Kelly Rutherford’s children to spend summer in US: ‘my serenity is restored’

Raffaello Summer Day in Berlin
Following a custody hearing in Monaco Monday, Kelly Rutherford’s two children, Helena, 6, and Hermes, 8, will be allowed to fly to the U.S. on July 3 to spend the summer with their mom. This ruling comes after some back and forth about which country had jurisdiction over the case, which as far as I can tell has not yet been formally decided. The children have resided in Monaco since 2012 with their father, Daniel Giersch, after a California judge ruled they should reside with him. After this latest ruling, Kelly’s lawyer gave quotes to People claiming her client will eventually regain physical custody of the children, which is typical of Kelly’s side. If they would focus more on their court strategy instead of the press they might have been able to avoid some of this legal wrangling.

A judge has ordered that Helena, 6, and Hermes, 8, fly to the United States on July 3 to spend the summer with their mother – but as of now, they’ll return to Monaco at the end of their trip to continue living with their father, whom Rutherford divorced in 2009.

“I am pleased with the outcome and that the children will be coming to the US for a part of their summer vacation,” Rutherford said in a statement to PEOPLE. “I am reassured by the Monaco process and the judge. Although I still maintain my legal objections about Monaco hearing the case, my serenity is restored.”

Rutherford, 46, and Giersch, 41, each had two attorneys by their side as they gathered in the judge’s chambers in the courthouse, which sits high atop the Rock of Monaco, across from the famous cathedral where Prince Rainier and Grace Kelly are buried.

But Wendy Murphy, who represents the children on behalf of Rutherford in New York, insists the court didn’t have the power to make any formal ruling, adding that Rutherford objects to Monaco claiming jurisdiction.

“The children are allowed to come to the U.S. because Monaco knows it has no authority to assert jurisdiction,” she tells PEOPLE. “So it’s not that Monaco ‘allowed’ the children to return to their own country, it’s that they had no choice – because American citizens can never be forced to live in a foreign country – period. Unless the kids are dual citizens – and these kids are not.”

Giersch’s California attorney, Fahi Takesh Hallin, told PEOPLE earlier this month that the German businessman had no problem sending their son and daughter to the States for the summer, as he had done ever since their 2012 arrangement went into effect. But Rutherford was wary…

Rutherford and Giersch will face off in a Los Angeles court July 9.

Murphy says she believes the L.A. judge will rule in her client’s favor following this month’s allegation that Giersch forged an email about the terms of his visa revocation. (Hallin shot down the accusation, calling the revocation “unfortunately very real.”)

“Monaco only asserted jurisdiction because the kids were living there for so long – which was caused by this country – but only because the children’s father submitted a fraudulent document and falsely claimed he was unable to enter the United States,” Murphy says.

“Now we look forward to the California court in July fixing this mess and bringing the children home for good,” she adds. “Their father can visit them here as he should have from day one because he is free to enter this country on a passport.”

[From People]

I really don’t think that email from the Berlin Embassy/Consulate was faked, as we discussed recently, but we’ll have to wait and see what the US judge says. Assuming the judge agrees with Kelly’s lawyer and finds that email fraudulent, is that enough to send the children to live with their mom in the US permanently?

Here are some photos of Kelly at an appearance in Berlin over the weekend. (She’s in a red dress. The photos of her in white are from 2013.) I’m sure we’ll see plenty of photos of her kids dressed all in white once she has them with her in the states. That’s great that they’ll get to spend time with their mom this summer. I don’t think awarding Kelly custody would be in her children’s best interests, but that seems like a long shot anyway.

Kelly Rutherford leaving dinner at Borchardt's restaurant

Raffaello Summer Day at Kronprinzenpalais in Mitte

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

Photo credit:

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

116 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford’s children to spend summer in US: ‘my serenity is restored’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. QQ says:

    “My Serenity is Restored” is going to be my new Phrase that pays when people indulge me


  2. Lilacflowers says:

    “But Wendy Murphy, who represents the children on behalf of Rutherford in New York” She either represents the children, because some judge appointed her to do so, or she represents Rutherford. She cannot represent the children on Rutherford’s behalf within any licensing rules in place.

    • Audrey says:

      Another article called her one of Kelly’s lawyers.

      They’re just playing with words to make her sound neutral and credible

    • Samtha says:

      The counsel on record for the children at the time of the custody decision was Amir Pichvai. It may have changed since then, but this is just another case of playing semantics, IMO.

  3. NewWester says:

    I just get the feeling that a reality show starring Kelly Rutherford is in the works

  4. Ides says:

    The irony is, she gets the kids in the summer per their custody agreement. She is acting like this was a victory, when itS just following through on their agreement..

    • Merritt says:

      But per their agreement she is also supposed to be able to see them in Monaco when she travels there. Apparently Giersch has prevented her from seeing them since March.

      • Zapp Brannigan says:

        I thought she refused to hand over the kids passports to a neutral third party as per the custody agreement and that was why she could not see them?

        I will be very surprised if those kids are returned to their Dad in a quite, peaceful fashion at the end of the visit.

      • Merritt says:

        Based on what I’ve read it was actually his attorney that he wanted her to give the passports to. If the parents have been unable to agree on a third party for those matters then the court needs to choose someone after they have been vetted.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Merritt

        The court order for her to hand over the kids’ US passports was created back in 2013 (or maybe even prior). She still has not done this. Just one more example of her not following court order. She’s had all this time to find a neutral 3rd party so that her visitations would not be hindered. But she apparently hasn’t if that’s the reason why her most recent visitation was not allowed.

        If all it took was to hand over the passports so that I could visit my kids, then I would do it. What’s the big deal? The kids aren’t going anywhere while she visits them in Monaco. Why would she make this such a big public stink about this especially when it’s a court order she’s supposed to follow?

      • Merritt says:


        That same court order also stated that Giersch was supposed to reapply for a visa. That hasn’t happened yet either. Both parties should be required to follow the court order, but the reality is the court doesn’t seem to care that much.

        And a neutral party would have to be found by them both, not just her.

    • Yabby says:

      Judging by how hard she campaigned to bring them to the U.S., something tells me she doesn’t plan on sending them back to their father…legal or not.

      • Alice says:

        Especially as it seems that she and her lawyer have been doing the speaking circuit of the “Protective Parents” movement. The more extreme of these people advocate “civil disobedience”, aka kidnapping your own children by way of ignoring custody agreements that you don’t like.

    • Lucy2 says:

      Yeah, seems like everyone is right back to what they originally agreed on. All that trouble and legal fees for what?

      • anne_000 says:

        Yes, I think it was ridiculous too. And her and her lawyer making it sound like the summer visitation to the US was some kind of new victory or yardage is disingenuous. Even they have yet to say that Daniel refused to send them over for the summer visitation.

        The whole thing was supposedly about her visiting them in Monaco while she held onto the kids’ US passports. And this concern was based on her TMZ comments about wanting ‘somebody’ to get her kids back to the US, be an American hero, and if any ‘mistakes’ were made, then she would not seek retribution or whatever.

    • MoochieMom says:

      I see more drama in around 90 days. My husband travels for work and he is away a lot. Our go to is keep it real. We tell our 4 year old Daddy is working and Face Tine (if possible) and she gets it. These kids are absorbing everything around this mess and going to hate their mother though no fault of anything but that she put it all out there.

  5. littlemissnaughty says:

    Great, her serenity seemed to be all that mattered to her all along. This Murphy woman makes no sense and it seems to unprofessional of her to blab to the press in this much detail. So this man who – presumably – would like to live/work in the U.S. again at some point tried to fake papers so that he could never return without a new visa? Yes, that sounds correct.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Well, it is also unprofessional of her to represent the children on Rutherford’s behalf.

  6. Samtha says:

    This seems misleading–the kids were ALWAYS going to spend the summer with Kelly once their school let out. That is their custody arrangement and was never in question, from everything else I’ve read.

  7. LAK says:

    …..but will she send them back?

    I can’t imagine *his* serenity is anywhere near equilibrium every time he sends the kids to her. Especially after her shenanigans in the past 12mths alone, nevermind the other years.

    • Samtha says:

      I have serious doubts that she’ll honor the custody arrangement and send those kids back to their father. :(

      • HK9 says:

        I foresee some epic shenanigans when it’s time for these kids to return to their father….

  8. Yoohoo says:

    This woman is such a nutter.

  9. Lucrezia says:

    “Unless the kids are dual citizens – and these kids are not.”

    What? How can they NOT be dual citizens? German citizenship by descent, American citizenship by place of birth.

    • Celebitchy says:

      That stood out for me too, but I guess she means they’re not technically citizens of Monaco, even though they’re citizens of the EU as they hold German passports.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Monaco doesn’t belong to the EU though and listening to this women, I’m not sure she knows about the fact that EU citizens can live in Monaco as they can in the rest of the EU. And shouldn’t a lawyer be more specific? Maybe they don’t actually have a German passport but could technically get one without any problem? She seems confused and now I’m confused.

      • Lucrezia says:

        Hmm. Re-reading, I think you’re right. She’s just trying to repeat her earlier point – that Monaco has no jurisdiction because the kids aren’t Monacoians/Monegasque.

        It’s either poorly phrased or sneakily phrased. Add in Lilacflower’s point about “representing the children on Rutherford’s behalf” being a dubious claim, and I’m leaning towards “sneaky”.

      • Alice says:

        They reside in Monaco and have for the past three years. No one is exempt from the laws or legal system of a country that you live in or simply visit because you don’t hold the nationality.

  10. Lama Bean says:

    Great. Hopefully this woman will shut the f up about her self-created drama.

  11. Mary-Alice says:

    So the kids are not dual citizens? If that is so, it does change the situation. I’d like to have this confirmed. Neither of these parents is an angel, excuse me. And btw I love to dress in white in the summer, don’ t see why she or I or anyone else owes an explanation about the way she dresses.

    • morc says:

      I think this is again a way to tangle all kinds of statements into “USA USA!”.

      If they weren’t dual citizens how would they travel when the us passports were supposed to be turned over to a neutral agent?

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Travel but where? If the neutral party is in Monaco then the passports are used to fly the kids to the USA and upon their return the third party has the passports again till next time. They don’t need dual citizenship for that. And where else do they travel? We don’t know, that’s why I wwould like to see this confirmed.

      • Alice says:

        Your point is moot since Rutherford has refused to hand the passports over to anyone.

        And…from the Daily Beast “interview”, she claimed she was being “pressured” to get Hermes a German passport. Which means he was already a German citizen since you can’t get a passport for a country that you aren’t a citizen of, unless you are a stateless refugee.

    • Samtha says:

      They’re dual citizens according to the court/custody documents. This lawyer is playing a game with semantics, since the children are dual US and German citizens, not technically Monaco.

  12. Lilacflowers says:

    And where will Kelly Rutherford be on July 4?

  13. Tarsha says:

    Good for her. The ex sounds like a sadistic psychopath. Happy the kids will be with their MOTHER.

    • morc says:

      LMAO how do you arrive at that conclusion? He didn’t advocate to have the kids kidnapped.
      Seem their MOTHER is deranged and they are better of with their FATHER who tries to foster a relationship to their mother and unlike her doesn’t poison them.

      • Merritt says:

        But he did prevent the kids from seeing her . That is not in accord with the original custody ruling. The original ruling was that she should be able to see the kids when she goes to Monaco.

      • Samtha says:

        Merritt–he didn’t prevent Kelly from seeing the kids. Kelly prevented Kelly from seeing the kids. After she made statements that implied she would support her children being taken by force from their father, he asked for her to turn over their US passports to a neutral third party. (That was part of their custody agreement, from what I understand, though he’d never enforced that before.)

        Kelly refused to turn over the passports. Now, ask yourself this: if she was only there for a visit (per the custody arrangement), why did she need their passports? If she really wanted to see her kids, why not just turn them over, visit her kids, and then wait for their summer visit?

        The answer: she would rather use the passport issue as a ploy to alienate the children from their father. Again.

      • CK says:

        At this point, just count Merritt as one of the Kelly “muriki” nutters. Multiple commenters have pointed out the fallacy of her/his argument and yet, merritt keeps repeating it. She/He has to earn her retainer some way.

      • Merritt says:

        @CK It not about that at all and I don’t appreciate you lying about me and twisting the truth.

        First, last and always it is about the kids. The kids should have access to both parents. The court has never ruled that it was ok for him to prevent the children from seeing her. His attorney is not a neutral party. And it seems like some of these issues could be worked out if the courts would actually decide who has jurisdiction and then that court mandates a neutral party because neither Giersch or Rutherford are mature enough to do so. The courts have been completely wishy washy in this case. Decide what court has jurisdiction and then hold both parents to the ruling. It is not that complicated and a lot of these problems are the fault of both the court in CA and in Monaco.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Merritt

        She’s had all these years to get a neutral third party to hand the passports over to when she’s in Monaco to visit the kids, so as to have nothing to hinder her visits. So is she not ever responsible for her own actions and responsibilities? If she’s that incapable of finding a neutral third party, then that’s her problem and it may be a sign of her lack of enthusiasm to visit her kids.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Samtha -

        Thanks for the explanation. :-)

      • Merritt says:


        It is up to them both to agree on a neutral party, after their failure to do so, the court should have done it for them. Not choosing a neutral party on on both of them not just her. Enough is enough. Like I said, the court is wishy washy with this case. They need to enforce their own rulings.

      • dottie says:

        The court has not been wishy washy. As the American Bar Association said in an article in 2014, referencing this matter, the fact that you dont like a ruling by the court does not mean the court has been unfair/unjust/biased.

        In other words, be an adult, dont throw tantrums; dont go taking your case to the public, expecting that getting thousands of sympathizers mean that the court will change its judgement in light of that. Thats apparently what self-centred kelly has been hoping for since their custody hearings began FIVE YEARS! ago.

      • Alice says:

        Merritt: Either way… if that had been me, I would have handed over the passports, had something legal signed by the person who took possession and visited with my children rather than refusing to do so and not seeing them. Had the passports not been given back, it’s a simple thing to take that legal document to the Embassy in Paris and have them declared stolen by the person who is holding them. After all, passports ultimately belong to the issuing government, not the person they are issued to.

        Priorities… Ego or seeing your children? Clearly, she chose the former.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Merritt

        Someone commented in a past article that the courts said back in 2013 that the minor’s counsel would select a third party if Kelly can’t agree with Daniel. For Kelly not to hand over the passports yet probably means that she couldn’t agree with the minor’s counsel either. I think that it’s on purpose that she’s refused to hand over the passports all these years. Not because nobody is good enough to hold onto the passports for her kids, but because she might have an agenda and use them to cause conflict, which she did in this past visitation.

      • Merritt says:


        The court has been unwilling to enforce it’s own ruling about a third party and requiring Giersch to reapply for visa. What else would you prefer I call the court? Incompetent? It is up to the court to enforce their own rulings and they have not done so.

      • dottie says:

        @merritt………….try not to appear to be as willfully ignorant as kelly. Despite it being said here time and time again that its the STATE DEPT. that determines how long aftr being denied a visa that someone can reapply, and if the denial was as a result of terrorist/criminal allegations (as was the case here) then the waiting period can be as much as 10 FREAKIN YEARS, you and your ilk insist on hanging on to this one discredited reason for trying to paint the father with the same brush as the nutty mother. Can you see the desperation?

    • claire says:

      Oh, honey. You’re gonna get the wrath. LOL.
      Sounds like you need to do some research.

  14. Snowflake says:

    I would be so nervous if this nutcase had my kids. If I was the ex I mean. I could see this drama queen not returning them

  15. Elfie says:

    What do you bet she’ll refuse to hand them back and do a public campaign to keep them in the US for good? I feel so sorry for her ex and those poor kids. She’s a nut job and I hope they survive her.

    • Alice says:

      Can you imagine the anguish of the kids that would result? Every time they visit their mother, they’d be dealing with the stress and uncertainty of whether or not they’ll be sent back. To their Dad, their school, their friends, their lives…

      • Elfie says:

        I know and fear for the father over the fight he may have in getting them back and the possibilities of what this crazy woman is capable of if she decides to run away with them or worse if she doesn’t get her own way. This is a woman who has waged a public hate campaign against her ex and invited strangers to be ‘heroes’ by kidnapping her kids for her. I don’t understand why she’s allowed unsupervised access to those children.

      • Alice says:

        I suspect that his having the Monaco courts take jurisdiction is a direct result of her attempts of last summer to keep the kids via the US court system.

      • Montréalaise says:

        I can only imagine what she is telling those kids about their father and the custody fight while they are with her. Poor, poor kids.

  16. RobN says:

    Didn’t she threaten not to return them last summer, which was kind of the start of the ex clamping down on the custody issue? I feel like that’s true, although following this story does require more energy than I’m usually willing to give it, so I might be wrong.

  17. Bonnie says:

    I would stake my life on an end-of-summer/Waco, TX-like showdown when it comes time to hand back those kids. She is going to barricade herself inside her house and her ex-husband is going to have to send mercenaries to kidnap his his own kids and bring them back to Monaco. Anyone remember Elian Gonzalez? GIMME THE DAMN BOY!!

    • Alice says:

      I’m actually hoping the father sends the bodyguards he hired to prevent some “American hero” from kidnapping the kids along with them this summer. If I were him, I’d be making darned sure to have some third party protection on hand.

  18. aenflex says:

    I find it disgusting that everybody’s talking about the custody of these children as if they were mere inanimate pieces. I’m all for some gossip, but these are two children and I don’t think that any of the commenters here have any idea about the inner workings of the situation.

    • Scarlettmoon says:

      I agree aenflex…these are real people with real emotions and rather than being black or white there are many grey and murky areas going on here. Of course these days, if you have a different opinion from the General cele itchy populace, you get “mean girled” from the get go…whatever happened to free discourse? Jeez people…

    • Merritt says:

      That is what bugs me about this case. The kids are getting closer to the age when it will ideally be up to them to decide who they live with. And the actions of both parents don’t seem helpful.

      • jwoolman says:

        The dad hasn’t done anything unhelpful. He doesn’t try to alienate the children from them mom (as Rutherford tries to do against him) but encourages a relationship. But the crazy stuff she did last summer and more recently would certainly make me worried that she’s planning to abscond with the children, taking them to a country that will be easier for her to manipulate. She’s surrounding herself with people who think that’s ok and a noble patriotic cause. He was quite right to enforce the original court agreement that she hand over the children’s passports while visiting. Why does she even need their passports while visiting them in Monaco, anyway? Unless she intends to whisk them away against court order. She really is scary. She should have a more recent evaluation by family court. She may have deteriorated since the last evaluation of both parents.

      • Merritt says:

        People make that claim right and left, but she did return them to Monaco. And in all her attempts to get them back, she has done it through the courts, so she has clearly been seeking a legal solution. I don’t see seeking a legal solution as crazy.
        I do think the father has been unhelpful in some ways. He was originally ordered by the court back in 2012 to reapply for a visa, as of 2015 he still has not done so and that was confirmed by the US state department. If he wants he to surrender the passports then he should have chosen an actual neutral party, not his attorney. In a lot of ways what is is doing is less known because he doesn’t talk to the media. I think she needs to stop talking about it in the media. It is not helpful.
        And as I stated elsewhere, I place a lot of the blame on the courts for not enforcing parts of their own ruling regarding his visa and neutral parties.

      • Alice says:

        The court documents also state that she is required to facilitate having his visa restored by sending in an affidavit concerning the lack of basis of the allegations she and her lawyer used to have it revoked in the first place. Which she hasn’t done.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Merritt

        When people say it’s Daniel’s fault for not going for his visa, then people have responded with the fact (per the 2013 court hearing) that Kelly was supposed to send an affidavit to the proper authorities to help Daniel get back his visa after all the accusations made by Kelly’s side, and that in certain visa issues, re-applying is not permitted for a number of years based on why it was revoked in the first place.

        Considering the weight of the accusations made against Daniel by Kelly’s side, it would be helpful for his case if the accusers would follow court order and recant their allegations, don’t you think? Otherwise, the allegations are still there regardless of how many times the visa is reapplied for. Doesn’t help when the accusers keep sticking to their heavy-weight accusations.

      • Merritt says:


        And if Kelly’s side has failed to live up to their part of the ruling, then they need to be taken to task for it. So far no movement has happened on his visa. If you go back and read the original ruling it states that Giersch had until January 2014 to reapply. But it is now June 2015 and the court has never followed up on that ruling with either side.
        The kids are getting older, eventually the court is going to let them decide who to live with. Both parents need to be on their best behavior. The assumption by most people here seems to be on the side of Giersch, but I see something very shady about him. And you can think Giersch is shady and also think Kelly is a jerk. It is not one way or the other. I’ve always maintained both were selfish. But Kelly is the only one called out for it.

    • LAK says:

      Actually we do. Please go back several threads on Kelly to read the court documents of the case.

      An entire laundry list of Kelly’s parental alienation either via her admitted personal actions or simply refusing to comply with court orders. And the effect it is having on the kids.

      For me the worst was when she admitted to leaving her phone number in the shoes of her then 4yr old son and telling him to scream as loudly as possible when his father took him to an airport.

      We may not know these people personally, but the court documents are helping all of us understand the situation better. And Kelly comes across very, very badly.

      So in a way you are right. Those poor children. Having to deal with a toxic mother like that.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ LAK


      • holly hobby says:

        Don’t forget her resistance and objection to the husband potty training the son! He was of the age to be potty trained yet Kelly went to court to complain about it.

    • Samtha says:

      No one’s acting as if these kids are inanimate objects. Quite a few of us who tend to visit and comment on the Kelly/custody threads are interested because we’ve dealt with custody issues of our own.

    • jenn12 says:

      I agree. I feel the same way when I see people going back and forth, speaking for Brandi Glanville’s sons. I know people demonize Kelly, and I don’t know enough to say she’s in the right. But it takes a lot of desperation to divorce when you’re pregnant. If she just wanted kids, she could’ve used a sperm donor and led a much easier life. People demonized Denise Richards and now they put her on a pedestal. Is it possible she married the wrong guy, found out some scary stuff, and freaked? Or is she definitely, without a doubt, a Halle Berry? In Halle’s case, she left a trail of accusations and abandoned the daughter she adopted. This seems to be the only time Kelly has battled so publicly.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Absolutely. I find it quite disturbing that some total strangers are explaining how the kids will despise their mother, too. The whole biased shouting is a very unpleasant sound and has zero consideration of the fact that the majority of children actually love both their parents and it’s a shame what comes out of some people’s mouths. People who are literally no one to these kids.

  19. Amy M. says:

    The kids aren’t necessarily dual citizens. Do we know for sure they have German passports? They are entitled to have one but their dad must submit an application on their behalf. You aren’t automatically bestowed an EU passport at birth if you are American and have a parent from a European country. I was entitled to French citizenship from the day I was born thanks to my French father. However my parents were a bit lazy and never got around to submitting the paperwork. When I turned 20, I finally took care of it myself and applied for French citizenship at the French consulate in NYC. Now I am officially a dual US-French citizen. Not sure if the father has does that for his kids.

    • Cankles says:

      I’m curious about this, too. Particularly since it’s my understanding that, with few exceptions, Germany does not allow dual citizenship (unless you hold another EU passport, I believe?). It’s certainly possible that the rules for citizenship by descent as opposed to by naturalisation are different-I’m no expert and admittedly, I have not read the actual court papers on this case, and they may clearly state that the children are also German citizens.

    • jwoolman says:

      Well, it’s a good guess that they have a German or other type of non-US passport. Rutherford hangs on to their U.S. Passports, apparently. But she sends them back to Monaco at the end of the summer. Does she accompany them? It didn’t seem so last summer, but I could be wrong.

    • Samtha says:

      I’m pretty sure the court documents state that the kids are dual citizens. I’ll double-check.

      • Samtha says:

        I skimmed through the 50+ page document and didn’t see it, though I didn’t give it more than a cursory glance. It could also be in the 30 page pdf.

    • bluhare says:

      I also recall reading that the kids have EU passports because their father is a German citizen.

    • Alice says:

      For the record, they can be German citizens without having bothered to get a German passport. Two different things.

      And yes, Germany has citizenship by descent and no, there is no problem with holding a second citizenship. Regardless of where the second one is from.

      • Amy M. says:

        But in order to prove citizenship, they must have passports. And since they were born outside of Germany, even more important for them to have passports. You can’t just walk into Germany with no passport and claim your’re a dual citizen. I had to deal with this at the French consulate. It was easy, but I had my dad with me to prove my citizenship and my birth to a French parent to supply the documents needed to apply for my French passport. It’s a formality, but a necessary one.

        However if Kelly was holding on to their US passports, this suggests they might have German ones too.

      • Alice says:

        No Amy, in order to get a German passport, they need to first be a German citizen. Chances are that the father registered his son with the German Embassy shortly after his birth and his daughter shortly after the courts forced Rutherford to put his name on her birth certificate.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Finally! When I explained that my Canadian child doesn’t have my home country’s citizenship just because I have it, and asked if the USA would grant the second citizenship automatically, I didn’tget any sensible response but the far too loud yelling “they are not only Americans, they are Germans!”. Ugh. Obviously, like in Canada and in many other countries, to get the second one, the parent needs to apply!

      You can not be a citizen de jure if you have no passport, please!

      • jwoolman says:

        The U.S. government doesn’t like the idea of dual citizenship and makes it difficult even for people with US/Canadian dual citizenship. So it certainly would not be automatic. But for a child born in the US of a US citizen, it usually just means a trip to the relevant foreign consulate or embassy to register the birth and get the required papers. I don’t think a passport is absolutely necessary unless someone is traveling. I can’t imagine that their dad hasn’t made sure they have whatever passport is required, though, since their mom keeps their US passports in her possession. They can move freely in the European Union because of German citizenship (Monaco is considered as part of France with a special relationship, something like Puerto Rico’s special relationship with the U.S. as the closest equivalent for people here to understand).

      • Alice says:

        Mary-Alice, the fact that your child doesn’t have citizenship of your home country (assuming that your home country allows dual citizenship) comes solely down to the fact that you clearly haven’t made the effort to request it. Once your child is a major, maybe they’ll do it for themselves since you can’t be bothered.

        A sensible response to your question about the US granting a second citizenship…the US or any other country can only grant their OWN citizenship. They can’t “grant” German citizenship, only Germany can do that.

        And you can well and truly be a citizen without a passport. 3/4 of the population of the US has probably never had one, only because they have never needed one. It’s a travel document, no more, no less. In fact the word “passport” literally translates as “get through the door/gate”.

      • Sixer says:

        You certainly can be a citizen of a country without a passport, Mary-Alice. My cousin’s younger two children were born in the US (one still lives there, the other is now living here as she chose to go to university here rather than the US). They were dual US/UK – and by extension, also EU – citizens from birth. Their parents got them a UK passport much later on – visits home for the first few years were under their US passports.

      • Amy M. says:

        I think I understand dual citizenship pretty well since I am one. As I said before, you are entitled to citizenship if your parent is from an EU country but it isn’t automatically granted. You have to fill out the paperwork to make it official. Without my French passport I had no legal standing as a French citizen. Not to mention I lacked the carte nationale d’identite, the national ID card that every French citizen is required to have for ID purposes and that you need foe anything bureaucratic related. Nor would you be allowed to go through EU customs in airports if you only had an American passport. You can’t vote either. The reason I got one in the first place was because I didn’t want to apply for visas to study abroad in Europe. So I went ahead and made it official.

  20. Jezza says:

    How is this different than the last few summers? They’ve always went to the states to be with her in the Hamptons. Pfffttt. Whatever, Kelly. Spin it however you want. This is per the custody arrangement. Enjoy your time with the kids and STFU!
    Anyone who read the court documents can see how the summer will end. The kids will not go back to Monaco quietly.

    • Blue says:

      I agree Kelly is making this into some sort of huge victory in the media when the fact is he has always allowed her to see the kids and they have always spent part of the summer with her in the usa. She’s a nutcase.

  21. jwoolman says:

    How does she get away with such blatant lies?

    I think she is setting up for a publicity campaign to refuse to hand over the kids again when their summer vacation is over and they’re due to return to dad and school. She’s counting on American ignorance of dual citizenship and the European school vacation schedule. Bet her supporters actually believe the kids were supposed to arrive in June instead of July as usual.

    Meanwhile, she’s stressing out the kids if they get wind of any of this. During her last attempt to keep the kids against court order and all common sense, she even admitted saying things to at least her son that obviously worried him. She’s going to spend July and August trying to scare those kids.

    • bluhare says:

      The court documents clearly spell out that her little boy was very anxious about his mother and not being able to see his father.

  22. Katie says:

    This crazy pot has boiled over.

  23. Bread and Circuses says:

    “My serenity is restored.”

    Notice how she never, ever, ever says, “This is good for my children.” She’s a flaming narcissist; it’s only ever about her.

    • Jezza says:

      Exactly! It is all about her! Her serenity. No apparent though of the kids serenity on her part, is there?? if she was concerned about their serenity, she would not have brough the kids US passport to Monaco in the first place, let alone refuse to give them to a third party so they could spend time with her.

  24. TotallyBiased says:

    BearcatLawyer, where art thou!!
    We REALLY need your professional expertise and even-handed analyses to properly rip this announcement to shreds ;)
    But seriously, granted that nothing is EVER black and white, I don’t understand how anyone who claims to be Team Kids in this case can be even slightly supportive of Kelly. There are court documents to prove her deceit and bad behavior, whereas all the negativity re the ex husband rests on innuendo, her (doubtful) proclamations, and third-party/hearsay.
    She all but encourages someone, anyone to kidnap her children in national media, while her lawyers put out press releases so full of inaccuracies and/or unlikelihoods that one has to wonder how far they can go before risking disbarment.

    So: the kids were BORN with dual-citizenship.
    NO LAWYER can accurately claim to represent the children AND represent Kelly.
    She has been prevented from seeing the children (she claims) TWICE. This out of some SEVENTY times.
    At least this last time, she was prevented from seeing the children ONLY because she wouldn’t surrender the passports. As has been pointed out, even though there might have been an issue re a neutral third party, there are steps she could have taken–INCLUDING handing over the passports to the CHILDREN’s court-appointed advocate while still in the US. She was visiting the children in Monaco–there was NO reason for her to need their passports with her.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      So: the kids were BORN with dual-citizenship.

      So: this is a complete nonsense. You can be born with the right to a dual citizenship but you are not born with the passport. In most hospitals, that is. You have to prove and apply for your citizenship when you are not born in the country in question because the citizenship is primarily that – to be a citizen of a particular country. When you are away, you need to go and ask to be “accepted” because so and so… If you want! Because it’s only a right since you are not residing in thie country in question, not an obligation.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Mary-Alice: I don’t think that word means what you think it means. No-one has to wave a magic wand (or process an application) to make these kids citizens. They were born that way. Citizenship isn’t something that gets held back until the physical object of a passport is issued. Heck, some people (gasp!!) NEVER GET passports!

      • TotallyBiased says:
        Now, PROVING one has that citizenship (say, in a court of law) does require a document–but not, according to German law and regulations, a passport. Only a citizenship certificate is indisputable proof.

  25. Ursula says:

    These children automatically have German citizenship. I am German, my husband is American and our 3 children are all holding both countries passports. My oldest was born in Germany the other 2 in the US and all we did was that we registered their birth with the German consulate in Detroit ( they have since relocated to Chicago). Not only do my children hold German citizenship, so do my 3 grandchildren who acquired it through their German parent ( my children). So that talk that Hermes and Helena are only US citizens is blatantly false. No judge in the US can overrule the citizenship laws of another country.

  26. ROBYNSING says:

    Merritt says:
    June 23, 2015 at 11:39 pm

    And if Kelly’s side has failed to live up to their part of the ruling, then they need to be taken to task for it. So far no movement has happened on his visa. If you go back and read the original ruling it states that Giersch had until January 2014 to reapply.


    Your selective, repetitive rhetoric goes in circles and leaves out facts in record. The ruling judge also said in her trial decision on the custody and visitation, that she realized, because the immigration law experts convinced her, that Daniel is held by a 10 year sanction in obtaining a visa due to the Victory Act– judge: “it is not clear whether Daniel will “soon, if ever” be allowed a visa to the U.S.”

  27. ROBYNSING says:

    ust because I cannot stand the ridiculous argument another second:::::::

    They have dual citizenship in France and Germany and many other countries in the world. In the U.S. NO ONE—-R E P E A T—NO ONE has dual citizenship. The US refuses to acknowledge it…that does not render the D U AL -C I T I Z E N S H I P invalid in the rest of the world AT ALL. Tons of US citizens have “dual citizenship”. They can be citizens of France and hold a US passport. Travel as citizens of the USA with their US passport and then the next day travel to Turkey with their French passport. The US does not recognize it but cannot dictate what the rest of the world recognizes as citizenship.

  28. ROBYNSING says:

    Murphy=koo koo. koo koo. Yeesh. What attorney’s asylum did she crawl out of?

  29. Sparkly says:

    I just started rewatching The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. with my husband (who’s never seen them!). I totally did not realize that this is the same chick from the show. She grew up crazy and harsh, didn’t she? She’s totally ruined my unbridled childhood love for the show. It’s like Tom Cruise-level crazy — once you know about it, you just can’t unsee it.