Kelly Rutherford speaks on Capitol Hill about international child abduction

Kelly Rutherford’s custody battle is ongoing and complicated. She’s tried and failed at the federal level to have her two children, Helena, 6, and Hermes, 8, returned to her in the US. A California judge ruled in 2012 that they could live with their German father, Daniel Giersch, overseas. In the latest ruling, the children will come to the US next week for a scheduled visit with her this summer, after some back and forth between custody courts in the US and Monaco.

Along with trying to make this a federal issue, Kelly has petitioned the White House to have her children returned to her. She’s repeatedly said that this is a Constitutional issue and that her children’s rights as citizens have been violated. (Again, a federal court did not agree.) Yesterday, Kelly spoke at a congressional briefing about international child abduction. She has a non-profit called a The Children’s Justice Campaign through which she continues to mischaracterize her ex legally winning custody. Here’s some of what she said:

Rutherford, 46, spoke at a congressional briefing with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas on Thursday, participating on behalf of the Children’s Justice Campaign, an advocacy group she founded based on her own struggle to bring son Hermes, 8, and daughter Helena, 6, home to the United States from Monaco, where they have lived with their father, German businessman Daniel Giersch, since 2012.

“Today’s hearing was a wonderful bipartisan showing of support for American families in the midst of international parental child abduction nightmares,” she tells PEOPLE in a statement. “I look forward to continuing to lend my voice to parents who are struggling with these profoundly unjust situations.

“I was particularly excited to hear several members of Congress say that they are proposing new federal legislation that will hold judges accountable and stop them from forcing American children to leave their own country.”

Jackson, 65, chairs the bipartisan House Congressional Children’s Caucus. Rep. Christopher Smith and Rep. Ted Lieu also attended and spoke at the briefing.

International parental child abduction “occurs when one parent unlawfully moves a child from his or her country of residence for the purpose of denying the other parent access to the child,” according to a CRC news release. About 1,000 cases have been reported to the State Department this year.

Rutherford jokingly suggested that by sharing her harrowing tale, she might prevent the pattern from repeating. “I see a lot of young women here today who will probably never marry a foreigner after hearing these stories,” she laughed. “They’re cute. The accents are amazing — but they’re expensive accents.”

On a more serious note: “I fell in love with someone, and I wanted kids. Had I known that this was even possible in my own country, as a mother … it just never occurred to me that this could happen. But it is happening and it is happening every day … to people who have nowhere to go.”

[From People and The Washington Post]

Look, this was not “international child abduction” nor is it an issue that requires any kind of legislative intervention. The Hague Convention on international child abduction does not apply to this case because it was ordered by a judge. In my mind there is no question that judges should have the authority to send children to live in other countries with foreign parents if that’s the best option for the children.

I live in the US, my son’s father lives in Germany and we share custody of our 10 year-old son. My son lives with me, but he spends the summers with his dad and his dad visits him frequently. Obviously I don’t know Kelly’s ex, but the reason I side with him is because I’ve read and paid attention to everything both he and Kelly have said, and I read the judge’s decision. Everything Kelly has done seems geared to cut Daniel out of his children’s lives, and she’s still talking like this even though he has the children full time. She had the guy deported. She acts as if the US is the only place the children should be raised when in fact they seem to be well cared for by their dad and grandparents and they go to an excellent international school.

She’s treating this like child abduction when it’s not, it was a judge’s decision. Yes, I should not assume that her ex is as reasonable as mine, but I’m reasonable too. You have to be when you’re co-parenting. This woman just does not seem to get it at all, and it sounds like she wants to “win” this custody battle instead of trying to consider what’s best for her children. Maybe her ex is the same though, but if so he’s played it incredibly close to his chest.

Oh and as for the things Kelly said about marrying foreign guys, she sounds like an a–hole.

Kelly Instagrammed so many photos of her visit yesterday, including this one which is composed of multiple face shots.

Capitol Hill #childrensrights

A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on

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

104 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford speaks on Capitol Hill about international child abduction”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Luca76 says:

    She is just a narcisstic jerk. I think she’s the one trying to abduct the kids.

    • BangersandMash says:

      She’s definitely coming off like a narcissistic jerk.

      What’s sad/funny at the same time is that she’s trying so hard to get er kids, but her words and actions are actually doing the opposite of what she’s trying to do, e.g shadily having ex husband deported.

      I feel really bad for her children.

      • miraclemama says:

        I completely agree. she is nailing the last few nails in her coffin. she is a chronological liar and manipulator and I don’t understand why she is allowed to speak on Capitol Hill when she is completely misrepresenting the issues?!

    • anne_000 says:

      Yes, that Instagram post made me think ‘narcissist.’ It would take some time to gather up all those photos from different events and put them all into one post. All based on her face when the topic was about something other than herself.

    • Jan Harf says:

      Nice soft lens, photo montage of yourself on Capital Hill, Kelly. Way to minimize the importance of what you are trying to accomplish. She looks ridiculous.

    • DrM says:

      Totally agree. She’d abduct those two children if she could. She’s just pissed off she’s been blocked from doing so.

  2. QQ says:

    Jesus Christ in Jammies This Lady is Unbelievable!

    • Belle Epoch says:

      This is offensive to anyone who really did have a spouse disappear with their kid to a foreign country.

      She will stop at NOTHING to keep the focus on her.

      If she keeps the kids in California, she won’t call it an international abduction!

      • Lucy2 says:

        Exactly- she had the kids in the summer and expenses paid trips to see them regularly (after causing their father’s deportation). It is in no way comparable to actual abduction.

      • anne_000 says:

        Yes, I agree that it’s insulting to mothers who are actually going through real child abduction cases and have had no legal recourse while Kelly is pretending that her case is the same as theirs. Just not right.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        This is offensive to anyone who pays taxes

      • FLORC says:

        Ugh. Agree to this.
        Unfortunately, a scorned partner will use anything and everything against them. Thank goodness my husband didn’t hear my accent and run for the hills. Her advice is suggesting that I think. Or are her actions suggesting that nationality can be used as both a defense and weapon for power plays?

    • Sister Carrie says:

      I think appropriate Christ Jammies would have rolling eyes emoticons on it.

  3. whipmyhair says:

    Soooo up until recently, I was reading Monaco as Morocco.

    I was always confused about his out of left field choice. Then I read the article where Princess Grace was mentioned and my world crashes down around me.

    Thank you for sharing that part of your life with us Celebitchy. You prove that co-parenting can work across the pond.

    • Celebitchy says:

      Thanks for saying that wmh, I appreciate it. I really debated whether I should reveal that. I asked my ex if it was ok and he said it was, so I went ahead. This is part of the reason why this story pisses me off so much so I thought I should mention it.

      • Tough Cookie says:

        You rock, Celebitchy.

      • swack says:

        Kelly should take lessons from you! Kuddos to your ex also for allowing this to be shared. Too many times we see the bad in custody cases and it’s good to see the good side of it.

      • Sixer says:

        Well done for “coming out” as an international parent, Celebitchy! Thus proving that reasonableness is all.

      • original kay says:

        I especially appreciated your comment that, while your ex is reasonable, it works because you are as well.

        Kelly should takes notes from you.

      • The Original Mia says:

        You & your ex are doing it right! You care about your son. She doesn’t. It’s all about what she wants. Not what’s best for those kids.

      • jessiebes says:

        Thank you Celebitchy. That must have been a difficult process to decide whether or not to share this. It is very much appreciated.

      • FLORC says:

        It’s always good to hear when it does work out. Putting the child 1st and being adults about the situation.
        Another who appreciates your sharing CB!

  4. Lara K says:

    She is so loathsome. I have to wonder what will happen in another 3-4 years when the kids are old enough to really challenge their parents and see everything on the internet. 8 is still little, but 12? I can see her son totally rebelling.
    Of course she will then claim her ex brainwashed her children against her, because what else could it be?

    • qwerty says:

      Her ex or the horrible horrible place her kids have been sent to live in called Europe which is, oh, pretty much the cushiest place on earth atm.

  5. Snazzy says:

    Soon she’ll be announced as Donald Trump’s running mate

    EDIT: And the comment about marrying foreigners is racist bulls**t. She probably will run with Trump. Idiota

    • Cran says:

      It was racist and I don’t think she has much of a sense of humor. If her ex really wanted to piss her off all he would need do would be to constantly post happy family pictures of him with their kids on Facebook or Instagram where any media outlet could easily get hold of them and print them with all of Kelly’s stories. Pics of them with their Dad, grandparents, friends and on school trips.

      It would drive her nuts. But nope. Nothing. Not that he doesn’t have them he just doesn’t appear to use them in photo ops.

      • Kori says:

        Oh you mean the many shots of her being the good mother that she posts? Yeah, their dad does a good job of keeping them as private citizens. When they are with Kelly, they’re always paraded around like props.

    • Samtha says:

      Xenophobic, but not racist.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Have to agree, though I wouldn’t mind throwing the ‘ist’ book at her. Have seen white people call attention to the “accents” of other white people — from the same country or same continent, with both speaking the same language.

        She seems to be such a small town girl.

    • Ennie says:

      She married TWO! and she dumped the first one when she found out he had a serious illness… was he an expensive mistake too? I bet her exes also thought so about her.

  6. InvaderTak says:

    Abduction is OK as long as it’s in her favor then?

    • Cynthia says:

      Right? She said that anyone who brings her kids away from their father is an American hero.
      This woman is crazy, I don’t know how anyone could advocate for her “cause”.

    • Lola says:

      This! She’s completely out of her mind.

    • Blue says:

      That’s right! If the kids are living in the USA then it’s not abduction it’s only abduction if a judge orders the kids to live in another country where people don’t speak American. She’s a delusional famewhore who is loving all the media attention she is getting from this I wish someone had stood up when she was speaking and said your kids weren’t abducted your ex-husband was given permission to take them to live in Monaco and you can see them whenever you want.

  7. Hahahaha says:

    The saddest part is this woman thinks she’s some kind of hero instead of the selfish reckless terrible mother that she really is.

  8. Freebunny says:

    Well, her acting career was over, she found a new one.

  9. Norman Bates' Mother says:

    The Duggars have no clue what “slander” is and she clearly has no clue about “unlawful” and “abduction” (and Giersch could actually accuse her of multiple cases of slander and win). By speaking publicly about this issue, she diminishes the meaning of the real parental abduction cases, making it sound like a joke – “Oh, poor old me, my ex-husband whom I deported, abducted our American-German citizen children with a permission of a judge and took them to some horrible, horrible place in a third-world called Monaco. Now I have to fly there every few weeks without having to pay a cent and because I’m so broke, the children have to spent vacations with me in the Hamptons instead of Cabo”. I’d like to hear her trying to explain in detail how exactly her ex unlawfully abducted the children, when everyone knows and can read a legal document allowing him to live with them in Europe. She speaks in broad terms, screaming Constitution and America right an left but her statements are empty, with no actual merit.

    • whipmyhair says:

      Words are hard, ok?!

      Learning them is difficult enough, without trying to learn the meanings.

  10. Liberty says:

    + 1 for EVERYTHING you wrote here: “—She’s treating this like child abduction when it’s not, it was a judge’s decision. Yes, I should not assume that her ex is as reasonable as mine, but I’m reasonable too. You have to be when you’re co-parenting. This woman just does not seem to get it at all.”

  11. littlemissnaughty says:

    Not liking something doesn’t make it a crime. What a nutjob. I sincerely doubt that her ex is on the same level of crazy simply because the crazies cannot keep quiet.

    Also, Instagram really makes everyone look like a narcissist, doesn’t it?

  12. funcakes says:

    When I read “international child abduction” all I could think is What the F!@k is she talking about?! This bullish#t again. I can’t with her.

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      Yeah, she was the one broadly hinting in the media that she’d consider any stranger who grabbed the kids and returned them to her to be a hero. THAT’s international child abduction, and she’s apparently fine with it so long as she’s the abducting parent.

  13. Elfie says:

    She is a vile, deceptive, narcissistic, personality disordered, compulsive liar. How dare she try to paint her ex as a child abductor! She should lose all parental rights at this stage. She is not right in the head and has no intention of co parenting. She is a risk to those children and she needs pschyological treatment and containment, indulging her by giving her rants a serious platform only fuels her crazy.

    • Lola says:

      I wonder if a judge can order her to get a pschy eval.

    • meme says:

      You said it. I loathe this woman and why in the world is she speaking on Capital Hill? Now any wackadoodle can “brief” Congress on stuff? Her kids weren’t abducted…did anyone on the Hill mentioned that to her?

    • claire says:

      I have to agree – she is truly mentally unwell. Yet, despite realizing that, I just have no sympathy. I truly despise this woman. I will never support anything she does, or watch anything she is in – if there’s even a possibility of that. This can’t be helping her career.

    • GingerCrunch says:

      I just caught the ending of ‘Gone Girl’ this morning and all I can see when I look at her is Amy Dunne!

    • DIANE says:

      It’s infuriating that she’s given any kind of platform to spew this fiction. It’s an insult and enormous disservice to parents who are actually dealing with abductions by spouses to have her as any kind of example or ‘hero’ for the cause. Somebody should go to every one of her press events and hand out the Statement of Decision to every reporter there. Giersch really needs to try to legally stop her from taking possession of the children for the summer. I wonder whether they would be emotionally and physically safe with her. His side really needs to go on the offensive and use all this shit she’s doing against her in court and get the CA judge to order a psych evaluation. She’s sociopathic.

      • miraclemama says:

        I think they might just give her enough rope to hang herself with and make her the posterchild for all loonies!

  14. Gretchen says:

    I just can’t understand how she (or her lawyer) think this is a good strategy. She may be able to garner some public sympathy, but surely the courts and judges who have dealt with her case are going to feel increasingly antagonised with her outspoken and consistent misrepresentation of her situation…that will not help her in the long run.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      It is a terrible strategy. The better plan would have been to not get her ex’s visa revoked so they could share custody in CA or NY. As the kids grew older and started attending school, making friends, and getting involved in more activities (like sports or music) here in the US, it would have been more difficult for a family court to justify uprooting them to live overseas with their dad. If Giersch were unable to secure a green card or other long-term US work visa, she probably could have kept them in the US most of the time and the burden likely would have shifted to Giersch to travel to see the kids.

      • Gretchen says:

        Yes, exactly! I feel a lot of sympathy for people dealing with international child custody issues, but she has so clearly tried to manipulate the system to forcibly remove the father from their children’s lives. She sabotaged any possibility for a more equal custody arrangement in the US because she wanted to “win” on her terms rather than ensure the best outcome for her children.

      • Becks says:

        With the benefit of hindsight, everything you said is spot-on.

        She never, ever considered the ruling would come to this. She either thought, or her lawyers convinced her it was a slam-dunk that he would get turfed out of the U.S. and her way would be free and clear.

        She was willing to play dirty (using the threat of her false allegations to pressure Daniel to sign away his parental rights, and then when he didn’t fold, she probably felt she had to go ahead and let her lawyer phone in the allegations).

        What I don’t get is WHY on earth is she allowed to characterize this as parental abduction.?!?

      • Daisy says:

        And now the longer the kids are in Monaco, in a settled environment with grandparents, school, friends, extracurriculars, the harder it will be for a judge to uproot them to move them back to the US. Giersch’s case for retaining custody just gets stronger and stronger, and I’m happy about that. And as the kids get older, the more they will be able to say what they want to do.

        Based on what I read in the judgment, Kelly seems to see the kids as extensions of herself used for publicity. Giersch seems to want the best for the kids.

    • anne_000 says:

      I wonder if Daniel and his lawyer realize that they’d better get the transcripts and any audio and video of her speech in case they need to show it to a judge to prove that she’s being publicly antagonistic and not willing to co-parent peaceably.

      I hope the judges see that she’s labeling her kids’ dad as a kidnapping criminal and that she believes any US court judgments that are not entirely in her favor are illegal and should not be respected.

      She keeps sabotaging herself imo.

      • FLORC says:

        Good points.
        Reason and Logic are not cards in her deck. You can explain this all day to her, but she is the victim and stating otherwise only supports the forces against her. At what point did she stop seeing her children an the man who is their father as people and more as pieces on a board? Because that’s how she’s acting imo.

  15. Tough Cookie says:

    SOOOO thirsty. The acting roles have dried up and she has seized on this “international child abduction.”

  16. Lola says:

    I feel for women that have fallen in love with men, have children and have gone to live in the men’s country. Later on decide that they are not in love anymore with the man, or they don’t want to live in -place name of country here – and then have to battle to get their children out of said country because they never had any rights in said country to begin with, for example. I can’t feel sympathy for her. I wonder if she is actually doing any good, I mean, women that have read this play out in the media, with no recourses to go to the media, would they quote her at all if they are going through a similar situation? And true, you can raise children in different countries, not ALL children of the world live in the US.
    I have to stop reading these articles, they affect me I must admit.

    • Molls says:

      This would be me.
      I moved to the UK while pregnant so that my daughter could know her father.

      Eleven years later, we divorced and my ex has decided he wants full custody, resident parent. He has changed the schools of both (we had another daughter) girlies and he didn’t even mention it to me.

      He lives with his parents now and lets me have our daughters 4x a month.
      His parents are involved in all decisions and if I do hear of them, it is through my daughters or a mutual acquaintance.


      We are going to court next month, but it doesn’t look good for me.

      There is no legal aid here in the UK to help me, so I will have to represent myself.

      I have no family here.

      It’s a very lonely life.

      I will stay to have whatever crumbs I am offered, but yes, heartbreaking.

    • jwoolman says:

      The United States is a huge country, so there are parents in similar situations here who live several thousand miles apart. They can still manage to co-parent, and often decide to simply have the kids stay with one parent for school and with the other for school vacations. A friend managed to get a perk from his job letting him travel to visit his kids during the school year as well.

      This woman is too much. She has no business talking about international abductions since she hasn’t a clue what the words mean. She really should not be allowed around those kids unsupervised and should have a thorough psych evaluation through family court. This is not normal behavior. Who knows what garbage she is going to poison those kids with this summer.

    • Montrealise says:

      There was a case of a young woman from Montreal who married a foreign student from Saudi Arabia and went to live with him in his country, where they had three children. He turned out to be controlling and violent; however, she could not leave him, much less leave the country, because under Saudi law, husbands have total control over their wives. At her family’s urging, the Canadian government intervened and he agreed to let her return to Canada – but without the kids. Saudi law gives fathers sole custody of their children and mothers have no rights whatsoever, so there is nothing Canada can do and of course, the Saudi government is refusing to intervene. She has decided to stay with her abusive husband rather than be separated from her kids.
      For Kelly to compare her situation to something like this is beyond disgusting.

  17. Sister Carrie says:

    Why is she even allowed a platform? And the “serious” face pics are beyond silly. I’m surprised she didn’t throw on some glasses to appear extra-intellectual and informed. Which is the polar opposite of what Kelly is.

  18. Dibba says:


  19. Mila says:

    “I see a lot of young women here today who will probably never marry a foreigner after hearing these stories,” she laughed. “They’re cute. The accents are amazing — but they’re expensive accents.”

    woah. holy crap.

    its not like i was a fan of hers because i also had the opinion that she used the children to hurt her ex but now she proudly came out as a racist. it annoyed me when she played the “my children are us citizens” card to appeal to certain segments but now its very clear that the rest of the world is garbage for her.

    • Cran says:

      “They’re cute. The accents are amazing – but they’re really expensive accents.”

      The really sad thing is that whole statement can be used in reference to her children. Lol.

    • WinterLady says:

      I’m not sure her comments can be classified as racist, but it definitely is xenophobic. I can imagine in more trying moments her ex and his family have plenty to say about her. She is becoming the poster child for the “ugly American”. Woman, you brought this on yourself.

  20. cheryl says:

    Wow. I read her comments and compared it to the known facts of her situation. She is full on delusional. Having her husband deported on her word, and starting a non profit focused on “abduction” (her term) probably does not help her stay grounded in reality. She seems trapped in a conundrum of applying her own words to get results, but it not working out ultimately.

  21. lisa says:

    oh does she know anyone whose kids were abducted?

    because even though she tries hard, hers werent

  22. chaine says:

    WHO keeps giving this woman a platform??? Her children were not abducted! A judge in a court of law awarded custody of them to the other parent, who happens to live overseas because SHE got him kicked out of the country.

    • Lola says:

      I don’t understand how or why she keeps being treated like a normal person when she’s mentally unstable.

  23. Green Is Good says:

    Her children were NOT abducted. That is all.

  24. LAK says:

    At this point one has to question the judgement of people on Capitol hill for giving her a platform.

    Do they not do any research on the people they associate themselves?

    Actually, considering how many politicians took up with the Duggars, perhaps I answered my own question.

  25. HK9 says:

    Who gave this woman a platform on Capitol Hill??!!?? How does she keep doing this???

  26. Pumpkin Pie says:

    I don’t like saying this but I think a “gag order” should be in place. I don’t know if that’s a practice in the US but in DM there are stories about gag orders quite often. Everything that comes out of her mouth is bs and irresponsible and might be detrimental to her children on the long run – that could be the case already. Also, as it was mentioned upthread, slanderous towards her ex.

    • Giddy says:

      I absolutely agree about a gag order. Everything that comes out of her mouth is not just an exaggeration, but an outright lie. And the Rep. who allowed her this platform has been woefully misinformed of the truth of this situation.

    • Samtha says:

      Gersch (is that spelled correctly? I’m too lazy to check) should definitely seek a gag order. She is putting the children in danger. There are a lot of unstable people in this world, and she’s made her kids prime targets for a certain segment of them.

  27. Insomniac says:

    Is anyone in the media calling her out on this crap? I read that court document and she is so clearly misrepresenting what happened. I’m amazed some father’s rights group hasn’t jumped on this.

  28. original kay says:

    anyone remember the movie “not without my daughter”?

    that movie haunts me, that this actually happens to women and children.

    I can’t add anything more to the comments, because everything I think has been echoed already.

    • jessiebes says:

      I do. And the sad part is that Kelly completely thinks that her case is completely similar.

  29. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    This woman is a monster, point blank.

    It’s not about what’s good for her children or what she can compromise to make their lives better. It’s all about her. It might sound dramatic but I’m starting to believe she’s a danger to the kids. It’s all good now because they’re young and cute but will and ego like hers be able to handle when they get mouthy and rebellious?

    If these are the lengths she’ll go to to punish a guy who basically has never fought for anything more than contact with his children?

    Good luck kids, your mom is a nutcase.

  30. The Original Mia says:

    Who thought it was a good idea to bring this woman to Congress? Her case isn’t a case of international abduction. It’s a legal custody order by a US judge. One that wouldn’t have happened if she had been so hell bent on alienating her children from their father.

    • DEB says:

      Eggs-actly. I just so hope she continues to shoot herself in both feet and it all comes back on her. It’s comes to the point where she’s just being a selfish assh*le.

  31. BrandyAlexander says:

    I guess it was to protect her kids that she needed to post nine separate photos of herself on IG.

  32. holly hobby says:

    OMG Congress don’t you have better things to do than listen to this delusional A-hole? Congress can’t do anything about instituting laws against the judiciary because guess what? American govt is comprised of 3 branches (executive, judicial and legislative!). The Judiciary interprets the law and considers whether the laws made by Congress is constitutional! Congress cannot tell the judiciary what to do. That is why it’s called a balanced govt, people!

    Also, this decision was made on a local level – CA court. Correct me if I’m wrong but Congress doesn’t have reach in that too. What a waste of taxpayer’s money.

    I am done with this case. It is open and shut. She wouldn’t be in this predicament if she didn’t lie and got her ex kicked out of the US.

    The way people ignore the facts and the law just makes me rage. Some people are gullible to think she deserves custody of her children because she’s an “American mom” and Americans are the superior citizens of the world. Pffft.

  33. prism_go says:

    She cares WAY more about herself than those children. Clear as day. Good thing her husband got out when he could.

  34. jessiebes says:

    There is a lot of support for her on other sites. I think this is why she got to voice her opinion on Capital Hill. Celebitchy is one of the few sites who actually call her out for her crap – and let commenters post the links to the court documents.

    But people don’t read, don’t educate themselves. They just see a grieving mother who misses her children. And people will side by that. Not all people of course.

  35. Montrealise says:

    I am now convinced beyond doubt that she will refuse to return the children to their father at the end of the summer.

  36. Becks says:

    Sometimes I wonder if all this very public airing of their private family business, and the extremely aggressive push that Kelly is making to gather public outrage and public sympathy against the father ever depresses him.

    I can’t help but think there must be some days when Daniel Giersch dreads getting up in the morning to see what new shenanigans she has been pulling.

    I wish there was a way for him to know that he also has a lot of people that support him. It would be very easy to give in to hopelessness that no matter how reasonable he is trying to be, how much he wants to be a good co-parent, that she just never stops flinging crap at him.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      His e-mail address was published recently in the People magazine article alleging that the visa revocation e-mail he received was forged/altered. I do not know if he still uses it, but you could start there.

  37. Ibaloo says:

    Well said !!!

  38. Ruyana says:

    She created this mess. She built it, she bought it, and how she’s getting away with painting herself as a poor, pitiful victim I can’t grasp. She is truly a horrible person.

    I hated my boys’ father with a hot and deadly passion, but I never spoke against him in their presence or interfered with his visitation. I knew that little boys need their father in their life. I also knew that when they grew up they’d figure out “the real story” all by themselves, and they did.

  39. Sara says:

    This woman is insane. She has totally twisted this issue so she always comes out as the victim, even though she’s ultimately responsible for having her ex deported. Now she acts as though her children have been ‘kidnapped’. She’s trying to twist her case so that she can steal the sympathy and attention that should go to cases where children have actually been abducted. It’s totally sick. What a narcissist.

  40. AH says:

    If Rutherford has the United States government on a leash to the extent that she is able to demand and receive instant visa revocation and deportation to satisfy her own personal shits, giggles and/or whims, then she would almost certainly have employed that power to get her kids back by now.

    To insist she “got [Giersch] deported” is a silly mischaracterization of what Immigration and Customs Enforcement does. I.C.E. is not Rutherford’s backyard treehouse, complete with a “No Boys Allowed” sign. She may not be all that likable, but I doubt she’s the mustache-twirling cartoonish movie villain this site, with a relish that is weird to the point of laughable, portrays her to be.

    Incidentally, you are also mistaken about The Hague Convention. The issue of “abduction” aside – and I agree the whole abduction thing (so far) is a nonstarter – The Hague Convention does not simply defer to “it was ordered by a judge.” Indeed, it was actually designed and intended to circumvent blind deference to “it was ordered by a judge” in favor of rights conferred by internationally agreed-upon rules of law, regardless of what this or that judge orders.

    Operating on the premise that once children have been in a custody environment for a while, courts are more likely to consider them “established” where they are and refuse to alter the status quo, THC member nations are loath to reward parents after the fact for stalling or refusing to comply. As such, many have repeatedly asserted and upheld that (in cases of joint custody) any international relocation should require, as its basic foundation and with few exceptions, the consent of both custodial parents.

    • Alice says:

      It’s in the court documents that her lawyer called the Immigration people from the courthouse, WHILE she was sitting there and then said lawyer tried to get Daniel to sign away his visitation rights in return for “making his visa problems go away”.

      So yes, she and her legal team were directly responsible for the revocation of her ex-husband’s visa.

    • Jezza says:

      Take a look at the court documents. There is no bias, no BS. It shows all the ways she has tried to keep Daniel out of the kids’s lives – including sitting back and watch her former lawyer call immigration on him unless he relinquished his parental rights. I’m not American, but from all accounts, allegations are enough to get a visa pulled.

      Her gambit for sole custody backfired, and now she’s crying “American Citizens!!”. She needs to enjoy the time she’ll spend with her kids this summer and STFU!! There was no abduction!!

  41. TOPgirl says:

    She sounds like that Rachel Dolazel. They both are using the words transracial and international abduction in the wrong way. Completely wrong.

  42. Dibba says:

    She’s nuts