Kelly Rutherford’s latest custody blow: CA no longer has jurisdiction

With congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee in DC. #childrensrights 🌿 thank you @toddkrim

A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on

As you probably know, Kelly Rutherford has been fighting for custody of her two children, son Hermes, 8, and daughter Helena, 6, since a CA judge ruled in 2012 that they could reside with their father in Monaco. (This was due to the fact that Kelly was instrumental in getting him deported.) Kelly’s children came to NY for a scheduled visit with her this summer, arriving around the fourth of July after some last minute drama. Since then, Kelly has gone on The View to describe their reunion and disparage her ex, as she’s done throughout her custody battle. She also went to Capitol Hill last week for her second time testifying in front of Congress, where she continued to equate her custody case with international child abduction.

Kelly has had many setbacks in her custody battle and in this latest one, the California court ruled that they no longer have jurisdiction over the case. Kelly’s ex, Daniel Giersch, is fighting to have Monaco gain jurisdiction. The CA ruling stops short of granting Monaco jurisdiction and seems to simply relinquish CA control. Here’s more, thanks to People:

“The Court does not believe that it is obligated to relinquish jurisdiction to Monaco, only that it acknowledges that it no longer has jurisdiction over the children,” [Los Angeles Superior Court Judge] Juhas wrote.

“We are extremely disappointed,” Rutherford’s attorney David J. Glass said in a statement Thursday. “This court set up the current situation whereby my client was forced to live bi-coastally, but now, the court appears to be holding it against her. Likewise, the court created the situation whereby the children would lose their connections to California, and despite the Judgment’s language precluding the passage of time from creating new jurisdiction, that is exactly what has happened.”

Giersch’s lawyer, Fahi Takesh Hallin, told PEOPLE in a statement that “Daniel will continue to promote Kelly’s relationship with the children.”

“He believes that the children deserve to love both parents and has never nor does he intend to ever participate in any negative press directed at Kelly,” Hallin continued. As always, Daniel will continue to guard the privacy of the children, in their best interests and for their safety.”

[From People]

Compare Daniel’s lawyer’s statement with Kelly’s. Daniel has always taken the high road while Kelly rarely, if ever, passes up a chance to say something negative about her ex. Maybe Daniel is just playing this in an extremely smart way, but it seems like he’s the one working to ensure the kids have a relationship with their mom while Kelly would cut Daniel out in a hot minute if she could. In fact she’s already tried to do that multiple times.

Of course Kelly’s other lawyer now vows to take the custody battle to New York, where Kelly lives, so a NY court can obtain jurisdiction. Read Kelly’s NY lawyer’s statement, below, and compare it to her CA lawyer’s statement, above. Kelly’s NY lawyer claims that the CA ruling will work in their favor and that they were hoping for it. Her other lawyer portrayed it as a terrible setback.

Her attorney Wendy Murphy – who represents her in New York and was not involved in the California hearings – believes that patience will pay off.

“Exactly what we wanted to happen has happened today in California. We filed a case in New York family court this morning, to provoke California to issue a ruling that we had been waiting for for almost two weeks,” Murphy tells PEOPLE in a statement. “As predicted, the judge declined jurisdiction, which opens the door to New York courts finally having an opportunity to do the right thing. We are pleased that at long last this legal atrocity has been extricated from the grip of California’s horrific family court system.

“Now we hope and expect the New York courts, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s office will protect the children from further harm and ensure that they are able to reside in their own country, where they belong.”

Murphy says the New York judge was “perplexed” that California forfeited jurisdiction over the case and that the legal system has “caused profound and irreparable harm to Kelly’s children.”

“Hopefully today’s developments will be the beginning of the end of the children’s forced exile – once and for all,” she added.

[From People]

Do Kelly’s lawyers even talk to each other? They’re giving statements to People Magazine which are contradictory.

Kelly’s kids are in “Forced exile” and face “profound and irreparable” harm by living in Monaco with their dad and extended family, while growing up knowing three languages and attending an exclusive private school. It sounds like judges aren’t buying that at all, but I’m sure Kelly’s side will try to find a judge who is open to their argument.

Here are some photos which Kelly has instagrammed of her kids visiting. She seems to be trying not to show their faces. Kelly and her kids have been papped together this summer, but none of our agencies have those photos. (Go here to see.)

Is anyone looking at the art? #MetropolitanMuseum 🌿 #minecraft

A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on

@cmainnyc ❤️

A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on

Raffaello Summer Day 2015

Photos via Instagram, FameFlynet

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

87 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford’s latest custody blow: CA no longer has jurisdiction”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Snazzy says:

    The only thing harming those children is her attitude

  2. Lilacflowers says:

    Just sent an email to the state department, as well as a letter to the home address of my former Senator, Secretary of State Kerry that I do not want a single cent of my tax dollars spent on anything involving this spoiled, jingoistic, manipulative brat. “Murica!

    • Snazzy says:

      Well done!

    • Audrey says:

      Kerry better not touch this.

      I hope New York declines to take the case since 3/4 people involved now reside in Monaco.

      Kelly needs to focus on the kids rather than publicity and lies

      The lawyer’s message to Kerry was actually extremely offensive and obviously just trying to provoke him

    • holly hobby says:

      I hope John Kerry has better things to do than take care of one person’s needs. Obviously Congress is fanboying and fangirling themselves with this D going on F-list celebrity because why is she there again?

      Isn’t that Wendy lawyer previously known as the kids’ lawyer?

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Holly–MTE! I remember her representing herself as that. The NY bar might have poked her with a ‘gentle’ reminder that it was inappropriate at best.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Good idea, Lilacflowers–pretty sure they are getting inundated with junk email from the Kartrashian fans who signed this psycho’s petition under PMK’s guidance, so a few voices of sanity would not only stand out but likely be appreciated!

  3. blue marie says:

    She frustrates me. Her case is not child abduction and it pisses me off that she can’t see that’s she a large part of the reason for her situation..

    • Pinky says:

      She is the reason her kids are gone, but her legal argument is a good one–you cannot exile American citizens. The way the courts handled this was a mess and I believe she actually has good legal standing to get the NYC courts to bring the kids back and force her ex to renew his Visa.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Actually her legal argument is crap. The kids have not been exiled. They remain U.S. citizens with all the rights and privileges thereof. They are subject to a U.S. family court order, but that does not constitute exile. And Mr. Giersch is not preventing her from exercising her custodial and parental rights as defined by the California court. She has legal standing as the mother to keep fighting for whatever she likes in the NY or Monaco family courts, but that does not mean she is advancing winnable claims or making valid arguments.

        Moreover, if you had been reading this site over the past few months, you would know that Mr. Giersch cannot immediately renew his visa and may never be able to return legally to the U.S. in the future thanks to the actions of her attorneys. The children have dual citizenship, and the court orders thus far have recognized the reality that having parents on two different continents means that 50-50 custody is pretty much impossible without major traveling/lifestyle adjustments of one of the parents. In this case Ms. Rutherford made the mess so she has rightfully been ordered to adapt her life.

      • Audrey says:

        Her kids don’t live in exile.

        They are dual citizens who reside with their dad.

        You could argue that sending them back to the U.S. after years in Monaco would be exile if you actually buy what kelly is selling.

        Monaco is already involved in decisions and will likely get jurisdiction here

      • Lena says:

        How are they being exiled? I think you don’t know what exiled means. Newsflash: exiled people don’t usually spend their summer holidays in the country that exiled them… And he can’t renew his visa has been revoked! For God sakes, did you even read anything about the case?

      • notasugarhere says:

        “will protect the children from further harm and ensure that they are able to reside in their own country, where they belong.”

        What harm? Happily living with the father she tried to cut out of their lives? I resent that this lawyer, and Rutherford, insist that these dual citizen children should ONLY be allowed to be American citizens.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Pinky

        ‘Exile’ means that the kids can never come back.

        The 2012 court order is that they spend every summer vacation in the US. Their father has been obeying this every year.

        The reason the kids are living in Monaco is because Kelly’s legal team made accusations against Daniel to the State Dept and helped get his Visa revoked. It seems to me like Kelly thought this was a great strategy to get full-time custody instead of joint custody, but it backfired on her.

        Since she helped make it impossible for him to live or come back to the US anytime soon in order to participate in joint custody here, and because it would be unfair to make the kids keep flying back and forth between the two continents to satisfy the 50/50 custody order, the judge let the kids live in France/Monaco with Daniel paying for six of Kelly’s visitations per year (including air fare, car service, residency) and ordered the kids to spend their summers in the US.

        So there was no exile ordered for the kids.

      • Jax says:

        Her kids aren’t in exile. They live in another country but are able to come back for visitation. Living in another country is not a bad thing.

        Also just because he isn’t advertising what he has or hasn’t done regarding his Visa situation doesn’t mean he hasn’t done anything about it or that he has either. He’s just not making what he’s doing public, unlike Kelly. He doesn’t have to reside in the states to parent his kids. He is allowed to parent them where he sees fit if he has primary custody and permission from the court, which he does.

        If he did have permission to live in the states, he most likely would be living here, because he would have likely been denied the ability to relocate them overseas, ala Halle Berry, and trying to do what he is now, which is co-parent with a parent who doesn’t want to co-parent.

    • holly hobby says:

      Hear hear bearcatlawyer! I knew we can count on you to dispel the drivel Kelly is spouting.

  4. NewWester says:

    I can see Kelly doing a reality show on raising her children and dating or being asked to co host on “The View” The court costs must be draining her bank accounts and she does like being in the spotlight. Just sad how this must be affecting her children

    • qwerty says:

      She filed for bankrupcy a while ago. However broke in famous people terms does not mean what it means to civillians. She’s not exactly depriving herself of anything, juding by the looks of things.

  5. original kay says:

    Thanks for covering this!

    Other sites are so slanted towards Kelly that it was confusing, what was going on.

    I didn’t realize she even went on the View (in as much as that matters), but I’m not surprised. I didn’t quite understand a part I read where she might have to send the kids back, now, to Monaco?

    All the headlines “Kelly lost custody of her kids!” just feed her fire.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      She does have to send the kids back to Monaco. She only has them for the summer and they must go back at the end of the summer. Their home is in Monaco. They go to school in Monaco. The father has custody for most of the year, except the summer, and she has visitation rights. He pays for her to travel to Monaco to see them throughout the year. She conveniently forgets to mention those very basic facts. If I were him, I would have private investigators watching her every move this summer.

      • Belle Epoch says:

        If I were the father I’d be a nervous wreck having the kids near this dad-bashing lunatic. I think she would have taken them to Mexico by now…. except she can’t live without media attention ALL THE TIME. The battle to keep them here will be epic by the end of summer.

        Those photos are absurdly pretentious. But so is naming your kid Hermes..

        Can you even IMAGINE the legal fees? How is any of this helping THE KIDS? Go away, awful woman!!!

    • Izzy says:

      Yes. The kids live in Monaco, with their father, who has custody. They were never abducted. She acts like America is the only place in the world those kids can live, but their father is a citizen of another country, which means so are they. This latest debacle only happened because she would not turn the kids’ passports over to a neutral third party. I strongly suspect her legal team did that to force legal proceedings on the matter of court jurisdiction.

      • notasugarhere says:

        His lawyer needs to push for the passports being held by a neutral third party ASAP. I sense she’ll do a runner to whatever posh country will give her asylum.

    • original kay says:

      no, sorry, bad wording on my part.

      I meant immediately, as in now, not at the end of the summer.

      my bad.

      • anne_000 says:

        They’re not being made to return immediately. They have until the end of their pre-scheduled summer visitation to stay with Kelly.

      • Audrey says:

        She has them until the regular end of visitation, sometime in August.

        As much as kelly bashes him, her ex seems to genuinely want kelly involved. He never fought against her having them for the summer

  6. SoupSnake says:

    If anyone is in “forced exile”, its her ex-husband.

  7. Tpaz says:

    The kids deserve to have both parents in their lives, she’s not doing them any favours by trash talking their dad. I’m not sure how much of an income she makes anymore, but if that were me, I’d be in the next flight to Monaco and looking for a place to live.

    I might be fighting the court’s decision in the meantime, but certainly not airing everything out for the public.

    • holly hobby says:

      Maybe she’s sponging off her paramours? Wasn’t she dating some VP of a designer label?

      Also don’t forget her “charity!” I suspect she uses that to maintain her lifestyle.

  8. Blue says:

    What a bunch of racists Kelly and her lawyers are, how the fcuk are the children being harmed living with their loving father and his family in Monaco, a country with virtually no crime and where they attend the best schools. The country those children also belong in is Monaco, that is as much their home as the USA will ever be. The children have 2 homes 2 countries 2 parents they love equally. I hope kelly never gets custody because it’s pretty clear from all the comments she and her lawyers have made the children would not be allowed to have contact with their father or visit their other home Monaco.

    • LAK says:

      I think you meant xenophobia, not racism.

    • holly hobby says:

      Why hasn’t she appealed to Prince Albert? Hi Albert! I need your help! We have a lot in common since I’m a blonde movie star and your mom was too! LOL

  9. Julia says:

    Her smugness annoys me.

    How her children seem to be consistently loving and connected in every picture, on the other hand, is charming. It makes me think that their father, paternal grandparents, and Monaco community have done a beautiful job raising both kids.

  10. Tiffany says:

    Maybe Daniel’s lawyers are telling him what he needs to hear and not what he wants to hear. Kelly’s lawyers are just cashing the checks. From an outsider, I would tell her to get new representation.

  11. Meatball says:

    She is just the worst. Crying child abduction, except it was a court order, she can see them whenever she wants, and has them for the summer. She really needs to let this go, she made this bed. Her kids are happy and that should be the most important thing.

    • Audrey says:

      It’s insulting to every parent who actually had their child abducted. Those parents don’t get their kids for sure.mere visits. And they can’t fly over and see their kids regularly.

      Who the heck even invited her to congress?

  12. funcakes says:

    I can’t anymore with her. She’s impossible to deal with all the time.
    Kelly not showing to children’s face is the new thing because there are pictures out there where they were part of a runway fashion show with Kelly.
    I would think she would want to spend what precious time she had with them in private, enjoying their company finding out what they’re like as a person.

    • Insomniac says:

      I’ve been seeing their faces constantly during Kelly’s “Look What A Good Mommy I Am” publicity tour pap strolls these past few weeks, so I’m dying to know what made her stop it. Wonder if a lawyer told her to quit that?

      • Tina says:

        I read the judgment – the judge says that her posing in the media with the children and publishing pictures of the children is a violation of their 2010 Stipulated Judgment in which it was ordered that the parties are not to expose their children to the media.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Whether or not their faces are shown, I would think these latest photos would count as a violation of that order.

    • holly hobby says:

      This is the only site where I can read about her shenanigans without wanting to punch in the computer screen! You read it on Yahoo or People and all the comments were so ignorant and pro Kelly; con “gun toting foreigner.”

      I hope this ends swiftly so she can stop poisoning our airwaves.

  13. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    Everytime she fiddles with the case she makes it worse for herself, soon she’ll have less visitation and be required to pay more. Psycho woman.

  14. Kate says:

    I just don’t see any way that New York can assert jurisdiction over those children? I’m an attorney but have no experience in family law, so maybe someone more knowledgeable in that area can illuminate things for me? My impression is that the NY attorney is spinning it in a positive light in order to justify his retainer, and the CA sounded gloomier because he was being more realistic. What am I missing?

    • drunkenjd says:

      The UCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody Enforcement and Jurisdiction Act) provides 4 grounds for jurisdiction:
      1. Home State (where the child has lived for 6 months or more prior to action)
      2. Significant connection (where child has significant connections to the state)
      3. Emergency jurisdiction (temporary jurisdiction to step in during an emergency
      and
      4. Vacuum (no where else has jurisdiction

      Since the original jurisdiction was CA, and CA now say they no longer have jurisdiction, I don’t see how New York can assume jurisdiction, since none of the criteria apply.

  15. Crumpet says:

    In Kelly’s mind, she is a great actress. And this is the role of her lifetime, written and directed by her. Daniel is cast as the villain of the piece, and her children are written as extensions of her own precious ego.

    What I find astonishing is that people seem to be buying her fiction, when it is so obviously that. There is something primal about how we view a woman and her children. It is difficult for many to believe that sometimes being with their mother is not in a child’s best interest.

  16. anne_000 says:

    In the View interview, she’s making it sound like it was a victory that she got the summer visitation, even though it was already a pre-set visitation and Daniel’s lawyer said that they weren’t going to fight it anyways.

    Then she said the reason the courts allowed her the summer visitation was to give Daniel time to work on getting his Visa and that she has a letter from the State Dept proving that he hasn’t applied for one. So she’s writing to them to get proof to make him look bad, but has she written them the court-ordered letter to help get back his Visa? After all, it was her legal team’s accusations that helped get his Visa revoked in the first place. If she’s not taking back the accusations, then how is he supposed to convince the State Dept that those accusations were false?

    Btw, this order was made by the same Judge Mark Juhas who gave her that pre-Memorial Day ruling forcing the kids to come to CA immediately. The one that was made without notifying Daniel that there even was a hearing and which was shortly overturned.

    She was clamoring for jurisdiction change during the original CA custody ruling, and now that she’s gotten it, she’s acting like it was a setback. She needs to make up her mind.

    • Audrey says:

      I think she wanted to keep it in California because of that memorial day ruling. She thought she found a judge who would do what she wanted. The previous judge seemed to just start dismissing her ex parte motions. She filed everything as ex parte.

      Glad this judge did the right thing

      • anne_000 says:

        This is the same judge who did both the Memorial Day ex-parte ruling in her favor and the dissolving of the CA jurisdiction, which was what she wanted during the 2012 custody hearing.

        So this judge seems to keep ruling in her favor.

        I don’t know if the judge did the right thing by removing CA jurisdiction, because now, couldn’t a NY judge overturn the original custody order?

      • Audrey says:

        She was fighting to keep it in California though and he ruled against her

        Monaco already assumed jurisdiction and i don’t see why they wouldn’t get it since the kids reside there

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Audrey

        She was fighting to take it out of CA in 2012 and that judge overruled her. It’s in the court documents.

        This judge, Juhas, is a different judge from the 2012 one.

        Monaco only has shared jurisdiction, not complete.

        I agree with you that it should be completely turned over to Monaco now.

  17. Jezza says:

    She needs a friend or someone to give her a huge dose of reality – that she is the reason she is in this situation and her kids (no matter how much she believes it to be so) were not, in fact, abducted or exiled.

    She is her own worst enemy. For the kids’ sake, she should STFU this summer and let them go back to Monaco quietly when it’s time…but that’ll never happen! (Because it’s never about the kids with her!)

    • Audrey says:

      My money is on an emergency filing in New York to try to get them to take jurisdiction and let her keep the kids.

      Hopefully New York passes it to Monaco or continues following the previous custody arrangement

    • holly hobby says:

      I really don’t see how NY has jurisdiction over this since the kids never lived in NY. Weren’t they born in CA thus it was in CA court? The last I remember, state courts don’t handle international matters. That is up to federal courts but she got shut out there, didn’t she? I’m surprised she didn’t appeal the habeas corpus ruling to the 9th Circuit.

      • veronica says:

        She doesn’t reside full time in CA, she’s mostly in NYC and as the judge said in his ruling, the kids have barely spent any time in CA so they shouldn’t have jurisdiction of it.

  18. Becks says:

    Can we please correct this misconception:

    Daniel Giersch was never “deported”, as in escorted onto a plane by Immigration and sent out of the Country. Rather, his US Visa was revoked and ineligible for renewal. He voluntarily left the country before the expiry date, so he was in full compliance of the terms of the Visa. Only by staying past the expiry date, or going underground, would he have been deported.

    Great swaths of the public do not bother with all the facts, and this is why she has the platform and support she does. And widely disseminated stories like “the father was deported” certainly don’t help.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      People are also falling for the “shady arms dealer” fiction. It seems highly unlikely that in a high-profile case like this, a “shady arms dealer” would be roaming the lovely streets of Monaco free of other legal entanglements.

    • Becks says:

      From all accounts, he appears to be an entrepreneur/tech innovator. I’d be curious to know from where the arms-dealer rumours originated.

      Unfortunately, a lot of people still believe the old adage, “Where there’s smoke, there’s gotta be fire”.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        The arms dealer rumor is what Kelly’s lawyer accused him of because they knew it was a guarantee to get his visa revoked. Her plan was that if he couldn’t come back into the country, she would automatically be granted custody.

  19. Who ARE these people? says:

    “Is anyone looking at the art?” Given the context, it’s more like, “Is anyone looking at ME?”

    Just read Tina (thanks Tina!): “… the judge says that her posing in the media with the children and publishing pictures of the children is a violation of their 2010 Stipulated Judgment in which it was ordered that the parties are not to expose their children to the media.”

    Grrr. Somebody do something.

    I hope they have uneventful trip back home to Monaco for school.

  20. Jewbitch says:

    Her eye makeup needs a revamp

  21. Montréalaise says:

    I read elsewhere that her ex offered to buy her a house in France across the border from Monaco so that she could live near the children – but she refused his offer. Does anyone know whether this is true? If so, it clearly shows that her battle isn’t about what’s best for the children, but merely about getting her own way.
    I also read that she hired a PI to dig up dirt on her ex – and when he couldn’t find anything, she refused to pay him and he had to sue her to collect his fee.

    • LAK says:

      I don’t know about the house, but the PI is true.

    • Becks says:

      Edward Banach was hired to “spy” on Daniel back in April 2010 in relation to child custody and “other related issues” – which you can read as “give me any dirt you can dig up on him”.

      When she paid only $28,000 of the $86k final invoice, he sued her for the balance of $58k. In his lawsuit, he stated his hourly rate, and it’s estimated he spent some 1,200 plus hours spying on Daniel. And he got nothing.

      If you read the original court ruling, it looks like she submitted the P.I.’s report, because there is a section where the judge refers to it and basically says she finds nothing of concern in relation to the safety of the children.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      She probably confused PI (Private Investigator) with PI (Personal Injury attorney). Most PI lawyers work on a contingency fee basis, where you don’t pay them if you don’t win. Since the private investigator couldn’t find anything, she didn’t feel she owed him any money.

    • Becks says:

      It’s funny, but I also think I read something like that as well….that he offered to buy her a place. Can’t say for sure, though.

      However, what IS verifiable is that, part of the ruling made Daniel responsible for putting Kelly up in a house and make a car available to her for the duration of her visits to Monaco. This was in addition to the requirement that he also pay for 6 round-trip air tickets each year.

      Basically, the judge was trying to be extremely fair to Kelly by shifting the financial burden for those trans-Atlantic visits from Kelly onto Daniel.

      • Mogvet says:

        And yet she is still trying to get the kids from him…..she is a sad individual that cares more about herself then her children…..

  22. Mogvet says:

    @Alice

    If you still post on this site please post those two PDF’s you did from the other article, I am fighting the battle over on yahoo with Kelly lovers that will not read anything but pro-kelly articles……god it’s ugly over there…..need your help young lady!!!! :)

      • Mogvet says:

        @Lucky Charm awesome thank you so much!!!!!!!

      • drunkenjd says:

        I just read the whole opinion, which I have been looking for since I first heard about this. Thank you so much for linking it.
        It is very enlightening. The Court reviewed the reports of 4 psychologists that specialize in child custody evaluations, and based on those opinions issued their order. Also interesting, at one point the opinion seems to suggest the the court offered a year there, year here solution that Daniel accepted and Kelly rejected. The Court then reviewed that option independently and found it not to be in the best interest of the children. It seems like Kelly could have had the children half the time in the US, every other year, but she wasn’t willing to settle for that. So after reviewing the expert reports and determining Daniel was the parent most likely to encourage a relationship with the other parent, a permanent order was made with much legal and psychological analysis (not to mention compassion and kindness). It is clear the Judge agonized over this opinion, and was devoted to finding the best solution for the children so they could be with both of their parents the maximum amount of time. I think it is an example of the best of judicial opinions. and it actually makes me proud to be part of the family law profession, which doesn’t happen very often.

  23. hogtowngooner says:

    Total narcissist who believes that just because she doesn’t like the ruling, it must be unfair/illegal.

    She’s a horribly selfish person, not thinking for a moment what this is doing to her children. It’s all about winning against her ex.

  24. Amy M. says:

    For what it’s worth the kids seem happy and relaxed with Kelly so there is clearly a bond there. I feel sorry for her (despite the fact she may have been responsible for her ex’s deportation) just because she seems so desperate and can’t seem to realize she is the one aggravating the situation.

    Also Monaco is not a country, it’s a principality. It is so tiny. It may seem technical but seriously everybody speaks French there (and not Monegasque which may be taught in schools but hardly anybody speaks it).

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Yes, Monaco is a country.
      ‘A principality is a country which is governed by a prince, e.g. Monaco or Liechtenstein.”
      They issue passports and everything.
      If you defined countries by what language is spoken there, all of that tea dumped into Boston Harbour would really have been a waste.

  25. TotallyBiased says:

    Clicked on this post thinking I didn’t have any energy left, after Duggar/TouchingLittleChildren, Crosby, and THEO–but sure ’nuff the outrage comes boiling back up again when I see the success of KR’s manipulations and propaganda.
    Sigh.

  26. miraclemama says:

    Dear Kelly,
    you reap what you sow! constantly slamming courts and judges and smearing the State Department isn’t going to curry you any favors and your lawyers are obviously idiots by constantly blabbing and allowing you to blab to the media in a desperate attempt to stay relevant. Sadly enough, it is the lawyers and the system that propels and encourages the actions and allows it to continue. I think California finally washed their hands of this mess and decided to stop wasting tax payers’ money. it’s a joke she filed for bankruptcy yest still lives on the upper East Side and tonies around the fanciest stores. when was the last time she actually worked? she really really needs to let go of all her righteousness and self-entitlement and make peace with the father of her children for the sake of their children. poor babies! I cannot imagine what they go through.

  27. cynth says:

    In addition to being “spotted” in Central Park and various other venues (paps just “happened” to be hangin’ out wherever she went) she’s also parading (whoring) the kids on red carpets – most recently some event in WaterMill NY. Disgusting.