Radar: Kelly Rutherford’s ex wants her visits with the children monitored

Kelly Rutherford Ordered To Give Back Her Children To Ex In Monaco **FILE PHOTOS**
This story from Radar Online could be an educated guess but it seems likely. A hearing in Kelly Rutherford’s custody case is scheduled for next Thursday, September 3, in Monaco. It’s thought that Monaco will take jurisdiction over the case and that her ex, Daniel Giersch, will request that all of Kelly’s future visits with the children be monitored. This is a logical move considering that Kelly kidnapped the children for several days during their last scheduled visit and only sent them home under court order.

Radar quotes a source who states that “Daniel isn’t going to take any chances for Kelly to pull this type of stunt ever again. It was incredibly traumatizing for the kids, and never should have happened. At the upcoming custody hearing in Monaco, Daniel will ask the judge to appoint an independent monitor to supervise the kids when Kelly is with them.

He will also ask the judge for an order that Kelly must come to Monaco to visit the kids, no more trips to the United States. Daniel feared he was never going to see his children again after Kelly refused to put them back on the plane to Monaco.

Kelly brought this on herself by systematically trying to cut her ex out of her children’s lives and by admitting to the press that she was trying to do this, even after the children lived with him for years. I hope this is the outcome next week and that all her legal options stateside are exhausted.

Of course Kelly’s batsh*t lawyer, Wendy Murphy, has a complicated legal excuse for why one of their numerous appeals should be granted. She also claims this is a Hague (international child abduction) case despite the fact that multiple courts ruled in Daniel’s favor and sent the children to live with him. You can read that on People.com. Clearly no courts are buying this BS about children belonging in their “own country” because no judges are ruling in Kelly’s favor.

Meanwhile Page Six’s Cindy Adams has an article claiming that Kelly Rutherford’s kids belong in the US. She includes quotes from Daniel’s lawyer about how great the children’s lives are in Monaco, but she still reaches the conclusion that Kelly should get her kids back. Adams states “Not known, however, is that — allegedly — Kelly and her attorneys contributed to his visa revocation.” It’s pretty much a known fact that Kelly had Daniel’s visa revoked. The judge outlined all the evidence for this in her 2012 custody decision, including witnessing Kelly’s lawyer call the State Department.

Here’s what Giersch’s lawyer told Page Six:

Despite a divorce case being he says/she says, Daniel Giersch remains private and will not go public. However, his lawyer, Ira Garr, says:

“Giersch works at facilitating the children’s relationship with Kelly, who does not respond similarly. When they arrived here, he telephoned. She was unavailable. He also sent an e-mail hoping she’s well. Their divorce issue mentions that in front of them she derides their father. Factored into California and New York custody cases is healthy parental relationship.

“No anti-wife, sexist bias exists. California’s 52-page decision by Judge Teresa Beaudet mentions Kelly’s employment, travel needs and income require the boy and girl’s nanny care, whereas Daniel provides 99 percent availability. Two state judges, two federal judges, plus Monaco’s judge conclude he’s the better parent. California’s lengthy trial awarded the father permanent custody.
“Legally, a child’s home is its residence for the last six months. These two have lived abroad since 2012. The issue is now solely within Monaco’s court system. USA has no jurisdiction.”

All I know for 100 percent is: We can argue with America’s legal system, but facts are she cannot, as she’s done, bring an action in federal court. This is now a Monaco order. He cannot enter the US. She can travel to Europe. While visiting, he’s even paid for her and a boyfriend to stay in a three-bedroom house.

Daniel, devoted, loves Hermés and Helena. They sail, take lessons, ride horses, have play dates, love the paternal grandma, excel in school, appear happy. His side adds snarkyisms like, “While in Monaco, Kelly took time off to go to the Cannes Film Festival.”

[From Page Six]

This is a rare extended quote from Giersch’s side and it’s warranted. Kelly has admitted that she still frequently Skypes with her children, even almost immediately after they returned to Monaco this last time. In the judge’s original ruling, she found that Daniel always facilitated Kelly’s relationship with the kids but that Kelly often failed to do the same for Daniel. We’ve seen that pattern play out for years with this case. Kelly forced Daniel’s hand.

Kelly Rutherford arrives to a Manhattan court in New York without her children

18th Annual Super Saturday NY

Kelly Rutherford and her mom Ann Edwards seen leaving a Manhattan court in NYC

Photo credit: Pacific Coast News and FameFlynet

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

171 Responses to “Radar: Kelly Rutherford’s ex wants her visits with the children monitored”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Esteph says:

    This might sound bad, but when I read the headline I immediately thought, “Well, I don’t blame him”. Am I a bad person for thinking that? I always think that moms have this intuition that helps them out (but seeing as I’m not a mom), I just can’t understand her actions and logic behind her numerous court hearings or whatever.

    • meme says:

      Nope. I immediately thought the same thing. She’s a psycho and her attorney is a nutjob.

    • MrsB says:

      Not at all. I think he has remained very restrained and kind to her throughout this ordeal. You know, if Daniel had kept the kids like Kelly did, she would probably be trying to ban Daniel from having any sort of contact with the kids.

    • minx says:

      Doesn’t sound bad at all. She is crazed.
      You just look at her eyes and something isn’t right.

    • Jellybean says:

      I think the supervision is so important because I really worry about what she is saying to those children. I find it very difficult to believe that she is not creating tension and even fear in their lives, perhaps in the hope that one day they will look into a camera and say they are scared of their father. It is such a horrible case, but inevitable I guess in Kardasian type world we live in.

      • original kay says:

        I agree. The mind games she is playing with her own children sickens me.

      • danielle says:

        At this point I would think him delusional if he didn’t ask for supervised visits. Her actions seem crazy and I would worry ALOT about what she’s saying to those kids.

      • lucy2 says:

        I agree – a supervisor would be able to protect the kids if she is filling their heads with scary lies. I don’t think it’s bad at all to think this is a good idea – the kids’ well being is the most important thing, and Kelly has proven time and again that she will go against that if it means winning in her mind.

    • Liberty says:

      Absolutely not. I am team “go, Daniel” all the way at this point.

    • 9 says:

      In the end what is required for the well-being of the children, is that they have both parents. She has made that impossible, et voila. The reason for the monitor is not just for the abduction issue, it is for the fact that she puts her evil agenda ahead of their well-being and tries to make them believe that her agenda is right and drags their dad through the mud. Having lived through divorce which was at a point contentious, we had to do whatever we could to get along. Proof that Kelly doesn’t care about anything but her agenda, is that the boyfriend comes on her visitation in Monaco and that she has not set up house in Monaco in 3 years. She is not working and could easily find work in England on TV or in movies. She has a high level of recognition there and can afford it. The French consulate allows a family visa…I know because my ex-husband is French and I am on a family visa as we visited France often

      • MW says:

        I agree with you @9. The three Courts have all done one thing, and that is they have done what is in the best interests of the children. That is the job of the Courts. She might be their “Mom” (which what a lot of uninformed people were saying initially, without knowing ANY of the true facts of this case) but has not done anything that’s in the best interests of the kids. Their Dad has.

    • Suzy from Ontario says:

      Ditto! She’s unstable. I would want her visits monitored as well. Plus she has basically admitted that she tries to brainwash the kids so they want to stay with her and not their Dad. That’s parental alienation. Who knows what horrible things she is planting in their minds?! She doesn’t care about the kids. She cares about winning not what’s best for them. I wouldn’t trust her.

    • lunchcoma says:

      No, why would it? She isn’t cooperating with the transitions between one household and the other, and she’s making derogatory comments to the children about their father. A supervisor could protect the children from both of those harmful events.

    • Saywhatwhen says:

      I’m a mom. I think it well-deserved. Those children deserve to be in a sane, stable environment. I also have no more intuition than my husband. I feel like I worry more and I panic more and I condition myself to pay greater attention. But that is what I learnt growing up in my sexist and matriarchal childhood home. I am now trying to unlearn those things.

    • Starrywonder says:

      I don’t either. I would be over her and her stunt queen ways.

    • K 2 says:

      I have young kids. It’s because I do that I was pleased to see this. She’s not stable, she can’t separate her needs from their own (or even register that her needs are not de facto theirs, too) and she seems without filter or boundaries. They are too small to cope with this crap and they need shielding from it, but they do also need their mother in their lives. This is him trying to square that circle.

      The insane thing – well, one of them – is that she had them half the time, give or take. All her histrionics are because she hasn’t got them //all// the time.

    • Taska says:

      Well, when I first saw the headline, I thought it said that she wanted his visits supervised (my eyes crossed for a second, maybe?), and I was thinking, “Oh HELL No!”

    • Fergus says:

      And keep in mind, this is the SECOND TIME she has done this–held the kids back when they were supposed to go home at the end of the summer, forcing the courts to get involved.

    • Tara says:

      Not a bad person at all. I’m happy they finally took a firmer stand against the impact of Kelly’s craziness on the children.

    • Maggie the Cat says:

      No, your not a bad person and my heart would be ripped from me if I was in her position but I would never risk their well-being and my position as their Mom and be in this crazy situation. I think he has behaved like a true gentleman throughout, putting the needs of the children before his own. Can you imagine the stress of having to deal with this, yet he is never bitter or angry in public, he really is a righteous man.

  2. Wentworth Miller says:

    Wouldn’t you? I hope he gets what he wants.
    This reminds me of the Halley Berry Gabriel Aubrey debacle.

    • Little Darling says:

      It does with the malicious intent on being hellbent to keep the father out of the children’s lives.

      This sits deeper in delusion on Kelly’s end.

    • K 2 says:

      Honestly, Kelly makes Halle look sane on the child custody front. And that’s saying quite something.

  3. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I don’t blame him one bit, and I hope the order is granted. She should not be allowed to have unsupervised access to them. She has made her intentions to kidnap them very clear.

    • Santia says:

      I agree that she is batsh*t crazy; at the same time, I find the court’s ruling ridiculous that because the kids have lived in Monaco since 2012, she has no options with respect to trying to get them back to the States. But it’s not her fault that they were shipped off to Monaco in the first place. It seems like such a circular argument.

      As a mom, I feel a little bad for her. Granted, she made the bed by getting his visa revoked, but it is hard to pick up her life and move to Monaco to be nearer to her kids. I’m torn, I guess. Part of me sympathizes, while the other part realizes that this is karma biting her in the arse.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        But it IS her fault they were shipped off to Monaco in the first place. From what I understand, she and her ex were to share custody in the U.S. But she wanted full custody, so she lied about him to get his visa revoked. The judge saw through that and gave him primary custody in Monaco, because thanks to her, he can’t come here. I apologize if you already knew that, but to me, the whole mess is her fault. If she had just accepted 50/50 custody, they would be living with her. And, she could help him get his visa back by admitting she lied, but she won’t do it.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        @Santia, actually it’s her fault. They had joint custody in the States. In the meantime she lied to the State Dpt to get his Visa revoked. His children now live in Monaco because their father can’t enter the US.

      • briargal says:

        IF her kids are as important to her as she claims they are, she would move to Monaco to be with them–especially while they are young. But all the publicity she is getting here is more important to her than they are. Priorities!

      • Jessiebes says:

        Sure it is very hard to pack your things and move to a foreign country. But as a mum, wouldn’t you do exactly that to be with your kids?

      • anne_000 says:

        “But it’s not her fault that they were shipped off to Monaco in the first place.”

        She and her lawyer told Daniel and his lawyer that if he doesn’t sign a visitation waiver, her lawyer will contact the State Department and accuse him of kidnapping and to have him arrested on the spot. This was in December 2011.

        The next month, in January 2012, Daniel found out that his visa (which he had just had renewed to April 2013) was revoked. He tried to get her to sign an affidavit but she wouldn’t because it included the line that said she would not be against his getting his visa back. At first she said she didn’t want to admit to any wrongdoing, but the judge concluded that the real reason was that she was still against him being able to live in the US.

        The judge said that regardless of whether or not her side’s actions was the cause of his visa getting revoked, the actions themselves were just another example of how she kept up parental alienation, even while still under the scrutiny of the Family Court. Go figure. Other people would pretend and act as if they were cooperative, but not her. She’s way too brazen.

        Anyhoo, the judge said that since he can’t come back into the US for visitation, the fair thing would be for her to do the traveling. This was on top of the fact that he was the parent who proved that he would most likely follow court orders to co-parent and not cause a fuss about it (like Kelly has and is still doing).

        The thing is, if she had done nothing, the kids would have stayed in the US. Daniel was willing to continue living in the US and co-parent, but she wasn’t.

        So yes, it’s her fault. She should have just sat on her thumbs and just accepted co-parenting.

      • jb says:

        Your comment has made me wonder what the truth is regarding jurisdiction. When my parents were separating/divorced my mother lived in a nearby state and eventually another state for her job. She was unable to get jurisdiction moved from Pennsylvania to where we resided because the courts and her top-notch lawyer said the law states jurisdiction for children remain in the county and state last resided in as husband and wife.
        I wonder how the state of California can claim they no longer have jurisdiction because that is where the children last resided at- regardless of moving to a new state or country it does not mean California can simply drop them- or does it?
        I cannot say I pity or sympathize with this woman. I do however as a child of divorce and custody issues feel tremendously sad for the children. Hopefully, as long as there is one stable, involved, loving parent the kids will be ok. My brother and I are blessed we had our mom who has done everything humanly possible to help us be the best we can be. My hopes is the kids’ dad will do the same.

      • K 2 says:

        There are a lot of Englishwomen living in countries they never planned to, because their exes moved there for work, left them after a year or so, and it had become the kids’ country of habitual residence so the door to return home was closed… unless they chose to leave their children behind. The law is clear on residence, and parental rights and wrongs don’t come into it as long as both sides facilitate contact.

        Yet again, Kelly somehow thinks she is such a special snowflake that the law should be what she would prefer, and anyone arguing to the contrary is oppressing her. There’s nothing preventing her from living in Monaco with her kids. She’s choosing to live way across the Atlantic and away from them, and choosing to create mayhem in their young lives instead.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        @jb Cali had jurisdiction, but because Kelly moved to NY, the kids and Daniel to Monaco, nowadays Cali doesn’t have it anymore. Kelly should have filled a mirror order in NY and Daniel in Monaco. The only who followed that order was Daniel.

      • Fluff says:

        In addition to making up lies about him being a terrorist and a gun runner in order to get him deported, she has been ordered to write a statement in order to help him reapply for a US visa. Kelly keeps making a big deal about the fact he hasn’t reapplied yet, but hides the fact that he can’t reapply until she submits this statement, which she is refusing to do. So basically she’s the one keeping the kids out of the US, by continuing to exploit a fraudulent claim to ban their custodial parent from entering the country.

        I’m amazed she didn’t get brought up on criminal charges for the original false claim – surely knowingly lying about a crime being committed would be considered fraud of some kind? I’m sure her husband would have a solid defamation case on his hands, should he want to sue. She should thank God he appears to be so decent, because he could get her in a lot of trouble if he wanted to.

      • Fluff says:

        Btw her ex actually provided her with her own penthouse in Monaco, and offered to pay for all her flights and travel expenses. So there’s literally no reason she can’t have moved to or spent time in Monaco.

  4. The Eternal Side-Eye says:


    The sad thing is she WILL eventually force him to seek full custody and have her own custody agreement terminated, she’s that destructive and self-serving. Soon visitations will have their own dramatic just for People Magazine scene where she refuses to leave or starts screaming and crying when he tells her her time is up.

    • snowflake says:

      Yep, she is cuckoo, her dramatic stunts aren’t going to stop. They’re getting worse because she knows she’s losing.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I really believe this is what she wants. She will get miles of publicity out of her battle to “save” her kids and preserve some degree of joint custody, but ultimately she will have no real responsibility to raise them. Seeing how she has lapped up the media attention in the past few weeks seriously makes one question her true motives. She isn’t thinking about her children and their well-being. She is thinking only about herself.

      She seems very interested in locking down her next wealthy husband, something that will be much easier without the children around. This may be some of the best acting she has ever done in her life, tbh.

      • Grace says:

        Yes. Agree with everything you said.

      • original kay says:

        I wondered this as well.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Yup, I can picture a visitation where she throws herself on the floor screaming and crying when they ask her to leave only to fly to America and narrate the whole thing as if they dragged her by her hair and physically threw her out of his house.

      • Lurker says:

        Good luck on her part finding a wealthy man who would want that mess. She’s not in the age bracket for trophy wife anymore. And she’s crazy.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Lurker

        She has that Gucci employee boyfriend. He’s a manager or something. I read that he was seen in the car with Kelly and the kids on Sunday during the weekend she illegally kept the kids. Also, I think he’s the one mentioned in the above article as staying with Kelly in Monaco in the three-bedroom house that Daniel provided for Kelly for her visits.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Agree with BearcatLawyer that her real motive is attention. She has done everything possible to stay in the spotlight when shutting up,and sitting down would have been the smart strategy. I don’t think she really has the best interests of her children at heart. I wouldn’t go so far as to say she doesn’t love them. In her sick, self-centered way, she probably does to the extent she is capable. But she cares most about winning and publicity.

      • notasugarhere says:

        He appears to be the manager of the Men’s Department at the NYC Gucci store. He isn’t someone high-level. While it is possible he comes from money (I see nothing to indicate that), she hasn’t landed herself a Pinault.

      • Lurker says:

        Oh I know she has her Gucci man, but clearly he’s no Jeffrey Soffer or James Packer (shudder) or Arpad Busson which I bet is what she’s after. Or at least a guy richer than Daniel Giersch.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        @anne_000 – if what you read is true and the boyfriend helped Kelly in any way to violate the custody order, then he is her co-conspirator and/or an aider/abetter. He needs to be very careful or else he could find himself dragged into this mess and could easily suffer long-term legal and professional consequences.

        This is yet another aspect of this case that truly bothers me: Kelly and her deranged attorney Wendy Murphy may potentially inflict so much collateral damage on people who do not really have a dog in this hunt (e.g., her boyfriend or the various judges who have ruled on the custody dispute). It just further cements my belief that she only cares about winning and getting publicity, not necessarily her children and their feelings.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ BearcatLawyer –

        From the NY Daily News online article; 8.10.15; by Stephen Rex Brown and Nancy Dillon; titled:

        “Kelly Rutherford could face arrest if she doesn’t bring kids to emergency court hearing requested by ex-husband: sources”

        It quotes Daniel’s lawyer Fahi Takesh Hallin as saying:

        “Kelly and her boyfriend, Anthony Brand, a manager at Gucci, were driving in a car yesterday with the children to an unknown destination,” Hallin continued. “Anyone associating themselves with Kelly and her abduction is violating the law.”

      • Ursula says:

        I am actually also convinced that she really does not want to be fully responsible for these children. If her custody came with a large amount of alimony that would cover 24 hour help, a large apartment and tuition payments to fancy schools and activities which would allow her part time parenting when there was nothing better going on then sign her up. But right now all she wants to do is win.
        Also @Bearcatlawyer
        does this name happen to come from the sports team associated with a university in the Midwest?

      • Tara says:

        Agreed. She’s a very sad case of narcissism. I’m glad the kids have their dad and extended family in the EU.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Paparazzi are basically illegal in Monaco and it is difficult to get permission to film anything there. She will no doubt fold this into her anti-Giersch rants, but he doesn’t make the media rules in Monaco.

  5. Lilacflowers says:

    Why yes, Wendy, this is a Hague International abduction case! Because your client violated her visitation rights and kidnapped the children, not for any of the reasons you claim.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That’s what I’m thinking. Keep pushing the Hague bit and Giersch and his lawyers will act to defend the children.

    • lucy2 says:

      I know! That was my first thought when I read it too – yes, KELLY did the international abduction. If either of them had any brains, they’d back off since she hasn’t been charged with anything yet.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      She doesn’t have visitation rights. They share custody. For people who claim to read carefully legal documents and even understand them!, the visitation word comes up here too often. Visitation is for non custodial parents. Only.

  6. LAK says:

    ……but AMERICAN citizens!!!AMERICAN mother.



    • Zapp Brannigan says:


    • Norman Bates' Mother says:

      Poor Albert Kelly of Pennsylvania!
      A few days ago I read that Marcus Mumford was born in the US, so:

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      But can we call him Al? Or will Paul Simon object?

    • Lilacflowers says:

      The Prince went to college in Massachusetts. These kids can choose to do that too.

      But they might want to avoid Wendy

    • Paleokifaru says:

      MN posted this July 23 ruling at the end of the last Rutherford thread:

      Check out the footnote on page 11. Super American Mom is not registered to vote in either of her residential states!

      • Bearcat Lawyer says:

        Bad AMERICAN citizen! Bad!

        One of the questions that can be asked on the naturalization test asks what rights US citizens have that noncitizens do not have. The right to vote is one of them and arguably the most important as it gives citizens a voice in who and how they are governed.

        Bad Kelly! Bad!!!

      • Paleokifaru says:

        I burst out laughing when I read that footnote yesterday because YES the right to vote is absolutely what America is known for. I work in Kenya a lot and have been there through many tumultuous elections and the huge hope among the people there is to have peaceful and non corrupt elections and so many people hold the US up as an example. If you’re going to trumpet American rights Kelly then you best start exercising them!

  7. Norman Bates' Mother says:

    It’s the only reasonable way to do it but we can be sure Kelly’s team will try to portray it as an example of Giersch’s evil ways of alienating her as a mother from her American citizen children. Sigh. I have yet to read one convincing argument that is not an outright lie, to why all those people think the children belong in the US. One.

    • Lara K says:

      And when the kids are old enough and refuse to live with her crazy butt anymore, she will use that as an example of how they have been brainwashed.
      A$$h0les never think they are in the wrong.

  8. NewWester says:

    All this time in court, media interviews, ignoring court rulings etc which is time she could have spent with her children. Divorce can get nasty when children are involved ( been there and got the t-shirt) but at the end of the day you had children with someone and you will be in each other’s lives forever. Best to learn to cope with each and what is in best interests of the children. Adults should act like adults!

  9. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    She asked for this with all her antics. They could all be living happily in the states and have joint custody. The kids would have both mom and dad in their lives full time, but no, that’s not hat kelly seeks. Now, let’s see what 3rd september brings us…

  10. als says:

    I don’t understand anything about this visa thing. So she got his visa revoked and it is evidence on this, why aren’t the US authorities granting him his visa back?

    • Ninks says:

      Kelly is supposed to write to the department of … whoever deals with this and admit that the accusations she made against him were lies. She hasn’t done that yet and hardly seems likely to do so now because she would have to publicly admit to lying about the case. Until the accusations are retracted, he can’t be issued a new visa because the accusations against him are so serious. At least that’s my understanding of it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She was ordered by the court to admit it to authorities to start his reapplication, she refused. He couldn’t reapply until she did that. As of January 2014 the visa and immigration issues are off the table. He does not have to try to move to or visit the US.

    • swack says:

      Because she has to write a letter stating that she/her lawyer, provided false information about him. She has not done that and until she does he cannot apply for another visa.

    • anne_000 says:

      The accusations of dealing drugs and weapons in South America are considered ‘terrorism’ under the Victory Act.

      The lawyer also said he accused Daniel of kidnapping to the State Department.

    • Michelle says:

      At this point why should he bother to reapply at all after everything she has done? Let the kids stay in Monaco. The further away from Kelly the better.

    • K 2 says:

      It’s set out in the judgement, here: http://harris-ginsberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Statement-of-Decision.pdf – [page 43 line 9 - page 44 line 13] (with further discussion of how the suggested, time-limited enforcement mechanism was supposed to work until line 13 page 45).

      It explains exactly what both sides had to do in furtherance of his visa and the children’s return to the States, and it further states that if neither side complained that the other was delinquent on their obligation, then that obligation would mutually lapse. The fact Kelly is only now screaming the odds about his failure to apply is decidedly peculiar, given she had the option to support his visa application herself until January 10, 2014, and chose not to exercise it.

      At this point, the kids have lived in France for 3 years, and are settled and stable there. I’m not sure it would be in their interests to uproot them again, are you?

  11. QQ says:

    Sure Hope he puts security in every door, one can’t watch out enough for an American citizen mom Ghost with entitlement Issues

  12. Wonderbunny says:

    Honestly, if I had a visit from Kelly Rutherford, I’d also want someone there to monitor. I actually don’t believe that she would ever kidnap the kids and move somewhere, because she’d have to live in obscurity without money and that’s not her style. I do, however, think that she can be a bit traumatising with her antics. She could provide a stable situation for her children who have two homes, but instead she brings the drama into the life of the children, who have no say in this matter. I think that speaks volumes of her character.

    • bondbabe says:

      No kidding! I would have monitor(s), including video monitors and GPS trackers on the children (although I’m not sure how you could accomplish that). I believe this woman-in-white to be kinda crazy and ultimately manipulative and selfish.

      • Lady D says:

        You can hollow out a tooth and put the tracker in. A little ceramic and polish and your child is tracked.
        (I saw this idea in a magazine in my vet’s office)

      • Paleokifaru says:

        Lady D I burst out laughing at your comment. But don’t give Kelly any ideas!

  13. NUTBALLS says:

    Is there anything new to say here? I hope her actions of the past month, coupled with her history of preventing him from having a relationship with his kids will ensure the kids never see her alone and in the US.

    The NYT ran an article this past week on the additional challenges of divorcing a narcissist and all I could think about was Giersch’s 6-year custody battle with this loony. Divorcing and custody battles are so much worse when a narcissist is involved, that someone wrote a guide for the partner. The article also gives good tips on how to see the warning signs of a potential narcissist before getting too closely involved with them.

    “If you divorce a narcissist, it’s not going to be a normal divorce because if you leave the narcissist, they never get over it. They seek revenge, and the court system is an incredibly great platform for a narcissist. That’s where they can just continue the battle with the partner and continue to seek revenge, and that’s what happens.”

  14. Ana A. says:

    I didn’t know that he paid for her AND a boyfriend to come over to Monaco. Wow. He really has to have abundance of good Karma. No matter how crazy she is now, he once loved her. It’s one thing to bring her over to visit for the sake of her kids and try to stay civil, but to also pay for her boyfriend must sting even more.

    • Bearcat Lawyer says:

      I think Daniel figured out a long time ago that it is better to pay Kelly off and stop her whining rather than expect her to behave reasonably. And considering the hell she has put him through, I can totally see Daniel telling the bf, “Dude, come on over to Monaco. Let’s have a beer and talk. Are you sure you know what you are getting into here?!?” Ten minutes in Monte Carlo with nubile young girls frolicking on megayachts, and the bf likely rethought his relationship with Kelly!

      As an aside, I would give my left arm to live in Monaco. So gorgeous, clean, and safe.

      • paddyjr says:

        Agree on all points! Daniel seems to trying to take the path of least resistance to try to protect his children. The fact that he is only asking for monitored visits in Monaco, instead of full custody, shows that he understands that having a relationship with Kelly is important for his children. And I wouldn’t turn my nose up at all-expense paid trips to Monaco!

        I think what ticks me off the most about this woman is that, while doing pro bono work for Family Court, I have seen people at their worst, but she puts them to shame. I have had clients who are literally begging their exes for enough money to buy the basics (rent, food, clothes) or to spend time with the kids. She has an ex who has tried to make the best of a bad situation by paying for her visits with the children and has continually promoted her relationship with them, despite all she has put him through. Imagine how frantic he must have been when she said she wasn’t returning the children, especially since he can’t enter the US. Yes, had there been a true emergency, he might have gotten an emergency visa or something similar, but just knowing that you can’t get to your children immediately would be scary.

      • Bread and Circuses says:

        I don’t even know if giving the boyfriend a heads-up was a factor. Probably Kelly is much easier to deal with when she’s well-distracted by her own life. It’s maybe self-defense to keep himself and the children in her peripheral view.

  15. Sam says:

    The Hague generally applies when children are removed from their citizenship home and taken to a place without jurisdiction. The Giersch kids are dual citizens, meaning that Monaco and the US have equal interests, and the US has chosen to relinquish those rights in favor of the more appropriate jurisdiction. That’s it. The Hague would apply if the kids were in, say, Japan, South Africa, etc. – a place where they have no citizenship and there’s no vested interest in keeping them there. The Hague is not so applicable when you have two equal jurisdictions hashing out which is better suited to address the needs of dual citizens. Wendy Murphy is just entirely out of her league here – she is not versed in the international law and needs to check herself before she meets a judge who will sanction her for this mess.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Not really. Not at all actually. If I get divorced and decide to take my child to my home country, where the child has citizenship but has never lived, without my ex husband’s consent and/or knowledge and/or conceal the child or in any way prevent the father from regular access and information, I am by all means guilty in abduction.

  16. Jas says:

    Good for him, he has bent over backwards to accommodate this narcissist and she has continually shown that she has no intention of peacefully co parenting and no ability to put her children’s emotional welfare before her own histrionic drama.

    She deserves to lose all parental rights but if there has to be continued contact, at the very least, for the safety and security of the children and peace of mind for their family, supervised contact in Monaco is extremely forgiving and fair towards her. I hope the judge rules in his favour.

  17. HK9 says:

    Good. She can’t even return the children without the epic shenanigans, and I don’t blame him one bit.

  18. Crumpet says:

    She needs to be monitored while with the children for their well-being, if only for the fact that she continually derides their father in front of them. That alone really burns me up, because I know first hand how painful and distressing that is. That needs to be stopped cold.

    As was pointed to earlier up thread, this is the role of Kelly’s lifetime. Narcissists thrives on drama and conflict and how much more sweet it is for her if it is carried out on a public stage. She really makes me sick. She had a wonderful, successful, involved husband and father to her children and she threw him away.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Her public stage may be removed. Somewhere in the court documents, it states that the parents are forbidden to use the children in the media. Rutherford obviously ignored that. If all her visits moving forward are required to be monitored, I hope they’ll be in Monaco not France. She can’t pap the kids out in a country that has basically made paps illegal (Monaco).

  19. Triple Cardinal says:

    If Kelly truly suffers from narcissism, can a case be made by Daniel that she’s mentally ill?

    Is this a mental disorder or merely a gross character flaw?

    • DEB says:

      A personality disorder. Basically I think she used the man to have kids and then wanted rid of him at all costs. I so hope she continues to shoot herself in the foot. She’s doing a great job so far ;)

  20. Ankhel says:

    So sad it came to this. I was hoping Kelly would come to her senses before Daniel lost his patience, but too late now. I hope the kids won’t be too scarred from it all.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      She would never come to her senses. For that, it would be necessary she had a minimum common sense and she doesn’t..

  21. KyleRandall says:

    For some reason, she reminds me so much of Cate Blanchett’s character in Blue Jasmine.

  22. Becks says:

    I strongly believe that one of the best things we can provide our children is to treat the mother/ or father of your children with respect.

    Without respect, there is contempt or pity, flip sides of the same coin. Children mimic what is modelled, and it’s damaging for them to see one parent viciously putting down the other. Daniel hasn’t ever stopped treating Kelly in a respectful, restrained manner, a Herculean effort given the many provocations. He gets a lot of credit from me for that.

    • briargal says:

      But a lot of people don’t get to see that side of the story. Uninformed viewers watching shows like GMA etc. only hear how she is missing her kids and wants to have them because they are Americans…blah…blah…blah. If only those viewers were to hear “the rest of the story”!!!

      • Lucky Charm says:

        I wish Paul Harvey was still around to tell “the rest of the story”! Sigh…I miss those radio broadcasts. I used to listen to them with my dad.

      • Lady D says:

        I miss Paul Harvey too. I used to listen to him on the radio Sunday nights, and just hearing his voice would bring me to a halt no matter what I was doing. He was a treasure.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I do not have children of my own, but I have often wondered how people can turn so against their exes when they have children. Obviously at one point (one hopes) they loved each other enough to procreate together. If both people truly love their children and want the best for them, why wouldn’t they try to at least be civil with each other and cooperate as best they can to raise the kids well?

      I mean, there are lots of people we do not necessarily like or love but we have to deal with every day to get things done. I just do not understand how someone can be very cooperative and polite to, say, a DMV employee when getting a driver’s license renewed (a task that is very necessary to lots of people’s livelihoods but not nearly as important as raising a child) but then turn into a raving, angry lunatic when talking to an ex about their kids. It just seems to me like their priorities are seriously skewed.

      • Paleokifaru says:

        Bearcatlawyer I think the problem here, and in other personal instances, is you have one half of the couple who is actually not capable of the kind of open and selfless love you find in healthy, mutually respectful relationships. They are people who are capable of that fast intensity relationship because it gives them a high and fulfills them and their needs and the other person falls for it. Later, when it’s too late, they realize they were snowed. And if they’re a good person, as DG appears to be, they manage to put their own hurt and anger aside to do what’s right for the kids. But the other half won’t because it’s still all about them. Even if the legal battle dies down, Daniel will be facing these problems as long as they are parenting the same kids. It will be a problem with mediation or for inane things like agreeing on colleges and how that is funded. Sadly, I know from experience.

      • Paleokifaru says:

        Not to say college is inane but a choice that seems logical or that you may only have one realistic option for it, the narcissist or borderline personality will fight you every step of the way.

      • Lady D says:

        I used to see that on Maury. The woman would be well-spoken and articulate (mostly) but the minute the ex appeared on stage, and the discussion turned to children, they would turn into a shrill, shrieking harpy. Literally become a different person.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Becquse sometims the adults show their worse during separation or on the way to it and this side had never been exposed before. Both around meand in my husband’s family we have dicorced people and the behaviour I’ve seen during separation was something Iwould have sworn these people were never ever capable of. One even tried to steal the child’smoney from a joint account. How is she supposed to still respect him? Another simply left a two year old behind to pursue his career. How is the wife to treat him? And both those men are the image of success, dignity, and devotion to everyone out there with glorious careers, surrounded by adoring friends, etc. Sometimes people don’t show all they can do.

  23. anne_000 says:

    1. There’s no telling if the “source” who’s saying Daniel wants supervised visits and no more US visits is from Daniel’s or Kelly’s side. But it’s most likely from Kelly’s side as:

    1) Daniel’s side usually doesn’t leak his legal strategies ahead of time from “sources.” His side is more strictly controlled with whatever is said to the public directly going through his lawyers as his spokespeople.
    2) It’s more probable that Kelly’s side is saying this, because it gives her an opportunity to get back on the media tour with fresh new allegations and victimhood by Daniel’s hand.

    2. Cindy Adams is a nutball. How could she not absorb what Daniel’s lawyer said and then say the kids belong in the US because ‘MURICA!!!!

    • notasugarhere says:

      Good assessment. Giersch keeps the legal strategy out of public view. I think the first thing he has to do is get Monaco’s jurisdiction locked down. Monaco, EU, US – everybody has to sign on the dotted line. September 3 might be taken up with that.

  24. justagirl says:

    From the comments it seems that most people have not experienced dealing with a true narcissist…. They are not just someone who wants things their way, or someone who wants attention.

    A narcissist is someone who manipulates people and situations to their benefit…always while flying under the radar. They play people like chess pieces…and people never know they are being played.

    A narcissist is an excellent con man, because no one sees it coming. They are excellent at reading people and manipulating. They are never obvious.

    They are so good at what they do that they make their victims desperate. Their victims struggle to get anyone to listen & understand. Meanwhile the narcissists sit back all calm while their victims look crazy.

    • Jessiebes says:

      So….. Just in case I am not misreading your post. Who do you think the narcessist is here?

      • SavageGrace says:

        You read correctly… she’s claiming – as I’ve noticed her do in at least one other article – that Daniel is the bad guy, not Kelly.


      • notasugarhere says:

        A new sea lion tactic?

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        More than one… look the posts below… People don’t read the court docs (all of them) and then … form opinions without previous knowledge…

      • justagirl says:

        I’m saying that while everyone says Kelly is a raging narcissist, in reality, narcissists are not obvious, they are very subtle how they play people.

        And often situations that look like a complete slam-dunk “this person is totally cray-cray” warrant a closer look.

        I have no idea what a “sea lion tactic” is but generally on this site there is room for intelligent dialogue and differing opinions…

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Disagree justagirl. People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which many here think Kelly has) may seem subtle when they’re wooing someone under their spell, such as in the early days of romance. Once they feel they aren’t getting what they believe they’re entitled to, they are going to be very obvious in their response to that. Narcissists CRAVE attention and admiration and in Kelly’s case, she’s trying to get this through her constant media appearances.

        Daniel has been the exact opposite, keeping himself and his kids out of the media and not asking for anything more than 50% custody. Once she got him kicked out of the country, the courts gave him custody since she can visit the kids anywhere, but he can’t visit the kids in the US.

        Please familiarize yourself with the case and specifically the court documents that demonstrate that the person who has created all the problems in this custody fight has been Kelly. It’s with good reason that courts have ruled in Daniel’s favor after all the low-ball tactics she’s employed to keep the kids away from their dad.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      Additionally, they lack empathy. People are exploited for the narcissist’s gain. It truly is all about them and any appearance of other-centeredness is actually being used for their own purposes.

      As noted in the NYT article above, there’s a spectrum and the more traits a person has, the more difficulty they have in their relationships. Kelly to me, seems to exhibit a lot of these traits.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      So you’re saying?

      @Jessiebes, I’m getting the same interpretation as you of justagirl’s words…

    • Betti says:

      I have worked with a Narcissist and he behaved just like Kelly (both are text book) – the type you refer to seems to be more of a Psychopath, who are generally more controlled than a Narcissist who has no impulse control and show very erratic behaviour.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      I didn’t read the last paragraph right. I was tracking with her on what a narcissist is up to that point, in describing Kelly. I disagree that a narcissist sits back calm… they talk, make noise, call attention to themselves and basically will reveal their true disorder when they feel threatened. This would describe Kelly, not Daniel.

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      I’ve met two clinical narcissists in my life. They did not fly under the radar; not even slightly. They always made themselves the centre of attention.

      Claim Daniel is a manipulator if you like, but he doesn’t show any signs of being a narcissist. That’s Kelly.

  25. happy girl says:

    I don’t know much about her, but have followed this story. I happen to know a woman whose child is with the father for no reason whatsoever other than malignant vengeance. It is not to be believed. She is not crazy, a drug addict, an abuser….the child was living a very lovely privleged life. He went on a serious mission to destroy her and take the child. And he did. Bottom line is, I now see how twisted and disgusting the legal system is if one person has enough money and enough rage and intent. As far as I know Kelly Rutherford has never been accused or proven to be a lunatic/addict etc. to warrant removing her children in such a horrible situation. Children need both parents. The end.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      They have joint custody 50-50. She hasn’t lost her children. They’re living in Monaco because she lied to State Dpt accusing her ex of being a terrorist and he ended up with a revoked visa. Everything is in the court docs. Why people don’t read before forming an opinion?
      She placed a phone no in her son’s shoe and instructed him to call the police if the father took him to the airport, and a lot more things like this…

    • Don't kill me I'm French says:

      excuse me but who is the drama queen here ? Who follows all the courts’decisions ? Who follows the court recommendations ? Who menaced to blackmail?

    • bokchoi says:

      oh hi Kelly! nice to see you trolling the comment threads again…

    • Jessiebes says:

      You are implying that Daniel Giersch paid of more than four seperate Judges to get the children? Yet he couldn’t pay for his visa not to be revoked.

      Read the court documents please.

      • Starrywonder says:

        They started saying that now too? Yeah sure that’s what happened. He paid off judges, even though it’s pretty clear what went down every step of the way. She has no one to blame but herself.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        @starrywonder, some people are claiming DG is paying us to defend him online… :D
        Can I laugh a lot??

      • SavageGrace says:

        @Solanacaea (Nighty): Hold up… we get paid to defend him? e_e Where’s my money, Daniel!? I’ve got bills to pay, dude! e_e

        If he’s paying judges, online commenters, lawyers, etc., dude must be, like, a trillionaire… Show me the money, Daniel! 0_0

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        Apparently yeah SavageGreen, according to some commentators. Here’s an example: “this interview was from years ago. nice. you are certainly earning whatever he is paying you.” in People’s comments…
        Funny though, the only money coming my way is that of the Ministry of Education; maybe Daniel changed his name?

      • SavageGrace says:

        OMG. I shouldn’t be surprised but I kinda am. They are getting incredibly desperate to excuse away facts and logic. x_x

      • Starrywonder says:

        Good grief? Yeah sure that’s what happening lol.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Children need a sane, loving, and stable adult as their care giver. They do not have to have two parents, they just need at least one good one (or good grandparent, aunt, uncle, foster parent, adoptive parent(s), whomever is raising them).

      If you had read the court documents, instead of just following Rutherford’s side of the story in the gossip press, you might have a better understanding. Thank goodness, again, for CB and posters who keep sharing facts!

      To sum up:
      Awarded joint custody while both parents lived in the US.

      She didn’t like that, she and her lawyer lied to the State Department to get his visa revoked. This was admitted in the court documents.

      He could not apply for a new visa to step foot on US soil until she admitting to the visa folks that she lied. He could not apply until she did that. She refused to do that.

      A US court awarded residential custody to Giersch because 1) he could not come to the US to see the kids for his 50/50 custody and 2) the judge knew Rutherford wouldn’t co-parent. Other US courts upheld this decision.

      Multiple US courts have determined that Giersch is the parent who actively promotes co-parenting, while Rutherford doesn’t. Her many attempts at getting Giersch out of the children’s lives were noted in court documents. They show a near pathological attempt to remove their beloved father from their lives.

      As of January 2014, visa and immigration are off the table as part of custody. Giersch is free to stay in Europe.

      Both were directed to get a mirror order of the California court’s ruling (the one that still stands today). Giersch got one in Monaco, Rutherford failed to get one in New York. Now Monaco courts likely have jurisdiction because 3 out of 4 people involved live in Monaco and because Rutherford failed to establish NY residency or mirror order.

      (I know, but it seems the best way to deal with sea lions is the statement of lots and lots of facts).

      • Lady D says:

        Is it too late for her to get a mirror order in New York, or would it do her no good to get it now? I understand she was judge shopping hoping to get what she wanted in court, but if she applied for the mirror order she wouldn’t have to go to Monaco for court issues over the children, right?

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think the time ran out on getting the mirror order, so now jurisdiction will mostly likely be in Monaco. That’s what I think he has to get nailed down, before attempting any big moves. He has to get the US courts to agree, which they pretty much already have, that Monaco has jurisdiction moving forward.

    • Izzy says:

      If you really have followed the story, then you would not be suggesting (as you did above) that Giersch is the narcissist. First, please learn more about narcissism. Narcissists thrive on attention. They are not calm and quiet, they like to be at the center of things.

      Second, READ THE ORIGINAL COURT OPINION on custody. The judge spent an unholy amount of ink outlining all the various ways Kelly Rutherford had tried to screw her ex and alienate the kids from him. The document very clearly outlines what happened leading up to the revocation of his visa. Not speculation – FACTS. They are your friend.

  26. Jessie says:

    This is not a Hague case and she should know by know it was never a Hague case. I married and Englishman and lived in the UK with him in our daughter for 6 years, until I decided to end our marriage and return to America where I had more support. He sued me for some custody of our child, and I spent two years in court trying to get something called a “leave to remove” so that my daughter could move out of the UK and come to live with me in the US. The courts do not make the decision based on what country the child “belongs” to–they make the decision based on which parent can best take care of the child regardless of which country the live in. The courts obviously found that Kelly’s ex was best suited and had a better support system to take care of the children. If Kelly had wanted to fight him in a clean fight, she would have gone out of her way to prove she was a better mother and more than happy to do anything to be with her children, including facilitating co)parenting with her ex. The fact that she has and continues to do the exact opposite just shows how delusional and self entitled she is, and that the court made the right decision by leaving the kids with their father.

    • Izzy says:

      I’d like to say she does know that, but the thing is, Kelly Rutherford is so batsh-t crazy, she’s battier than sh-t. And her lawyer is a complete idiot.

  27. funcakes says:

    I knew this would be Kelly’s fate when she pulled that stunt last visit.
    Not only does she has to be monitored, she have to be on her best behavior in front of the monitor. This is going to get ugly. Someone else Kelly’s going to think is undermining her. She going to be rude and uncooperative instead of taking this as on opportunity to prove she is capable of being trusted with her children.
    Is there anyway they can stipulate that she has to go to a therapist before they can end the supervised visits. If not it really should be. Plus parenting classes.

  28. funcakes says:

    I’m not trying to be a wise a##,but isn’t the Hague for war crimes?

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      Not only , i n 1980 it became also about Children Abduction. Google Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and also Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children

  29. flyonthewall says:

    Kelly Osborne is also in the news today…funny how both Kellys are similar in the most mysterious ways

    • Lucky Charm says:

      I have not met (or heard of) a Kelly yet that wasn’t delusional or didn’t act like a jerk. Which is a shame, because I think it’s such a nice name.

  30. Steph O says:

    (Insert grumpy cat picture) good.

    At no point has Kelly attempted to de-escalate this situation. Ever. And that is very scary to me. Where is the line for her? The fact that she clearly doesn’t think she’s crossed it is very worrying. I hope she doesn’t do anything to those poor children.

  31. Dido says:

    I’d think public opinion would turn on her when one court after another rules in the father’s favor.

  32. momof2 says:

    The legalities of this horrible situation have been covered – on this post as well as others – so let me opine on something else. What really irks me (and this has been pointed out by others countless times too) is Kelly’s hunger for publicity and what she’ll do to get it and stay in the limelight.

    Yes, I understand the desire to get the media’s attention for her “case” and get people like Dan Abrams on her side. But she goes way beyond this and to the extent that it involves her children, it really sickens me. Whenever they are pictured with her it seems posed and contrived or, like in most cases, it IS an actual staged event where she poses with them on a red carpet, dressing them up and showing them off like trained show ponies. If she really cared about them, wouldn’t she use her time with them in a way that would benefit THEM instead of her? Don’t kids like to play, go the zoo, socialize with kids their own age? Just a thought.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      Right now and considering her remarks to the media that if someone kidnapped her children to take them to the states would be a hero and if somehing went wrong during that so kidnapping no one would blame that person, seals the deal for me on her having solely monitored visitations. Of course, the best for the kids is to have contact with both parents, definitely. I don’t think any of the commenters here think she should never see her kids again, but the visits must be monitored…

    • anne_000 says:

      I agree with you.

      It was summer in NYC of all the places in the world! There would have been so many fun things for kids to do and see.

      Instead, it seemed like every day was Kelly waking the kids up with “Let’s see. Where can we go next? Mama needs to get pap’d.”

  33. Tracy says:

    I’m sure there is much to this story that the public does not know. But there is no doubt that Kelly hurt her legal standing and credibility sumthin’ awful by withholding the kids this last visit. I hope those kids have a happy childhood in Monaco and are basically happy little kids.

  34. Brasileira says:

    Actually, this IS a Hague case. Rutherford did kidnap those kids when refusing to send them back to their father as per court orders.

    • anne_000 says:

      You’re right. That’s why I find it amusing when she and her lawyer keep bringing it up. It’s like a bank robber bringing up laws about burglary when deriding a bank he’s just robbed.

  35. Izzy says:

    I commend Daniel Giersch for even being willing to entertain the possibility of letting his ex near those kids again. I’m not sure I’d be so inclined after her last stunt.

    Having said that, wouldn’t it just be delightful if his legal team surprised the heck out of everyone if on Sept. 3rd they just outright filed for sole custody and to sever all her visitation rights? I for one would not even be opposed to it at this point. She’s put those kids through enough.

    As for supervised visitation, I would insist on there being armed guards in case the nutball tried to make a run for it again with the kids.

    • SavageGrace says:

      After her “hero” comment and her ever growing desperation, monitor or not, I wouldn’t put it passed her to get someone to help snatch the kids during a visit so I agree – he needs guards on them too.

      Call me paranoid but I just don’t trust this woman. At all.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      No, it wouldn’t be delightful for the kids, no matter what you think. Their best interest should come first and it doesn’tmake your idea delightful at all but the concept of the children’s best interest is sadly often lost in translation.

  36. d says:

    I’ve had the misfortune of dealing with narcissists and it’s true, they’e VERY manipulative and VERY underhanded about it in that if you’re not paying attention, you don’t notice it until too late. I knew this woman who made it seem like her husband was all bad and she was ALWAYS the victim … until people starting figuring out the truth and put things together. It’s ALWAYS about them, always, even when they say they’re doing something for you, or love you, or care about you, or some such thing, if you think about it, what’s really going on is ultimately about them. You have to be very careful about these kinds of people. I think if you recognize it immediately and set boundaries, you can manage them or extract yourself without them going destructive. But most of the time, it ends up being too late and you have to deal with being the “bad guy” while they badmouth you to everyone (although if friends dump you without your input in this kind of situation, maybe they’re not good friends anyway).
    Back to Kelly: I hope she stops wearing white; it’s so transparent and obvious. I’m embarrassed for her.

  37. Robin says:

    The kids are safe and happy with their dad. At this point I’m more worried about that little white dog.

  38. skippy says:

    I’d like to think this mess would be over Sept 3, but it won’t be. She won’t stop.

    • YT says:

      She won’t stop, but having to deal with the court in Monaco and the lack of paps in Monaco will slow her down considerably. She ignored the U.S. court orders while playing her victim role, and she will be a greater victim with a “foreign” court.

      The U.S. news reporters and commentators will continue to discuss her sad story because they need the controversy and baseless accusations for hype to bring in the advertising dollars. With the slant they are giving this story, it’s a waste of time to believe anything on any subject reported.

  39. NewKay says:

    Firstly, sorry I didnt realize there was someone else called Kay on this site.
    Re:Kelly- I think she is absolutely cray cray…but that said, I also feel for her when I hear the original judges ruling factoring in her work load vs Daniel’s availability. I feel like it’s punishing successful women to say, you have a high demand job, so you can’t get custody. My mother was a nurse who worked shifts, my dad was available for us 99% of the time, but my mom was absolutely the better parent. If my parents had divorced, based on my moms hectic work schedule and my dads availability he would have gotten custody.

    Kelly is undoubtedly nuts and I believe that she and her lawyers created the situation she is in now.

    But generally – outside of this case, i feel like there is a move by high profile dads with money, to use their position to get custody of their kids.

    IMO there’s a special place in hell for husbands who take kids from their mothers (cough *usher*).

  40. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    Not my credit but that of a Law firm:
    Everything the Media is WRONG about in Kelly Rutherford Custody Case
    There have been multiple articles written about the international child custody case regarding Gossip Girl’s Kelly Rutherford, who was married to German entrepreneur Daniel Giersch and who shares joint custody of their two kids Hermés and Helena.

    To sum up an extremely lengthy child custody dispute, a California court ordered joint custody of the children to both parents, but primary physical custody to Giersch, who now lives in Monoco. Recently, both California and New York courts determined they no longer had jurisdiction over the case (as the children live in Monoco and pursuant to the Hague Convention on international child custody, to which the US is a signatory.) In the summer of 2014, after Kelly had the children for six weeks, she kept the children in New York past the court-ordered date they were to return to their father. After an emergency hearing, a New York judge ordered the children returned to their father immediately.

    Although there have been many stories on this case, there is one thing that the American media has failed to do: actually read the court orders for the case when reporting on them. Kelly is a well-known actress who likely has a lot of friends who work in the media and for the gossip rags, so that’s probably why they are presenting the story with a Kelly-heavy spin.

    It is a sad story, and no doubt Kelly cares for her children. However, here are a few things wrong that the media fails to mention about this case:

    Kelly keeps complaining that her children are American citizens and were “arrested” and “deported” to live in Monoco with their father. This could not be farther from the truth. This is a joint custody case, not an immigration case. In the 52 page California custody decision from 2012, the judge listed the myriad reasons why he ordered the children to live primarily with their father. The children were not arrested or deported; they are simply under the custody of their father.
    The media fails to mention how the court order details that Kelly’s former attorney made a false claim to the U.S. State Department to revoke the husband’s visa, while telling him he would stop making this call if the father gave up his rights to see the children. Basically, the reason he cannot return to the US is due to Kelly and her attorney attempting to get rid of him, and it backfired. Judges do not look kindly upon one parent who tries to alienate the children from the other parent.
    Kelly claimed that the NY judge who ordered the children to return to Monoco did not have jurisdiction (and the courts agreed). However, when she failed to return the children per the prior court order, NY (or any state where the children were located) could assume temporary, emergency jurisdiction to ensure the children were safe and to enforce existing court orders.
    Kelly claimed she could not kidnap the children, because they were in contact with her father during that time via phone and Skype. However, the kidnapping was in reference to the failure to return the children on the stated date of a court order, and this does qualify as “child abduction” under the Hague Convention. Whether the father knew of their physical location was irrelevant.

    We wish the best for Kelly, David and the children. The sooner the parents can work together for the benefit of the children, the better off everyone will be.