Kelly Rutherford, to Vanity Fair: custody battle is ex’s ‘side fun project’

Kelly Rutherford Ordered To Give Back Her Children To Ex In Monaco **FILE PHOTOS**
Vanity Fair has a long piece about Kelly Rutherford’s custody battle which is heavily biased in her favor. As she’s done in just about every interview to date, Rutherford makes vague accusations against her ex husband, Daniel Giersch, which are impossible to verify. This is her M.O., to paint her ex as this shady distant German guy who stole her kids from her. The truth is that Rutherford has consistently failed to foster a co-parenting relationship with Giersch while he’s accommodated her. Plus there’s the whole issue of her kidnapping their kids this summer by refusing to send them back to Monaco. I won’t get into all that again, I’m assuming you know the details. This piece is disappointing, but it’s nothing new from Rutherford. It’s just surprising to me that there are outlets like Vanity Fair which are willing to run her side of the story as if it’s accurate when she’s been proven anything but. I guess the fact that Rutherford is talking is still working in her favor. Giersch has wisely kept quiet and given her enough rope to hang herself over and over.

Here are some excerpts from the article
, which explains away key details that work against Rutherford, particularly the fact that she left Giersch’s name off their daughter’s birth certificate and the incident in which a lawyer on Rutherford’s side got Giersch deported. According to this account, the lawyer who called the State Department did so on his own volition. If that’s the case this is the first time we’ve heard of it. I’m cutting so much out so if you’re interested you can read it at the source.

Update: article redacted due to pending litigation against the source publication.

The article concludes that Rutherford is likely to be left with supervised visitation and that this is sad for her and she’ll continue fighting. I have to refute this new account of how Rutherford’s side got Giersch deported. They claimed an accusation was made to the State Department without Rutherford’s knowledge that Giersch had alleged “shell” companies. Earlier accounts, run by celebrity-friendly People Magazine, claimed that “Kelly stated on the record that Daniel was dealing drugs and weapons in South America.” That’s a much different story than blaming a new lawyer for making a call without Kelly’s knowledge. Suddenly all the arms dealing accusations are forgotten.

Rutherford’s next court date in her custody case is set for October 26 in Monaco.

You guys – she’s wearing black now. I swear in every photo I’ve seen since she returned from Monaco she’s wearing black! This is a sign. Also, she clung to a young girl who was not her daughter at the Pan premiere. If that was Kelly’s kid she’d be in black too.
Celebrities Attend The Premiere Of PAN

Kelly Rutherford Lunches In Beverly Hills

Giorgio Armani And The Cinema Society Host A Screening Of Sony Pictures Classics' "Truth"

photo credit: FameFlynet

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

105 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford, to Vanity Fair: custody battle is ex’s ‘side fun project’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. meme says:

    That’s right, VF, give this deluded nutjob a forum for her lies and self-pity. She is loathesome and needs to shut up.

  2. Audrey says:

    I can’t handle her level of delusional. There isn’t enough coffee in the world to prepare me for what comes out of this woman’s mouth

  3. Anon says:

    I don’t get the part about “wanting to be a part of his daughter’s life” and making it sound like a bad thing? Clearly she was upfront about not wanting him to have a role in the then unborn child’s life, and that’s why she was served with papers so many times.

    • Celebitchy says:

      To be clear those headers are mine. I will add that to the source link details.

      • Anon says:

        Ohhh sorry for my confusion, thanks for clarifying! It’s still amazing to me though that she seems to describing that as a bad thing. How lucky that little girl is that her father has fought to be a part of her life!

      • swack says:

        But she did not want his name to be on the birth certificate even though there is no question of paternity. Thus, most likely, the reason for the custody papers.

  4. InvaderTak says:

    I do not get why the press is on her side. Is the mother bias that strong? Even in the Hollywood press? They lie and cover for her. There’s no reason to, it’s not like she’s a money maker for someone.

    • HeySandy says:

      My guess is because of the “Murica!” angle that the press is milking from the story. The narrative she and the media here is selling is poor little Murican actress had her childrens snatched by the big, bad German ex. It appeals to those that can’t get past the America great, rest of the world bad mindset. It sells well, I’m sure.

    • Luca76 says:

      Nah I don’t think these people are ‘murica’ types. I think she’s got a lot of friends in the media and Hollywood scene and they believe her BS. She’s probably really good at playing the sympathy card, and goes to all the same dinner parties as them weeping.

      • HeySandy says:

        I guess that could be true as well, but I have a hard time with the thought Kelli is so connected, being that she is a C-list actress on a good day. Maybe it is a little of both? She is connected and her story appeals to the public?

      • Luca76 says:

        But Vanity Fair is not really that demographic though? I so thinks she goes to diner parties in the Hamptons and the Upper East side and knows socialites and people with old money that could get her into Vanity Fair. That’s not the same as being a Hollywood power player. It’s a NYC world of old money and influence.

      • Greenieweenie says:

        I think so too. Look at how she plays up to the paps with her secret code clothing and these manic smiles any time she’s papped with her kids. And she’s clever, because she hides their faces on social media so ppl get the impression she doesn’t want attention on them. I think she’s psycho. If she wanted more access to her kids, the adult choice is to coparent. She just wants a fight.

    • LB says:

      Because the father (rightfully) refuses to talk to the press or engage the media to gain leverage in court (it won’t work). They only get one side and it’s a topic people are interested in, clearly, so they continue to write about it, despite only getting one side.

      What I don’t understand is why none of these writers bother to read the Court’s decision. In this circumstance, I’d trust that far more than the word of one of the parties.

    • vauvert says:

      She talks to the press. He doesn’t. Most people out there aren’t as informed about the case as we are on this site, where her lies have been debunked multiple times over. If all you read is the brief People crap or the regular gossip rags – they all have her POV because – again… she talks to them. he is just parenting quietly.

    • hannah says:

      because she’s willing to talk to them and give them a story . Her ex is not .

  5. Nancy says:

    Not judging her, but am somewhat questioning her mental stability. She hates the father much more than she loves the kids and it should be reversed. She resents his wealth, but wealth doesn’t always guarantee you get custody, ask Tom Cruise. Have never met someone who was subtle in verbal abuse, she seems paranoid. Okay I cant take my attorney hat off. I would love to read the transcripts and learn the whole truth and nothing but the truth about this case.

    • anne_000 says:

      Statement of Decision Kelly Rutherford Harris Ginsberg.

      It’s an interesting read.

      • Nancy says:

        Thank you Anne. Wow….the monumental amount of interrogatories. Kramer v Kramer this is not. She is truly making this not without my children who are now pawns in this fiasco. Sad.

  6. blueb says:

    Dumb question: Is Kelly Rutherford in Pan, and if not, do celebs get paid to attend movie premiers?

    • paddingtonjr says:

      She’s not in Pan (I think she would have mentioned the fact that she’s working) and I don’t think anyone would pay a woman of her talent to show up to a premiere. Publicists usually work with each other and her publicist probably got tickets for her to capitalize on the VF article and upcoming custody hearing. That’s why you will see random has-beens at high-profile events: their publicists are working with other publicists to get their clients in front of producers, the public, executives, etc. Celebrities are, however, frequently paid to attend charity events.

      Every time this woman gives an interview, it seems she changes the story and doesn’t care if her story is directly contradicted by court documents. There is something very wrong with her; she just doesn’t seem to live in the real world. She needs supervised visits, at the very least, and I would suggest the Court order additional psychological evaluations of all parties involved.

  7. Talie says:

    I do think her ex is shady, but she would’ve known about these weird issues with him before she got pregnant. She obviously wanted a rich dude, probably being influenced by the Gossip Girl life at that time.

    • swack says:

      What makes you think her ex is shady? Have seen nothing he has done as shady.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Statement of Decision.

      “The Court will comment here on an assertion that Kelly has made regarding Daniel’s transparency or forthrightness with regard to his financial or employment status. Although Daniel’s testimony in this area was at times halting, overly technical and reluctant, the Court does not find this to be key to the analysis of the children’s best interest because Daniel’s financial and employment status are not at issue in this case.”

      “And, to some degree, the Court understands the reluctance of Daniel to make legal statements regarding residence and other matters that he may fear could be used against him by Kelly in some manner as a result of the experience with Kelly’s counsel, Mr. Rich, which the Court will discuss further below.”

      • Naya says:

        Minority opinion >>>> these are the quotes that make me wonder about that first judge. I just feel like she allowed her personal bias in to the case quite a bit. Perhaps granting him residential custody would still have been the right thing to do, but its weird how she criticises Kelly over witholding her own work situation but excuses Giersch reticence as “oh, he just doesnt want the other side to use it against his case” . And why isnt a parties source of income relevant in a custody matter of all things? Is she saying that if Pablo Escobar were in her court her only concern would be how much he has and not how he is getting it? Then didnt she set the review even later than even HE requested knowing full well that the longer he has them the less likely the decision will be reversed – and also that jurisdiction is bound to shift to the residential country the longer they stay?

        Residential custody for him may have been the best solution (purely because he cant travel to the US) but I’ll be damned if that judge didnt have a pre selected horse.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Did you read the entire document? It is laid out, clearly, why they went with residential custody for him. Among other things, the lowest amount of time that Kelly could have seen them in the Monaco/France plan was MORE than he could have seen them in the New York Plan.

  8. Esteph says:

    You got it right though Celebitchy….Giersch has kept wisely kept quiet. He isn’t the one who is making himself look like a fool, it’s all Kelly

    • antipodean says:

      This woman is a certified loon. It is blatantly obvious that she is more concerned with vilifying her ex, than love of her children. It occurs to me that if she needs a job, she would be an excellent professional Cassandra, or one of those women who is employed to weep and wail at funerals.

  9. Sam says:

    Okay, if she was so appalled by the lawyer’s actions in trying to get her ex’s visa revoked, then why not do everything in her power to correct it? Write a letter to the State Department explaining that this attorney did not represent you, was not working for you and was not authorized to dig into your ex’s immigration history. And it was far more than “questionable application.” Please – lawyers deal with those all the time. People who exaggerate their situations on refugee applications or something. She outright accused the ex of dealing in weapons and having links to terrorism.

    I’d be interested to hear from this lawyer, if he responds. She’s throwing him under the bus here, so it’ll be interesting if he defends himself publicly.

    • lucy2 says:

      Exactly – she’s had every opportunity to correct that problem, and I think was even instructed by the courts to write the letter to clear up his visa issues. But she’s refusing, and now trying to blame someone else!
      Maybe the lawyer will sue her.

      • Sam says:

        Yeah, I hope the lawyers clarify what went on (the article says they no longer represent her, so that means they could talk if they wanted about some things).

        Also, her ex had his visa almost immediately revoked. And BS this was about “child abduction,” If one parent is a flight risk, the standard for the court is to order both their passport and the kids’ turned over to a neutral 3rd party, among other remedies. They would not have revoked his visa for such an allegation. The allegations she made (through her lawyer) were incredibly serious – serious enough to warrant an immediate revocation. And she has done very little since then to correct the error. She is so full of it now it’s actually sad. She’s trying to cover up every single misstep she’s made thus far.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The Statement of Decision, pages 21 and 22, show that she knew exactly what was going on and she participated in it.

  10. Lilacflowers says:

    So, did she file a complaint with the board of bar overseers against this mystery attorney who got her ex deported without her assistance and resulted in her kids living elsewhere? Because that is what is done normally. And family law cases generate the most legal malpractice claims and disciplinary complaints. Unless she’s lying? Again

  11. Maudd says:

    This is complete nonsense! I have lived and worked in Germany and do not recognise this. To make generalisations about a whole population group is not very smart….

    • InvaderTak says:

      I had a reply to that person as well. Sounded like a KR stan and not a real person with actual experience. Good for CB for deleting.

      • morc says:

        Me too, they were delusional and uninformed.
        There anecdotal realtor study is completely idiotic, you are liable for driving actions under false pretenses, it’s cashed “Vorspiegelung falscher Tatsachen” or simply “Betrug” (fraud).

  12. lucy2 says:

    “Daniel made me go through a custody evaluation while I was pregnant.”
    Because you left him and tried to keep him from having any parental rights.
    “He sued me like he’d sued Google.” Because they infringed on his copyright with “gmail” in Germany. And he won, because he was in the right.
    “He served me custody papers right up until I went into labor.” See first statement again.

    This woman spends so much time and energy whining and crying and blaming everyone else for making her life oh so difficult, when she could be spending time with her children in Monaco, living in a home her ex was willing to provide her, writing the necessary letters to get his visa issues cleared up, and looking for a job to support herself.

  13. Lady D says:

    She didn’t lose her children. She shares 50/50 custody with their father, just like millions of other families.

    • swack says:

      But from all indications (and reading what Kelly has said in the past), unless she has 100% custody and Giersch has 0%, then she has lost her children.

    • Lady D says:

      This was a reply to the missing comment.
      Does anyone else have a problem with the cancel button? I’ve used 3 or 4 times now, but each time the comment still gets posted.

      • swack says:

        Sorry, Lady D. Did not realize a comment had been deleted. As far as the cancel button, I have found if the comment box is not empty (you have to erase your comment yourself), while it will appear to “cancel” your reply, the words still stay there. In other words, I have gone to comment to someone else and the original comment was still there if I didn’t erase it. Clear as mud, right?

      • Lady D says:

        No problem swack, and as for your explanation, thank you. Fortunately I speak mud so it made sense. :)

    • Pumpkin Pie says:

      She wears black now because she probably reads the comments here in CB ;)

      • Bearcat Lawyer says:

        That’s my suspicion too. She strikes me as the kind of person who constantly Googles herself and tidies up her Wikipedia page frequently.

  14. morc says:

    You are absolutely held responsible for doing things under false pretenses, in fact it is criminal – “Vorspiegelung falscher Tatsachen”.

    As for the rest of your bold chains they are as inappropriate as you are uninformed.

  15. QQ says:

    It’s not Black, the color is actually Called “American Sorrow”, tho I see how you’d make that mistake

  16. Neah23 says:

    I think the black is because she in “mourning” .

    Thanks QQ
    My mistake she wearing the American sorrow color because she in “mourning” .

    • funcakes says:

      Vanity Fair has been a running joke for a while now. MAD magazines is a more reliable news source.

      • beanie says:

        Yes Vanity Fair got it wrong on this one. Vanity Fair is considered to be written from a very liberal viewpoint. Their political articles are terribly one sided, not even an attempt to portray both sides of a political argument. Liberal slanted journalism. Quelle surprise.

  17. notasugarhere says:

    She will lie about anything. She didn’t know what Rich was doing? Read the Statement of Decision, pages 21-22. She knew what he was doing, she was told ahead of time, she witnessed it, and she admitted it. Selected quotes:

    The Court finds that the following events transpired:
    - On December 12, 2011, in the courthouse, Kelly’s counsel, Matthew Rich, in her presence, advised Daniel and his counsel that he was on the telephone with the State Department, and stated that he had called the State Department.

    - On December 12, 2011, in the presence of Kelly and in the hallway of the courthouse, Mr. Rich stated to Daniel’s counsel and Daniel that he was contacting the State Department to have Daniel arrested and/or deported, and that he would be providing the State Department with the transcript from the December 12th hearing

    - When Mr. Rich approached Daniel and his counsel in the courthouse hallway on December 12, 2011, and told them he had the State Department on the line and urged that Daniel be arrested, Kelly was sitting on a bench close to where Daniel and counsel were standing. She did not stop Mr. Rich from making the call asking that Daniel be arrested

    - Kelly was sitting across from Daniel’s counsel and Mr. Rich in the hallway when this happened

    - Mr. Rich told Daniel’s counsel that if Daniel signed the Stipulation, the “problem” would go away. Kelly was sitting next to where Mr. Rich was standing when he said this; she did not stop Mr. Rich from providing the stipulation to counsel.

    - She also admitted to Dr. Aloia that she was aware of the stipulation “but it was not forever”

    There is much more damning evidence in the Statement. She just keeps lying and there are people out there who keep believing her.

    • ol cranky says:

      has Rich been disbarred and why have these people not been charged w/attempted extortion?

    • Canadian Becks says:

      To continue with the “WTF you didn’t know what Attorney Rich was doing?!?!”:

      Page 23:
      “On December 12, 2011, Mr. Rich represented in court on the record that he had had email communications with more than one member of the State Department and he had spoken with at least two members of the State Department. He stated on the record that he had spoken with the State Department on the telephone during the lunch hour that day.

      During these events, and with Kelly’s other counsel, Ms. Boultinghouse, also present in the back of the courtroom, Kelly confirmed that she was choosing to have Mr. Rich continue to represent her that day, instead of Ms. Boultinghouse (who had handled the majority of the hearings on Kelly’s behalf during the approximately 18-month period.”

      Email communications would strongly imply prior planning.
      Prior planning would strongly imply prior discussions of strategy.
      No attorney would engage in such strategic planning without prior discussions with their client.
      All this strongly implies Kelly is a lying liar who lies.

  18. Chinoiserie says:

    Does she think the custody battle is her ex’s side project because he has a career beyond talking about it in magazines?
    I wish that he would give some statement to the media about what has happened so all the papers would not belive her so easily, but since he does not live in America this will not hurt him I suppose.

    • InvaderTak says:

      And he is ya know, raising them it seems.

    • anne_000 says:

      Good point about the fact that he has other things to do than concentrate solely on Kelly’s craziness.

      I’ve noticed that some people accuse others of what they themselves think or are doing. For Kelly to label this as some “sort of side fun project” for Daniel, I think it really means that’s what it is for her.

      Doesn’t she yet appreciate that he’s focused on being a good father and works to provide very well for them?

      For her to think that it’s some kind of ‘fun’ for anybody, to me it shows that she’s the one having fun with this mess. She loves parading the kids in front of the paps. She can’t get enough media attention. She keeps calling this a ‘fight’ even though nobody wants to play this fight game with her.

      • Honeybee Blues says:

        Yes! My first thought upon reading the headline was, “sort of side fun project” for HIM? It’s been her side, front, back, top, and bottom fun project from jump street!

      • Lady D says:

        I doubt it was a lot of fun for daddy for 3 days when he had no idea where they were.

    • Crumpet says:

      He doesn’t give statements because speaking ill of the children’s mother is not in their best interest. He is living his life as their father and doesn’t give a crap what America thinks of him.

  19. morc says:

    Please remind me never to read an article written by Sheila Weller.
    Horribly, cloyingly prosaic.

  20. LisaH says:

    For how much this is supposedly about her children, she sure does use the word ‘I’ a lot.

    • Honeybee Blues says:

      Wow, you are really insensitive. Haven’t you ever heard of PTSD: Pronoun Traumatic Self-centered Disorder. It’s a rare, but VERY serious condition that affects those with an inherent lack of self-awareness and a congenital need for attention. The overriding symptom is an inability to move beyond the first person singular in pronoun usage. Thus far physicians have found but one cure: public apathy.

  21. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    Oh, the waitress story again?
    But which intelligent woman gets pregnant 2 months after meeting a guy? Doesn’t she know what birth control pills are?
    The whole interview is… I’m lost for words…

    • notasugarhere says:

      She made a habit of targeting rich foreign men. Makes me think this was her plan all along. Get married, have kids, kick out the evil foreigner and steal the ‘Murican kids.

    • jwoolman says:

      Is that story about a shady foreign waitress who pushed her to meet her now shady ex in a restaurant even true? Didn’t Daniel say they met at a sports event or something? This was back when they were together. He said he liked her naturalness, among other things (and it is really refreshing to see someone who doesn’t cake on the makeup like the Kardashians, I think she still looks very natural and attractive that way). The foreign waitress story sounds like something Kelly might have made up or exaggerated later when she was playing to the domestic fear of foreigners.

      The judge in the 2013 Decision mentioned that both parents were rich so there was never any issue about making sure the kids had similar lifestyles with both. I’m not so sure she was looking for a rich guy at the time in the gold digger sense. If she wanted money from him, she could be swimming in it by now being paid to shut up.

      • LAK says:

        Whilst both parties were rich, I think Kelly targeted, and probably still targets, rich men in the same way a supermodel targets rich men.

        On the one hand they have their own money, but on the other the rich man’s money will keep them in the lifestyle they’ve become accustomed for the rest of their lives when their supermodel contracts and modelling contracts have dried up.

  22. lunchcoma says:

    Sigh. She makes such off allegations. I’m sure Daniel did serve her custody papers while she was pregnant. The couple had an existing child whose needs had to be addressed, and court proceedings don’t stop because one party is pregnant. Moreover, it’s better for everyone if custody of an unborn child can be somewhat worked out before birth – that didn’t happen in this case, but Kelly’s not exactly the victim in that.

    I also have little pity for her living in a tiny Manhattan apartment. I lived in one of those too – and if she doesn’t care for it, she could always move to a cheaper neighborhood and have more space. That wouldn’t stop her from working – there are many, many actresses who take the train into Manhattan every day for their auditions.

  23. paranormalgirl says:

    I just cancelled my waiting room subscriptions to Vanity Fair. If they pander and enable someone like Kelly Rutherford, I do not wish to financially support them.

  24. anne_000 says:

    ” Rutherford insists she had never seen him before, nor did she know (much less approve of) what he was going to do.”

    which differs from what’s in the Statement of Decision:

    “Kelly was sitting next to where Mr. Rich was standing when he said this; she did not stop Mr. Rich from providing the Stipulation to counsel.

    Kelly acknowledged in her July 19, 2012 testimony that the stipulation “was put in front of [her]” by Mr. Rich that day. She also admitted to Dr. Aloia [...] that she was aware of the stipulation, “but it was not forever.”" [page 22]

    And then, during the time Mr. Rich was doing his best to tamper with Daniel’s visa, Kelly chose to keep him on instead of her other lawyer who handled the majority of Kelly’s hearings over an ~18-month period. [page 23]

    Did she think she found her Tom Hagen?
    Why is she still bothered about Daniel’s visa when her wish came true?
    From that quote, it looks like her family is trying to tell her to stop being crazy.
    “Everyone’s making tons of money off of stupid people who don’t settle out of court.… ”

    Is she calling herself stupid?
    It’s after Labor Day. Maybe that’s why she’s not wearing white anymore. It’s now NYC black clothes time.

  25. Robin says:

    Vanity Fair jumped the shark YEARS ago under Graydon Carter. It’s nothing more than a fancy biased celebrity gossip rag. No surprise that they would run a story like this.

  26. paleokifaru says:

    Having read the full article I was most interested by the legal viewpoints that perhaps we should be going a different way in custody battles because it’s unlikely you’ll have two “friendly” parties if it’s managing to get to court rather than being settled in mediation. I found this particularly interesting as my husband and his ex settled in mediation and she is still far from friendly. I’m not sure that anyone provided a good solution to this though. I’ve often wondered if a better solution when someone is outright hostile is to still have 50/50 physical custody (or whatever was decided) but to skew towards the more cooperative parent in terms of legal custody. Because it is true that if you have one really hostile parent they will not be cooperative about any minor or major decisions about sports, medicine, schools, etc and it’s very easy to thwart any progress by simply not replying and letting deadlines pass, etc. Thoughts on this from other posters who have been involved in divorce?

    • Scarlet Vixen says:

      My ex and I divorced when our son was 13mos old. As much as I may roll my eyes at my ex’s eternal Peter Pan syndrome, I thank the lord every time I read a KR article that I had an amicable divorce and have been able to successfully co-parent for over 6 years now. My ex and I didn’t squabble over so much as a dvd, let alone our custody arrangement. I was still BFing when we split (and my ex wanted more time to hang out with his friends…) so I had primary physical custody. That probably could have changed as my son got older, but my ex is okay with only seeing him twice a month. I have also remarried and can provide a more stable environment (my ex lived with a variety of friends before landing back in his mom’s basement–at 37yrs old). We technically have a set schedule of who gets which holidays, but we stay flexible with each other. We haven’t fought over a single thing in over 6yrs. I just don’t understand parents who remain bitter and angry and fight–it only hurts the children in the long run.

      • paleokifaru says:

        I’m guessing you also have primary legal custody as well? I think a really common problem that we have experienced, as is evident in the Rutherford custody case, is that when you have at least one “unfriendly” ex and everything is 50/50 then there’s a lot of retaliation that involves ridiculous use of the legal system. Disagree about potty training? Drag them to court. Disagree about after school activities? Drag them to court. Thankfully we haven’t had to have everything hashed out in court but it’s been as ridiculous as having to have a mediator state that SS could not miss up to 18 days of school anymore – she did this 5 years in a row – and that the guidelines from the American Pediatric Association did need to be followed. And we spent years trying to get her to agree to one sport a term but she’d refuse to give an answer so the deadlines would pass. So I do somewhat agree with the problems of a 50/50 split when you can’t get both parties to be amicable or even civil about coparenting.

  27. vauvert says:

    It’s funny, a few days ago I was wondering where Kelly has disappeared off to, since the Monaco deposition. I was thinking that finally that court has managed to make it clear that if she doesn’t stop having the kids papped and talking trash about the father, she is losing custody. I guess the circus is not over yet…

    • notasugarhere says:

      The next court date is October 26th. She’s gearing up. I wonder when she gave this interview, before or after the September decision?

  28. jwoolman says:

    This is the link to the 2013 decision in the custody case. Very readable, explains everything.

    Why didn’t the Vanity Fair writer read this Decision and ask questions when Kelly repeatedly contradicted it (as well as her own previous statements)? And what part of joint custody does the writer not understand? Kelly’s entire claim to fame nowadays seems to be getting interviews so she can repeatedly lie and shift her story with no objection at all from the interviewer. Don’t interviewers prepare by doing some reading anymore?

    The Decision was not biased. Although the judge details inconsistencies (okay, lies) Kelly told throughout the proceedings, she says both are excellent parents and both children are strongly bonded to both parents. That’s why it was so important to find a solution that allowed the kids maximum time with both parents without shuttling them around too much. Living with their dad was the only solution to allow that, thanks to Kelly and her lawyer getting him deported on totally unconfirmed accusations of everything under the sun (Homeland Security really perked up its tiny little ears when she threw gunrunning and terrorism into the mix, at that point the kids will be full grown before anybody will even look at a visa application from him, accusations don’t need to be proven today). Kelly was told by the court to write to the authorities in support of Daniel’s application for a new visa and she refused to do so. The court gave a deadline and lack of action on her part took the whole visa thing off the table. Daniel does not have to pointlessly try to apply for a visa now in order to satisfy the court.

    And the judge did indeed detail the remarkable events that occurred at the Courthouse, when her lawyer IN KELLY’S PRESENCE and with no objection from her, carried out their prior joint threats and called his contact to get Daniel bounced from the country, visa revoked, within a couple of days. The judge expressed some amazement at it all, that this was very unexpected, in other words – nobody else ever did it! The lawyer and his client Kelly were bold as brass about it all, no secrecy, plenty of witnesses to their threats and behavior.

    I do hope she is put on supervised visitation. Her actions in August were dangerous as well as illegal, and she seems more and more off the wall with every new interview. If they imposed a gag order, she just violated it. Who knows what she is telling those kids when she has them alone. It is very likely that she had plans to spirit them away somewhere but someone managed to stuff her into a car to drag her to court for the mandatory hearing (after she had hidden the kids for several days after they were scheduled to return to their dad), which is why she certainly was not dressed for court (dirty sneakers!) and had not brought the kids as ordered by the judge. They are very right to hold everybody’s passports while she is visiting the kids, and strict supervision would especially be needed if they ever come to the USA to visit her until they are old enough to hold their own passports and get themselves to the airport whenever they want. Kelly really needs a new court-ordered psych evaluation at the very least.

  29. Ennie says:

    From the pen of Carlos Tarajano, his own biography:
    “My name is Carlos Tarajano. On October 1, 2001, I suffered a cardiac arrest. Not knowing what had happened to me, I woke up in a hospital six weeks later and was told that I had been in a coma and had suffered post-traumatic amnesia. I learned that my cardiac arrest had caused a reduction in oxygen to my brain and this resulted in a significant decline in my ability to think and feel. In essence, I had lost part of me. The journey to regain myself was going to be an uphill battle.
    I was 30 years old, in perfect health, working as a successful bond trader and vice-president of one of the largest banks in the world. A few months after my attack, as I was beginning my rehabilitation, my wife left me. Shortly, thereafter I experienced a sad and disappointing divorce. Despite this setback, I persevered through my rehabilitation. But, I did not do this alone. I had the loving support of my enormously caring family and a group of friends who encouraged me because they believed in me. Their belief in me helped me to rebuild my life.

    I come from a Cuban heritage, I was born in Puerto Rico and raised in Spain, Mexico and Venezuela. I attended college in Boston and have lived in New York for the past 11 years. ”

    • Canadian Becks says:

      Thanks Ennie, for finding that Link. I’d never read much more than the usual brief blurb of how she left her first husband.

      Cold, so brutally cold, that woman.

  30. Ennie says:

    “(Rutherford says she was too stunned and that she had been asked not to interrupt any lawyer.)” they say of the call… REALLY????

    “Rutherford wonders how her early years of loving, daily, dutifully shared parenting have been reduced to these sad, tiny slices of visitation.” GO LIVE IN MONACO, you dummy!!!!! I can’t with this woman.

    • hannah says:

      Dear Kelly ,
      if strangers on the internet are able to understand why your time with your kids has been reduced to these sad tiny slices of visitation you should not pretend otherwise .

  31. Bread and Circuses says:

    I wonder if she wears black now because she’s a narcissist who can’t stand ridicule and everyone was making fun of her for wearing white all the time?

    Either that, or she’s a narcissist who can’t stand ridicule and it’s after Labor Day, so OMG NO WHITE SHOES.

  32. Krista says:

    I like the line about staying in a friend’s maid’s room. NOT A SPARE ROOM. The maid’s room. Like its so beneath her.
    GET A JOB, LADY. No judge is going to give you back your kids if you wont work to provide for them.

  33. Estelle says:

    One SERIOUS whackadoodle ..

  34. puravidacostarica says:

    This woman is psychologically unhinged. That is all.

  35. Jezza says:

    Maid’s room? Really?? I can’t even with her. Just shut your friggin’ gob and be grateful that you did not end up in jail for vilolating the custody order. Or you know what – go to jail, or go on meds. Whatever. As long as it’s publicity, right? You could spin jail as “Fearful American Mom fighting for Her American Kids Ends Up In Jail Trying to Keep Kids Away From ‘(Insert allegation here)’ Ex”

    PS – there is a whole rainbow of glorious colours, Kelly, not just black or white.

  36. Tarsha says:

    This woman has proven over and over again that she is mentally unstable. What will it take for media outlets to start telling the real facts?

  37. holly hobby says:

    Well it wouldn’t be neutral reporting because look who wrote it? Usually the better stories are written by Maureen Orth (the Michael Jackson scandal) or Meryl Gordon (Brook Astor case). Of course this deluded nut would refuse to be interviewed by more reputable journalists.

    Really does she think the public can’t connect the dots? Plus the attorney reporting Daniel to the State Department was detailed in the CA family law judge’s order. You can’t refute that.

  38. Katherine says:

    Is she still whining? lol

  39. SavageGrace says:

    Daniel should submit this and all other articles & interviews she has done to show her mental instability, disregard for the court, slander of him, etc., etc. Hopefully he can get a psychiatric evaluation done on her and tighten a gag order to boot – and, hopefully, supervised visitation (though I still don’t think she deserves any visitation). I’m so sick and tired of her and her games.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Hopefully he has. I think the October 26th court date will have some big consequences for her. She’s trying to rally celebrity support again, see the Christie Brinkley story on People.