniel Giersch is an international drugs and arms dealer with financial ties to at least one known international crime syndicate, and muddy ties to a few others that go back years. Despite owning several U.S. companies (the I.R.S. has deemed them “shell companies,” set up most likely for the purposes of laundering money), he has never filed a tax return or paid a dime in American income tax, even after profiting to the tune of $millions from real estate sales alone.

      As we all know, when there’s talk of international gun-running, money-moving and drug smuggling, it’s an almost guaranteed fact that if you follow the money, it’s more likely than not to end up lining the pockets of terrorist organizations.

      ALLEGEDLY, of course. But the U.S. State Department doesn’t generally expend the time, money and effort to revoke a man’s visa and deport him for no reason. When the judge in question dictated that the kids would stay with Giersch in France – essentially awarding him full custody, seeing as how he can’t accompany his children here – she did so knowing that if he sets foot on American soil, he will be arrested.

      Anytime the “set one foot in the U.S. and the Feds will issue an immediate arrest warrant” thing comes up, Giersch shrugs it all off as an “immigration issue.” That’s like me stabbing someone in the face with a pencil and then explaining it away as a “friendliness issue.”

      What that judge did was unprecedented, and a serious breach of judicial ethics. But, then … she’s done it before.

      Just about every legal expert in the field who has followed this case, when asked for comment, has been STUNNED that an American court would violate those kids’ constitutional rights as citizens of the U.S. by forcing them to reside in a country wherein neither they, nor their parents have rights of citizenship.

      Part of the judge’s rationale for entering such a ridiculous order? At one point, Ms. Rutherford had enrolled the children in French classes here in the U.S. This prompted a confused “WTF??!” pretty much across the entire family law community.

      People who boil this down by saying if she were any kind of decent mother she’d move heaven and earth to go see her kids are rather spectacularly missing the point. That custody order was basically state-sanctioned kidnapping after the fact. This stopped being a custody issue awhile ago. rights of American citizen minor children, she made it a constitutional issue.

      • AH says:

        Last sentence edit: “When the judge violated the rights of American citizen minor children …”

      • Audrey says:

        Nobody has ever offered a shred of proof that he was involved in anything illegal. He was never arrested or charged. Nor was he even deported. His visa was revoked, he was not legally deported.

        A lot more went into the judge’s order than them taking French classes. The fact that they are familiar with French and French culture simply meant that they would have an easier transition than if they were never exposed.

        If there was any proof that he did anything illegal, Kelly would be fighting hard to have him arrested. She would also file an appeal to show that he is involved in illegal activities, which endangers the children.

        So I’m going to call BS on everything which you just said. The custody arrangement makes perfect sense

        They also are dual citizens. Their constitutional rights, as a federal court ruled, are not being violated. That’s a silly argument, residing in a foreign country does not take away their right to reside in the US. They also have the legal right to reside exactly where they are residing.

      • KellyBee says:

        Hi Kelly.

        Girl please half your comments come from false reports made by Kelly which was proven to be false and the the other hair proves you don’t know anything about how easy it is to get to be deported in any country.

        All in all your basically copying everything that Kelly said and not paying attention to anything else other information out there like court documents and the law..

      • Debra says:

        Wow, I’ve been waiting on Dan Abrams to start spewing his guts out about poor Kelly and evil Daniel, but you just stole his thunder…

      • Becks says:

        @AH:

        Regarding Kelly enrolling the kids in French school as partly to rationalize the court decision, i don’t think the judge was wrong.

        She noted that while the children were in California, Kelly enrolled Hermes in French school, and when she relocated to New York and had Helena, she again went to the trouble of enrolling both children in French school. It was even noted that she did this even though it resulted in the two kids being in separate schools. As any parent can attest, having two young children in two different school is a logistical nightmare. It is a logical inference that being immersed in French is rather important to her.

        The judge then noted that the Courts have a responsibility to consider whether granting one parent’s request to move the child to another country would result in the loss of language, or any other cultural heritage issues.
        THAT is when she noted that the move to Monaco, a French speaking country, where the kids would be enrolled in an English language school almost seemed serendipitous, as it seemed to fit some sort of “grand plan” the parents had of their children’s educational upbringing.

        I think the judge has been very fair. She also ordered Daniel to observe all Western cultural customs such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc. in her effort to preserve their American heritage.

      • AH says:

        The United States government does not deport you without a “shred of proof” you did something illegal. It’s a tedious, “i”-dotting, “t” crossing procedure that can get drawn-out and expensive, and it’s not done lightly.

        The “logical inference” that teaching your kids French means you want them to live there is ridiculous. Making complicated legal decisions based on what appears to you to be some big, cosmic, groovy thing is even more so.

      • AH says:

        KellyBee,

        I was a practicing attorney for nearly 20 years, I’m married to a naturalized American citizen, and one of my children was born abroad. I’m pretty well-versed in American immigration law.

        Setting aside the he-said, she-said, knee-jerk weirdness this case seems to inspire in people, it is a matter of public record – not “copied” from anywhere…an actual legal record…in English, and everything – that an independent, court appointed advocate for those children has said repeatedly, and all along, that it’s in the best interests of the children to reside with their mother.

      • Samtha says:

        AH, where does it say that about the court-appointed advocate? Because the other court docs posted said the exact opposite–that the person who evaluated the children supported Daniel’s France plan and not Kelly’s New York plan.

        I also think you’re taking the French school issue out of context. It was stated that the fact that the children had been learning French would make their transition to France easier, not that the fact that they’d been to a French school meant their mother wanted them to live in France.

        Also, as previously stated, he wasn’t deported. His visa extension was denied.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Well, AH, I happen to be a board certified immigration lawyer and I can tell you that visa revocations are NOT tedious, drawn out processes. A removal (deportation) proceeding in immigration court initiated because a person’s visa was revoked by the U.S. Department of State would be an exceptionally fast procedure too.

        The California family judge’s original custody order was a careful review of a wide-range of factors. Other than Dan Abrams, I have not run into any lawyers who have found fault with her analysis or ultimate ruling. As an EU citizen, Daniel Giersch is entitled to live in Monaco. His children are German citizens by birth through him, so they can reside there legally too. Apparently, Daniel’s parents live nearby as well so the children enjoy the benefit of having additional family support. Monaco/southern France made more sense too because the children had already been exposed to the French language and culture through their schooling in the U.S. I should think it would be far more traumatic for them to live in Germany or another EU country with their father where they likely would not have adequate language skills or family ties.

        Yes, it is inconvenient for Kelly to have to travel to see her children during the school year, but that is not unconstitutional nor have her children been “deported” or “exiled.” It is simply the natural consequence that results when one parent must live overseas – a situation Kelly created when she got his visa revoked.

        I have no idea whether Daniel Giersch is the criminal mastermind you paint him out to be. BUT EVEN IF HE IS, criminals have parental rights too. No one found any grounds to terminate Daniel’s parental or custodial rights, and all of the available evidence suggests that he is trying to be a decent, involved father and genuinely co-parent with Kelly despite the geographical hurdles. In return, he seemingly gets nothing but abuse and hysteria from her and her team. Frankly, he has more patience with her nonsense than I would have!

        Most women would be GRATEFUL for their kids’ fathers to take a remote interest in them. Instead, Kelly seems determined to cut Daniel out of these children’s lives permanently by any means necessary.

      • KellyBee says:

        You say you’re attorney yet your only argument is copying everything Kelly has said which has proven to be false. You also keep saying that the kids are American citizen and you and you refuse to comprehend that they have dual citizenship.

      • AH says:

        KellyBee,

        I’m unclear what you’re trying to assert with the insistence that the children’s dual citizenship has anything to do with their rights as American citizens being actively violated.

        These children are dual citizens of the United States and Germany. Not France, and not Monaco.

        American citizens traveling and living abroad are guaranteed certain rights and privileges as such in countries with which the U.S. maintains diplomatic presence and ties.

        Literally the ONLY place on foreign soil where these kids’ rights to protection and due process under American law is GUARANTEED to them as U.S. citizens is within the boundaries of the American Embassy.

        American embassies abroad maintain independent U.S. sovereignty, and the property on which they sit is considered American soil. As such, it bears pointing out, the only place in Monaco where those kids would be protected as citizens under American law, should the need arise, is inside a building their father is prohibited by federal law to enter on their behalf.

      • holly hobby says:

        Hi AH/Kelly:

        Thanks for repeating the misinformation. Please read the court records of what really happened to the custody case. I am not taking your word for it – rather I’d believe the testimony belied in the court records.

        Thanks for the rhetoric though!

      • LAK says:

        AH: you say that you are an attorney, and yet you don’t know that Germany and France are EU countries which means Daniel Gersh is free to live and work in either country?!

        This is a basic fact.

        A person of your education and profession should be acquainted with said basic fact.

        Whilst you are acquainting yourself with this basic fact, you might also learn that Monaco, for the purposes of the EU and Schengen territories, is a de facto part of France. That’s twice enforced reasons why a German citizen with french speaking children can live and work in Monaco.

        I’d recommend you acquaint yourself with the schengen territories and the EU.

      • ROBYNSING says:

        Because of the Victory Act, yes the justice Department DOES revoke visas without investigation. That is its purpose. Where do you get your facts? He’s never paid taxes and is a drug smuggler and gun runner? These are things that no one but the IRS and law enforcement would know. Your accusations fall flat. Most importantly, your continued rhetoric about “most legal professionals being stunned by this ruling” is complete BS. These cases are commonplace. Think this through logically. Why would there be the California UCCJEA and the Hague Convention if this exact circumstance hadn’t been happening ALL THE TIME. This case is not special. Kelly just thinks she”s special

      • anne_000 says:

        @ AH

        Germany, France, Monaco are part of the EU, thus they can live in any of these countries, from what I understand.

        Read the court order link from bluhare. It says “France/Monaco.” The Judge allowed these two countries way back when. It’s not like Daniel got them to Germany and then moved to France/Monaco without the judge knowing beforehand.

        Regarding the rights of the children, read BearcatLawyer’s and the court orders regarding setting up a mirror order in France/Monaco. So the kids have rights in two different countries, including the US. Their US rights weren’t taken from them as their rights to have both parents in their lives are protected in Monaco too, per the CA court order.

      • ican'tsnap says:

        LOL at the “attorney” who has never heard of the EU.

      • Finn says:

        The problem with this case is of course that we all are outstanders, but I find the “USA-centric-ness” of Kelly’s arguments a bit worrisome

        Also: All those allegations that Giersch is a weapons-mafia-whatever dealer can not be proven. Because they are not true *sighs*
        If you’d google him (and I did in German and in English), you’d know that one of the main reasons why he is rich is becaise he owned the rights to the “gmail” adress in Germany (any maybe also elsewhere) before selling it to Google.

        I’m rolling my eyes so hard everytime when people repeat that rumour…

      • Michelle says:

        Actually every legal opinion I have read is fully on the father’s side. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Just saying.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        THANK YOU, Bluhare.

      • lunchcoma says:

        Wow. Okay. So it sounds like she didn’t just get him deported. The original threat to report him to the State Department was coupled with a promise that the problem would go away if he signed a document agreeing he wouldn’t have visitation rights – not custody, but visitation. It sounds like she doesn’t want the kids to see him at all, which very rarely flies in custody cases when there hasn’t been abuse.

    • ROBYNSING says:

      TO AH: Eplain EACTLY what rights are being denied the children. Kelly can see them any time and could have. She simply has to surrender the children’s passports to a neutral party of her choosing which is allowed by the judge. The American Embassy in France or Germany would tell her the exact same thing. The court here told her the exact same thing. She refuses and in doing so again puts her ego and entitlement in front of the best interest of her relationship with the children

  9. funcakes says:

    Great! Splash pictures of your kids all over media instead of protecting their identities.
    Now get a super rich boyfriend so you can sing your sad story to him and get him to use his connections to feed into your crazy cause.
    I would make sure she never leave the country with my kids. Should would visit them there and demand supervised visits because she is unstable.

  10. EveinTN says:

    Maybe I’m missing something, but if she loves her kids that much, and needs them that much, why can’t she move to Monoco? She’s not acting right now. If it were me, I oukd go to the end of the earth, do whatever paltry job I could, just to be near my kids.

    • Audrey says:

      Because ‘Merica

    • AH says:

      It has little to do at this point with where Rutherford wants to live, and even less to do with her likability, or lack thereof. That judged placed an unjustified and unfair burden when she ordered only one parent, when both are under a joint physical custody order, to uproot his or her life and go live in one of THE most expensive pieces of real estate on the planet if they ever want to be a part of their kids’ lives again. It has everything to do with the fact that those kids’ constitutional rights as American citizens are being openly violated by a legally indefensible ruling.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        AH –

        The children have not lost their U.S. citizenship or their ability to travel to and reside in the U.S. They have not been deported or exiled.

        Pray tell exactly which portion of the U.S. Constitution has been violated in this case.

      • pleaseicu says:

        The ruling that the kids be based in Monaco to allow for the joint custody agreement to be executed was based on Kelly’s actions that resulted in the other parent not being able to enter the US to live near his children and fulfill his side of the joint custody agreement. Kelly can move to Monaco and fulfill her side of the custody ruling. Daniel, due to Kelly’s actions, cannot enter the US. THAT is why the ruling came out the way it did. Kelly and her defenders seem to refuse to see that her actions in trying to subvert court orders and to alienate the children from their father, who wants to play an active role in raising his children, have played a significant role in the way this has played out.

        The kids’ citizenship was not taken from them. They are not stripped of the ability to reside in or visit the US. More than one judge has ruled that their US rights are not being violated. Please cite to what US code or Article/Clause/Amendment of the US Constitution is being violated.

      • Daisy says:

        Giersch has borne the fiscal burden of Rutherford’s visits to France/Monaco. He has been paying for an apartment and a car for her during those visits. He has not limited the length of her visits: the apartment is available to her at his cost whenever she wants to visit or even live there. There is no financial barrier to her living in Monaco.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ AH

        Actually, it was Kelly who “placed an unjustified and unfair burden” upon Daniel when her people helped get his visa revoked. Because then, he wasn’t allowed to live nor visit the US anymore, can’t work from the US, and now has to pay for six of her visits to Monaco, including air fare, residence, and car service. And I’m thinking he has to pay for the kids to fly back and forth to the US every summer vacation.

        So Daniel’s life was ‘uprooted’ and now lives in expensive Monaco on his own dime while Kelly gets six free visits and stays at.

        What part of the US Constitution was violated? Does it make dual citizenship illegal? Does it forbid joint custody within another country and the US?

      • lisa says:

        nice, france is actually quite doable

        or it was before she spent all her money on lawyers

  11. Audrey says:

    She has said she has had two visits denied since October. So I’m pretty sure it was one in October and now the more recent one. Meaning her end of May visit was her first visit since March if that’s when she last saw them.

    Her lawyer is going on about him not giving the kids for the summer visit but his lawyer said he wants them to visit her. So i think she’s just being dramatic, they just haven’t worked out the details of the visit yet since he didn’t know how this hearing would go

    I see they are now exiled instead of deported lol

    • ROBYNSING says:

      actually, she was allowed all visits but refused to surrender the children’s US passports…again her ego and entitlement got in the way of the best interest of her children.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        She had no valid reason bringing their passports with her in the first place. The only thing she intended to accomplish by doing so is exactly this – make it look as if Daniel is denying her the right to see the children.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Audrey

      Yeah, I was wondering why she said in her recent court hearing that it was October 2014 and now she’s saying March 2015. Is it just another case of her not sticking to one story?

      Like other people are saying here, summer vacation for them hasn’t started yet, so she and her lawyers are being way too dramatic and making it sound like the recent passport-related non-visitation was about the yearly summer visits when it wasn’t.

      Yeah, that ‘exiled’ thing is ridiculous. If they were exiled, then why has Daniel been flying the kids to the US every summer? Exiled people aren’t allowed that. And if they were exiled, then why hasn’t Kelly handed over the kids’ US passports since they would be invalid, right?

      • Audrey says:

        I think that, by choice or work obligations, she had not been to visit since March. Which is fine.

        But i think she’s twisting it to make it sound like it’s his fault (ie i haven’t seen them since march because of him!). When really she was turned away for one visit due to not handing over the passports.

  12. Sandy123 says:

    She’s not looking at her kids in any of the posted photos.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      And she’s not thinking about her kids in any of her posted comments. The children are just property to her, and she’s only concerned about “winning” them away from her ex.

    • bluhare says:

      I noted that also. Even in the one posted to bring back her kids she’s front and center.

  13. Betti says:

    Prob a good idea. She’d prob kidnap them if their father did bring them. The woman’s a nut job.

  14. The Original Mia says:

    Aren’t the kids still in school until July?

    I don’t blame Daniel one bit for taking every precaution to prevent Kelly from keeping those kids once they do arrive for the summer.

  15. BearcatLawyer says:

    Kelly, sit down and shut up. According to the terms of the original custody decision, Daniel was ORDERED to file the appropriate petitions in the Monaco court to obtain a mirror order. This mirror order was to protect BOTH parents by ensuring that the custody arrangements would be recognized and honored in the EU. Mirror orders are routinely used to try to PREVENT international child custody disputes and parental abductions. He did not file a NEW petition in Monaco to try and alter the California court order, but Kelly’s subsequent actions have given the Monaco court pause.

    From what I have gleaned from various media reports, the Monaco court has reservations about enforcing a two-year old California custody order when California no longer has personal jurisdiction over Kelly, Daniel, or the children. Kelly has moved full-time to New York, which is where the children have visited her during the past two summers. Daniel has not returned to California or New York since he was deported from the U.S. The Monaco judge apparently has questioned why the custody case was not transferred to a New York family court after Kelly established her residence there or to a Monaco court since it has actual personal jurisdiction over the two children and Daniel currently.

    The Monaco judge has a point: it makes zero sense for the California family court to retain control over this custody case when literally NO ONE involved in it lives there except the lawyers. Combined with Kelly’s recent unhinged behaviour in federal court and her Memorial Day weekend ex parte stunt, the Monaco judge may rightfully be afraid that Kelly is about to abduct her kids.

    Just my take on the situation. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I have a feeling the California family court system would be more than happy to pawn this case off on New York or Monaco.

    • Audrey says:

      I agree.

      I think this case will be transferred elsewhere. I also think it will very possibly be transferred to Monaco since 3/4 people involved now reside there.

      I believe that when he filed the mirror order, monaco was like “hey you live here so we have jurisdiction”

      I’m just glad the judge came to his senses. The kids don’t need to be sent to the U.S. for temporary custody for a week or so, only to be possibly sent right back. I’m glad they’re staying put until the regular visit

    • Izzy says:

      EXCELLENT legal analysis. One more thing occurred to me, and it might have popped into my head because I lived in Florida when this happened: Kelly Rutherford would do well to remember the Elian Gonzalez case. If she kidnaps those kids, there IS precedent for removing them by force if necessary to return them to the rightful custodial parent or place of residence, which, given the circumstances, is with their father in Europe. And after this, I’d frankly be amazed if he didn’t get full custody outright.

    • Samtha says:

      Kelly, at one point, requested the case be transferred to New York, but the California court denied it. I can’t remember the reasoning, but it’s in the court docs.

      • Debra says:

        From what I can remember, she was petitioning the CA court to deny Daniel the right for any visitation outside the U.S. She wanted him restricted to electronic communications only. As soon as the judge informed Kelly that Daniel would absolutely be allowed visitation in Europe, she immediately tried to have jurisdiction moved to N.Y.

    • ROBYNSING says:

      Yes and while they spin and shout about “Daniel is in contempt of the order to not try to change jurisdiction of the case” Kelly tried twice to change the jurisdiction once to NY and then to USDC. He does not have to lift a finger. LA Superior Court can kick rocks. jurisdiction in Monaco happened automatically. I question at this point whether or not Kelly has some sort of personality disorder which is being preyed upon by kooky lawyers with their whole “American soil” rhetoric…it’s just wacky

    • anne_000 says:

      @ BearcatLawyer

      Thanks for clearing up what the mirror order was about.

  16. meme says:

    wow, she’s a crazy beeyotch.

  17. Becks says:

    The court papers reveal that she hired private investigator Edward Banach to videotape Daniel in hopes of coming up with something she could use against him. The final bill came to $86K, of which she only paid $28K. She was sued by Banach and the lawsuit reveals that his rate is $65/hour. Even accounting for any expenses he might have billed her, that works out to over 1,300 hours of surveillance.

    The end result of all that surveillance was that the judge deemed there to NOT be any cause for concern when Daniel was with the children.

    Her latest remarks about someone being an American Hero if they brought her children back. And if something were to happen, we wouldn’t blame you….almost sounds to me like she is hoping some over-zealous gun nut would assassinate Daniel.

    Surely, the thought must have crossed her mind that Daniel being dead= she WINS.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I gotta be honest…I felt the same way when Kelly made her hero comments. If I were Daniel, I would hire some extra security and maybe a food taster.

      • Audrey says:

        He did hire extra security, thankfully. When he filed for a court order to force her to hand over the passports, he noted that he beefed up security based on her comments

    • Becks says:

      In light of all her previous attempts to discredit, deport, exclude, expunge, and otherwise, ANNIHILATE from her children’s lives, a loving, generous, closely-bonded father who shows every indication of being willing to co-parent, it’s clear this woman will stop at nothing until everything is 100% her way.

      Kelly is employing a scorched-earth campaign, to the detriment of her children and their father.

  18. dibba says:

    She’s nuts.

  19. Pumpkin Pie says:

    I read the “I hope this is finally coming to an end, and my children will soon be coming home, she wrote” as once the children step foot in the US they will never be returned to their father.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      I read it that way, too. She’s not helping her cause any by making public remarks like that.

  20. AH says:

    Recast Daniel Giersch as a taqiyah-wearing father who spirited his two young American-born children off to a middle eastern or Asian country where those children have no legal rights or protections, and who has been deported from U.S. soil for criminal activity, resulting in not just the total alienation of their mother but also in the violation of their constitutional rights as American citizens.

    Now picture a U.S. Superior Court Judge ordering those kids to stay put because the father can’t legally enter the U.S.

    Would anyone on here be insisting that, if the mother in that scenario REALLY TRULY LOVED HER CHILDREN, she’d pick up and move there?

    It’s more likely there’d be rioting in the streets.

    • Audrey says:

      She has visited 70 times and had them every summer. No alienation at all. The judge found that Daniel, unlike Kelly, keeps her updated on their school, medical, dental and only says positive things about her in front of them.

      Everything else about this is pointless. Drop the constitutional rights thing, it’s been proven to be false.

    • KellyBee says:

      These kids have dual citizenship which is something you refuse comprehend.

      • AH says:

        The fact that they have dual citizenship is made completely moot by the fact that their only physically custodial parent at the moment is unable to travel to their country of origin..

        Are these kids supposed to get on Expedia and book their own flight to visit their mother?

        As citizens of the U.S. they are equally entitled to visit, cultivate relationships and participate in American culture. For that to happen, Rutherford must fly wherever they are, accompany them back to the U.S., fly them “home” to their father again, and then return to the U.S.

        That is an unfair burden, under a joint custody order, and one that exists SOLELY because, according to the U.S. government, Giersch is a criminal.

      • KellyBee says:

        Aagain whose fault is that. and he is not a criminal in the eyes of the U.S which again is something you refuse to accept.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Nope, sorry, it is not an unfair burden. Their dual citizenship is not moot either. They have rights in both the EU and the US; no country takes precedence over the other.

        THOUSANDS of children in the U.S. are put in similar situations every year when one or both of their parents are deported. I have had to put bawling children on the stand in immigration court to beg the judges not to deport their parents. I have heard ICE attorneys argue in removal proceedings that the U.S. citizen children are not being deported and the parents can just give them up to CPS if they want the kids to be raised in the U.S. I have seen way too many parents hauled off to detention centers or escorted on planes in handcuffs to be deported, telling their families right up until the last minute not to worry and that they will always love them no matter where they are in the world.

        Just because Kelly is a celebrity does not mean she gets special treatment. She created this problem by getting Daniel’s visa revoked, even though she and her lawyers should have known that joint custody is always preferred. As I noted in a comment to one of your posts upthread, Daniel may not be a perfect person, but even criminals have parental rights. All of the evidence suggests that despite his alleged crimes, he has been nothing but a caring, loving, involved parent and has genuinely tried to co-parent with Kelly. There is simply no legal justification to grant Kelly sole custody of the children, and while the joint custody arrangement they have right now is logistically challenging, it is not unreasonable or unfair or illegal.

        She gambled that the family court judge would rule in her favour and lost. In lawyer speak, we call it the “made bed rule.” She made her bed, so now she has to lie in it. That being said, I will be happy to refer her to some support groups for families and children coping with the aftermath of deportations.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ AH

        Per the court document (see bluhare’s pdf link), it was because Kelly’s side got Daniel’s visa revoked, the decision was made to allow the kids to live in Europe since Daniel would not be allowed even to visit the kids in the US anymore.

        The judge ruled that it would be a hardship on the young kids to fly back and forth, so she set up a plan in which Kelly flies to see the kids, with Daniel paying up to six trips for her including transportation, residence, and car service.

        The kids are court-ordered to spend summers in the US with Kelly, which Daniel has obeyed every year.

        Kelly has to fly to see them during non-holiday/non-summer because the kids are in school. What’s the point of taking the kids out of school repeatedly just because it would make it easier on Kelly?

        The time the kids spend with their father in Monaco is “home” to them. Just as it would be “home” when the kids spend summers with Kelly in the US. It’s not just one “home.” They have two homes.

        The US govt hasn’t convicted Daniel of being a criminal, unless you know of a secret court trial and conviction that wasn’t made public even by Kelly herself.

      • Alice says:

        @AH: she is in no way required to accompany them when they travel to and from the States, unless she chooses to do so. Airlines have “unaccompanied minor” provisions set up for exactly that reason. Chances are, the father flies up to Paris with them and then puts them on a direct flight to New York as unaccompanied minors. She, from her end, can do the same in NYC for the trip back, with the father meeting them in Paris.

    • Samtha says:

      That scenario is completely different than the one that actually occurred, so…

    • ROBYNSING says:

      Good grief LOL. And what if their father lived on mars and they were forced to live there. They are living in one of the most beautiful, wealthy, educated, safe and culturally enriching places in the world. Their mother has been given 50% visitation at appropriate times as not to uproot their schooling. She has many more options than most in this exact situation. This case is not special…she just thinks she is. She is moving to New York for work and could just as easily move to London for work which is brimming with great TV and movie production which she could easily get a work visa for. She would then be a short commuter flight from her kids and could have them every weekend or when she has time (which is rare when she is working 18 hour days on set). It would be like flying from LA to San Francisco. OR she could live in Monte Carlo on his dime and learn an amazing language and become a star there. No. Instead she chooses to lie lie lie and twist facts in her media blitz which is what frightened the father into thinking she was planning to go against the order and kidnap the kids. Her career and boyfriend are more important than her kids…hell…New York is more important than her kids. She lost any sympathy from me. She is a Parental Alienator reeking of entitlement

    • Tara says:

      AH: Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on the Internet?

  21. prism_go says:

    This is a great example of two parents who care about their issues more than their children’s well-being. At least the internet archives their whole fight – one day when the kids are grown they’ll be able to see literal evidence of how dumb their parents are. Thank you internet!

    • anne_000 says:

      What are you saying that Daniel did that was prohibiting Kelly from co-parenting?

    • DTX says:

      “one day when the kids are grown they’ll be able to see literal evidence of how dumb their MOTHER was. Thank you internet!”

      There. I fixed it for you.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Whole heartedly agree. And the narative about the angelic father would have been hilarious if it wasn’t so disturbing how easy to fool people are. I will wait for the explosion of the pink baloon image. Both parents in this case must be kept on a short leash with none of them having upper ground ever no matter if it’s based on time, location, residence, custody or anything else.

      • dottie says:

        How typical of folks like you mary alice……..when you realize you were championing the lame horse, you turn on the productive one to try to convince otehrs that he’s just as lame as your loser. There is NOTHING in ANY of the court documents to suggest that the father had been vindictive, uncoopertive, self-centred, an alienating parent, etc, etc, etc but every one of those criticisms can be laid at the feet of the mother. And btw, the ‘angelic father’ derisive is a tell-tale giveaway of the bankrupt critic in this sad case.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        I agree, Dottie. I think it is very telling how Giersch has remained quiet and media-averse. Even his attorneys have been measured and restrained in their responses to Kelly’s increasingly hysterical maneuvers. Besides being too busy raising two kids, Giersch obviously is trying to protect them from this madness.

  22. ROBYNSING says:

    Wow. Dig the ONE SIDED rhetoric. Some points that they fail to make. The most obvious being that the children have been gone 3 years…not two. Kelly’s web of misrepresentations (lies) are blatant. Her quote about timing is that the younger child is 5 but was 2 when she left and has been gone for 2 years and we all know that they have lived in France/Monaco since May of 2012. They want to spin the fact that the youngest has been a citizen of Germany and lived in France/Monaco longer now than she lived in the U.S. She is in fact 6 years old…not 5. Precedent cases co-mingling the California UCCJEA and the Hague Convention both have found that a child residing in a country for more than 6 months garners jurisdiction. They will not want to move the children. and that is the responsible decision at this point. The other major point is that when his visa was revoked, he was given a 10 year sanction to re-apply. There may be waivers and avenues to unravel the mess and then reapply for a visa, but it will take years. In the trial ruling granting him 50% custody and primary custody, the judge acknowledged that the testimony of the immigration experts in the case lead her to believe that he likely would not be able to re-enter the US “soon, if ever”. It’s in the record and these sinning liars know it. There’s so much more but this post is far too long

    • anne_000 says:

      You”re right. Even the judge wasn’t hopeful that the US State Dept would give Daniel a visa ever again.

      And never mind that per the court document, it says that Kelly hasn’t written a letter to the proper authorities to help clear up the visa issue even though she was ordered to do so.

      Since it was her side that helped get his visa revoked, it makes perfect sense that her and her side help try to get his visa re-instated.

      But the fact that she hadn’t done so means it’s still her fault that the kids have to live in Monaco and that it isn’t about the US Constitution and ‘Murica like she’s saying.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        She probably thinks that if she doesn’t cooperate then he won’t get his visa reinstated, and she’ll end up getting custody of the kids. If he can’t come here to see them, then she “wins” by getting to keep them all to herself as she’s always wanted to do.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Lucky Charm

        Yup. I think you’re right. That was the plan from the start, and all she seems to be doing is keeping that plan alive.

  23. TotallyBiased says:

    AH–Reporting my comment to get it deleted isn’t a terribly effective response. I reiterate–receipts (links to factual documents, not tabloids) to support your version of reality or I presume you are being paid to misrepresent, misframe, and mislead with your comments.

    • DTX says:

      Dude, it just Kelly or someone who sees their own awfulness reflected in Kelly and is trying to justify her for their OWN sake. Because everything AH has said is completely convoluted if not all together made up. This person is literally sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and singing “LALALALALA” at the facts right in front of them. Completely irrational, LOL.

      • enike says:

        I am really worried if this AH person is actually a lawyer….. can you imagine what he/she advises the clients?

        But AH can not be a lawyer, right? the BS and drivel he/she writes, is just astounding…. not to mention the ignorance

  24. Lucky Charm says:

    Ok, first the children have not started summer vacation yet. While they are in school, Kelly comes to visit them. Once they are out of school for the summer, then they will come to the U.S. as usual, no one is trying to stop that. The judge postponed the U.S. custody hearing until July, Kelly is going to Monaco for the custody/jurisdiction hearing in June. Monaco getting jurisdiction doesn’t mean that Daniel is getting full custody, but if no one is living in California, I can understand why they don’t want to keep this circus under their control since they have no jurisdiction over any of the parties involved. Kelly is just trying to spin “poor me and my deported American children, can’t be in America together right now!” for sympathy, even though nothing has changed as far as visitation and summer vacation. She tried to take them with her earlier than agreed upon, got shut down and is now making it sound like she can’t have the kids at all. Sure, “technically” she’s not lying when she claims that Daniel won’t let her bring the kids back to the U.S. now, but that’s only because what she’s NOT saying is that school hasn’t finished yet so of course they aren’t coming right NOW. This woman just makes me want to scream and shake some sense into her.

  25. anne_000 says:

    Do Kelly’s lawyers have no idea what they’re talking about?

    Wasn’t the problem with Judge Juhas’ overturned order based on him not knowing that the kids have dual citizenship and that Monaco also has jurisdiction based upon the previous CA court order to have mirror orders in Monaco? For Glass to say that the kids can never be citizens or residents elsewhere, does he also not know about their dual citizenship?

    Why is Murphy saying that the kids’ time with their father is “forced” and a “temporary parental visit” when if you use that standard, those labels can be put upon their visits with their mother too?

    Also, why does she call it an “exile” when Daniel has obeyed court orders to send the kids to the US every summer? And since the kids are legal citizens of another country too, wouldn’t time spent away from their European country be called “exiled” then if that’s the label used?

    Another thing, isn’t this the same lawyer that just sat by and did nothing to stop her client’s ominous call on TMZ for someone to get her kids and that there would be no ramifications if a “mistake” were made?

    So Kelly admits that Daniel hasn’t stopped her from seeing the kids 70 times. Doesn’t sound like someone who has an issue with co-parenting. Daniel even sets up Skyping sessions for their kids to talk to their mother in addition to keeping Kelly up-to-date on what’s going on in their kids’ daily lives.

    She said since March of 2015 when her pre-Memorial Day hearing said October of 2014. So now the dates are changing? Does anything she ever says stick to the same story told before? Because in the court document link (upthread), the judge lists a whole bunch of times when Kelly’s stories/’facts’ kept changing.

    Never mind that Kelly, by the same CA court, was ordered to help Daniel get his visa reinstated by writing a letter to the proper authorities to clear his name but hadn’t (according to the CA court). You’d think that if she was so hell bent on him getting back his via, she’d tell the US State Dept, Immigration, whomever else, that all the allegations that came from her party were false and recanted them all. But instead she never mentions her refusal to do so at the same time saying it’s all his fault for not re-applying? Uh. If the accuser won’t recant, then what good does it do to re-apply?

    • Alice says:

      Apparently they also claimed that he was trying to “change their citizenship” via the courts in Monaco. Which is impossible. Monaco does not grant citizenship based on residency and the only country that can strip you of a citizenship you already possess is that country itself.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      No, her lawyers are an embarrassment to the legal profession. Their latest salvo in People about Daniel Giersch falsifying an e-mail from AMCON Berlin is the biggest pile of BS I have ever seen. Apparently neither her lawyers nor People knew enough to consult a REAL, LIVE, PRACTICING immigration lawyer with half a brain.

      I am almost positive that at this point they are trolling us all to squeeze every last possible cent out of Kelly.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ BearcatLawyer

        Thanks for the heads up on that article.

        Her lawyer is ridiculous.

        I just want to say regarding her contradicting assertions that there is no US consulate in Berlin then later saying there is a consulate there but no embassy:

        “The Berlin consulate is in the southwest of the city, separate from the main embassy building in central Berlin.” (Reuters)

        Then she says the email allows for visits when it specifically says the opposite?

        You’re right. Kelly should use an actual immigration lawyer to explain things properly to her, but her lawyer said she got an “expert” to advise her on the email. Again, ridiculous.

        And yet again, People, the lawyer, and Kelly doesn’t admit that Kelly ignored a court order to write a letter to the proper authorities to help get Daniel his visa back since her team helped get it revoked in the first place.

  26. Bread and Circuses says:

    “If” Kelly is telling the truth? Kelly is the one with a history of lying and omitting facts to try to cut her ex out of his children’s lives.

    If the story came from Kelly’s camp, I’m NOT giving it the benefit of the doubt on being accurate.

  27. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    Didn’t she lie about her ex dealing drugs and weapons, which is considered terrorism in America? And that’s why his visa was revoked? And THAT’s why he cannot live in America with the children, whereas she can easily go to Europe to see them? It seems her own lies and scheming backfired. If she were doing this all because she truly loves her children (and not out of competition that she has to “win”) then she would let the kids see their dad as well as their mother — which means Europe, since she is solely responsible for the dad losing his visa.

  28. jwoolman says:

    Rutherford is such a liar that I wouldn’t believe any of her claims. The kids have dual citizenship and so all that ultra pseudo patriotic blather is meaningless. They’re in Europe, which even has running water I hear.

    The kids are probably still in school. Also there is the serious matter of her threatening to keep them in the U.S. against court order last summer. Her ex has very good reason to be worried. The safe thing would be to have her visit them this summer and have a neutral party keep their passports to prevent any nonsense. She really has proven herself repeatedly to be untrustworthy. She is the parent the court has to worry about, she shows all signs of being willing to violate the law in order to whisk those kids off to parts unknown, just as has happened with most of the “milk carton” kids (who are mainly in the midst of custody disputes).

  29. Jen says:

    Okay I’m not defending either parent here I’m just saying…can you imagine that you divorce this man for whatever reason…then next thing you know you’re babies are being taken halfway around the world from you…and there’s nothing you can do to stop it? I think the crazy would come out in any mother. (I mean actual mothers that actually give a sh*t about their kids.) I have to seriously distract myself from worrying when my kids spend the night with my mom. She lives directly across the street from me lol. If it was possible I would move right along with them. Of course since I probably don’t have enough money to buy French fries in Monaco that wouldn’t be a possibility…so then the crazy would start :)

    • Jax says:

      Her babies were taken half way around the globe BECAUSE of her actions and the crazy mother routine started way before that.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Her ‘babies’ were taken halfway around the world as a direct result of her actions/her lawyer’s actions. And she’s STILL making poor decisions along the same line.

    • Ducky la Rue says:

      can you imagine that you divorce this man for whatever reason…then next thing you know you’re babies are being taken halfway around the world from you…

      Having read the court documents, I’d say that the ‘can you imagine’ should read “you divorce this man… launch untrue accusations and repeatedly fudge the facts in an attempt to get sole custody of your kids, and when that blows up in your face, THEN your kids are taken away from you.”

      The crazy started well before the father got custody of the kids.

      According to the court documents, the kids would do well with either parent, as both were good with the children, but they decided to place the children with the father, as he was open to co-parenting with the mother, whereas her goal has always appeared to be sole custody, no co-parenting, no cooperation. Her game plan was scorched earth, and it blew up in her face. I’d feel more sorry for her if she were actually trying to correct the problems, rather than blindly continuing on the same path, with the narrative that her children were deported, etc. etc.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        The father does NOT have custody of the kids, they have JOINT custody, legal and physical/residential! It’s showing though, that the public gets this impression, isn’t it? Indeed.

      • Ducky la Rue says:

        Sorry, I am not a lawyer, and I sometimes forget that on the Internet I must always use perfect terminology. ;-) I did read the legal documents, however, and I was aware of that. I obviously just parsed my ideas incorrectly. Shouldn’t have said that he got custody, but that they lived with him most of the time because he is not allowed to enter the United States after her lawyer’s calls to revoke his visa.

        Better? If there’s still confusion, check out the links as posted above. :)

    • Ennie says:

      Really, if I’d marry a foreigner (she already has married TWO foreigners) and had children with him, I’d be sure NOT to try to get him kicked him out of the country unless he were a life risk for me or my family. He allegedly by her, had shady deals which procured him money (which she happily enjoyed), hey , he was an angry personbecause a huge company was trying to rob him and he sued. (she mentioned that), was he violent toward the children? did he attack her? no, she alleged, in the media, not before the judge, that she had seen suspicious cell messages and that he was probably cheating… her reason for divorcing.
      I do not think those are reasons enough to cut a child from a parent. Many people are cheaters and good parents, many people have money problems and crisis and still are good parents.
      She made sure to get his visa revoked. As far as I know, if you have visa problems or have had problems with regards of your stay in the USA, you can get a prohibition from entry to ten years to an indifinetly period.
      She was a selfish parent, he was not, he was very cooperative, even with whatever “defects” he had. She committed irretrievable mistakes and I think she is still going a path that will damage her children’s psiques.
      A regular judge would probably have tried to give her main custody because the children were so young, but she sure painted herself like a hater, uncooperative parent from hell in front of the judge and in the media.
      She really should have given a try to live in Europe for a while to be with her children note.

    • Samtha says:

      I do sympathize with that–I get nervous when my step kids visit their mother and stepfather every other weekend; I can’t imagine being separated from my own little one for that long.

      BUT…if you read the court docs, Giersch cooperated every step of the way and was willing to co-parent in the US. Those documents specifically state that he tried over and over to facilitate a relationship between the kids and their mother, but that she repeatedly tried to alienate them from their father.

      Then she sat by and let her lawyer call and report him to have his visa revoked–she was there! If she had a problem with it, she could have stepped in and made the lawyer stop. It’s obvious this was one more ploy by Kelly to alienate the kids from their father.

      So with him out of the country, what is the best thing to do? Just cut their loving father from their lives because it hurts Kelly’s feelings when they’re away? What about his rights? Don’t you think it would hurt him not to be able to see his kids? If Kelly had full physical custody, do you really believe she would send those kids to see their father?

    • lunchcoma says:

      It’s not the next thing she knows. The two of them were coparenting reasonably well when her attorney placed a call to the State Department and told Daniel he would make the problem go away if he signed a document surrendering any visitation rights. She created this situation.

  30. Wisteria says:

    I remember this woman filing for bankruptcy awhile back. How does she afford all these attorneys?

  31. Wisteria says:

    Forgot to add that I thought Minor childrens court records un CA are not publicly available, so wonder why the info seems to be out there.

  32. DIANE says:

    If I were Daniel, I’d be worried sick about sending the kids to her for the summer. The woman is obviously unbalanced. I don’t even want to think about what I think she’s capable of doing to her children to keep them from going back to her husband after she gets her hands on them.

    • Samtha says:

      I would be terrified that she’d refuse to send them back. Not just that–imagine the things she’s saying to them. The court docs made it pretty clear that she talked shit about their dad to them, and she admitted that she tells her kids she’s fighting to bring them back to the US.

      Can you imagine how confusing and terrifying that must be for them?

      • Becks says:

        Speaking of messing with the kids’ heads….it is a documented fact that she put a paper with her phone number in Hermes’ shoe and told him that if his father ever took him to the airport, he should scream because his father was stealing him away from her. He was 4 at the time.

  33. Moi says:

    This is sad and uncomfortable for all parties I’m sure. Hope it all works out well, and very soon. I have to say, I love her instagram. I’ve been going back and forth for a year as to whether I should move back to NYC or not…her pics Really make me want to just go for it.

  34. Jezza says:

    She makes me ragey!!! She needs to quit with the ‘murica rhetoric! Their children have dual citizenship and live in Monaco with Daniel as a direct result of her actions. It is all in the court documents. Nothing in them shows Daniel to be anything other than cooperative and a loving and involved parent. It even stated that he was doing the majority of the parenting when they were together. Had Kelly been; cooperative with coparenting, compliant with the court (ie. Helena’s birth certificate) and her former lawyer not call immigation/attempt to get Daniel to sign away his visitation rights, she would not be in the situation she is in now.

    • DEB says:

      Me too … is it just me or are these “loving mom/hands-on/ever-present parent” etc. photos way overdone? I think she is entirely self-serving and unstable.